## Temurah Daf 34a

###### Temurah 34a:1
[Temurah 34a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:1)

אָשָׁם תָּלוּי — יִשָּׂרֵף, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יִקָּבֵר. חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הַבָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק — תִּשָּׂרֵף, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יְטִילֶנָּה לָאַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **a provisional guilt offering** brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that renders him liable to bring a sin offering, if he discovers that he did not sin, the offering **shall be burned,** as its legal status is like that of an unfit offering. **Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall be buried. A sin offering of the bird that comes due to an uncertainty,** e.g., in the case of a woman who miscarried and she is uncertain whether it was a fetus, **shall be burned,** as it may not be eaten due to the uncertainty and because the nape of its neck was pinched and it was not slaughtered. **Rabbi Yehuda says: One should cast it into the** Temple courtyard **drain,** as the young bird will decompose and be drawn into the stream outside the Temple.


###### Temurah 34a:2
[Temurah 34a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:2)

כָּל הַנִּקְבָּרִין — לֹא יִשָּׂרֵפוּ, וְכׇל הַנִּשְׂרָפִין — לֹא יִקָּבֵרוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם רָצָה לְהַחְמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ לִשְׂרוֹף אֶת הַנִּקְבָּרִין — רַשַּׁאי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר לְשַׁנּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The principle is: **All** items **that are buried shall not be burned, and all** items **that are burned shall not be buried. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one wished to impose a stringency upon himself** by **burning** items **that are** to be **buried,** he is **permitted** to burn them. The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yehuda: **One is not permitted to change** the method of destruction, as this could lead to a leniency, since it is permitted to derive benefit from the ashes of items that require burning, whereas it is not permitted to derive benefit from the ashes of items that require burial.


###### Temurah 34a:3
[Temurah 34a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** שְׂעַר הַנָּזִיר יִקָּבֵר. רָמֵי לֵיהּ טָבִי לְרַב נַחְמָן: תְּנַן שְׂעַר הַנָּזִיר יִקָּבֵר, וּרְמִינְהוּ: הָאוֹרֵג ״מְלֹא הַסִּיט״ מִצֶּמֶר בְּכוֹר בְּבֶגֶד — יִדָּלֵק הַבֶּגֶד, מִשְּׂעַר הַנָּזִיר וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר בְּשַׂק — יִדָּלֵק הַשַּׂק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** Among the items from which benefit is prohibited, the mishna states that **the hair of a nazirite shall be buried.** With regard to this *halakha*, **Tavi raised a contradiction before Rav Naḥman: We learned** in the mishna that **the hair of a nazirite shall be buried; but** one can **raise a contradiction** from another mishna (*Orla* 3:3): **One who weaves one *sit*,** the distance between one’s index and middle fingers, **of the wool of a firstborn** animal, from which deriving benefit is prohibited in accordance with the *halakha* of all sacrificial animals, **in a garment, the garment shall be ignited.** Similarly, if one weaves **from the hair of a nazirite, or** from the hair of **a firstborn donkey, in a sack, the sack shall be ignited.**


###### Temurah 34a:4
[Temurah 34a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כָּאן בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא, כָּאן בְּנָזִיר טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to** Tavi: There is no contradiction. **Here,** the ruling of the mishna that teaches that the hair of a nazirite is buried, is stated **with regard to a nazirite** who became **ritually impure,** and who must therefore shave his head and begin a new naziriteship. And **there,** the ruling of the mishna that states that the hair is burned, is stated **with regard to** the hair of **a ritually pure nazirite,** who shaves his head upon successful completion of his naziriteship. At this stage his hair is burned, in accordance with the verses: “And this is the law of the nazirite, when the days of his consecration are fulfilled…And the nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and shall take the hair of his consecrated head and put it on the fire that is under the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Numbers 6:13–18).


###### Temurah 34a:5
[Temurah 34a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ שַׁנֵּית נָזִיר אַנָּזִיר, פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר אַפֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר קַשְׁיָא! אִישְׁתִּיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִידֵּי שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ בְּהָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת — כָּאן בְּשַׂק, כָּאן בְּשֵׂעָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Tavi **said to** Rav Naḥman: **You have answered** the contradiction with regard to **a nazirite** and **a nazirite.** But the contradiction with regard to **a firstborn donkey** and **a firstborn donkey** still poses **a difficulty,** as the mishna here states that the animal and its hair are buried, whereas the mishna in tractate *Orla* teaches that its hair is burned. Rav Naḥman **was silent and said nothing to** Tavi about the contradiction. Instead, he **said to him:** Have **you heard anything with regard to this** from others? Tavi **said to him: This** is what **Rav Sheshet said** in response to the contradiction: **Here,** where the mishna states that the hair of a firstborn donkey is burned, it is referring to a case where the hair was weaved **in a sack,** whereas **there,** where the mishna rules that the hair is buried, it is referring **to the hair** by itself.


###### Temurah 34a:6
[Temurah 34a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:6)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כָּאן — בְּשַׂק, כָּאן — בְּשֵׂעָר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: כָּאן — בְּנָזִיר טָהוֹר, כָּאן — בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that these responses of Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet were **also stated** by other Sages. **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Here,** in tractate *Orla*, the mishna is referring to a case where the hair of the nazirite or firstborn donkey was weaved **in a sack,** whereas **there** it is referring **to the hair** of the nazirite or firstborn donkey itself. And **Rabbi Elazar says: Here,** in tractate *Orla*, the mishna is referring **to a ritually pure nazirite,** and **there** the mishna is referring **to** the hair of **a ritually impure nazirite.**


###### Temurah 34a:7
[Temurah 34a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִיבְטֵל שַׂק בְּרוּבָּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּצִיפּוּרְתָּא. צִיפּוּרְתָּא? לִישַׁלּוֹפִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to** Rav Sheshet: Even if there is a difference between the hair itself and hair weaved in a sack, **let** the hair that was weaved in **a sack be nullified by the majority,** i.e., the other materials weaved into the sack, and therefore the sack need not be burned. **Rav Pappa said:** That mishna is dealing **with** a case where one used the prohibited hair to weave an ornamental design of **a bird** into the sack. Such a design is considered significant in its own right, and consequently it is not nullified by the majority. The Gemara asks: Why should the entire sack be burned on account of the **bird** design? **Let him remove** any designs weaved into the sack with the prohibited hair, and the remaining materials should be permitted.


###### Temurah 34a:8
[Temurah 34a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אִם רָצָה לְהַחְמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ לִשְׂרוֹף אֶת הַנִּקְבָּרִים — רַשַּׁאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָא קַשְׁיָא לַן לְשַׁלּוֹפִינְהוּ, וְאַתְּ מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna in tractate *Orla*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said** that **if one wished to impose a stringency upon himself** by **burning** items **that are** to be **buried,** he is **permitted** to do so. Rav Naḥman **said to him: We** raised **a difficulty** that **one should remove** the bird designs, **and you establish** that the mishna is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda?** Even according to Rabbi Yehuda, in a case where one can remove the prohibited portion of the sack and use the rest of it, why would he burn it, even as a stringency?


###### Temurah 34a:9
[Temurah 34a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:9)

הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא: אִם אֶפְשָׁר לְשַׁלּוֹפִינְהוּ — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — אוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: אִם רָצָה לְהַחְמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ לִשְׂרוֹף אֶת הַנִּקְבָּרִין — רַשַּׁאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya responded: **This is what I** meant to **say: If** it is **possible to remove it** from the sack, **fine; and if not,** there is a third answer to the contradiction that Tavi raised before Rav Naḥman: **Interpret** the mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said** that **if one wished to impose a stringency upon himself** by **burning** items **that are** to be **buried,** he is **permitted** to do so.


###### Temurah 34a:10
[Temurah 34a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:10)

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין. אָמַר מָר: חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח — יִשָּׂרֵף. סְתַם לַן תַּנָּא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: אֵין בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ אֶלָּא שְׂרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And these are the** items **that are burned:** Leavened bread. The Gemara comments: **The Master said** in the mishna that **leavened bread on Passover shall be burned.** If so, **the *tanna* taught us an unattributed** mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said** that **the eradication of leavened bread** can be performed **only by** means of **burning.** By contrast, the Rabbis rule that leavened bread may be eradicated through any manner of destruction.


###### Temurah 34a:11
[Temurah 34a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:11)

תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה וְהָעׇרְלָה כּוּ׳. הָא כֵיצַד? אֳוכָלִין בִּשְׂרֵפָה, מַשְׁקִין בִּקְבוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches that **ritually impure *teruma*** shall be burned. **And** with regard to ***orla*** and diverse kinds of food crops sown in a vineyard, those items whose appropriate manner of destruction is to be burned shall be burned, and those items whose appropriate manner of destruction is to be buried shall be buried. The Gemara elaborates: **How so,** i.e., what is an item whose appropriate manner of destruction is to be burned? **Foods** are items whose appropriate manner of destruction is **by burning;** and **liquids** are items whose appropriate manner of destruction is **by burial.**


###### Temurah 34a:12
[Temurah 34a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:12)

חַטַּאת הָעוֹף כּוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הַבָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק — יְטִילֶנָּה לָאַמָּה, וּמְנַתְּחָה אֵבֶר אֵבֶר, וְזוֹרְקָן לָאַמָּה, וּמִתְגַּלְגֶּלֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת לְנַחַל קִדְרוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna also teaches: **A sin offering of the bird** that comes due to an uncertainty shall be burned; Rabbi Yehuda says that one should cast it into the Temple courtyard drain. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara notes that it **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** With regard to **a sin offering of the bird that comes due to an uncertainty, one should cast it into the** Temple courtyard **drain. And** how is this performed? **He severs** the animal **limb** by **limb and** then **tosses** all the limbs **into the drain, and** each limb **rolls** out **continuously** with the liquids in the drain **to the Kidron River** outside Jerusalem.


###### Temurah 34a:13
[Temurah 34a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:13)

כׇּל הַנִּקְבָּרִין לֹא יִשָּׂרֵפוּ כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּנִקְבָּרִין אֶפְרָן אָסוּר, וְנִשְׂרָפִין אֶפְרָן מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **all** items **that are buried shall not be burned,** and all items that are burned shall not be buried. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that items that are buried may not be burned? The Gemara responds: This is **because with regard to** items that are **buried, their ashes are prohibited, but** with regard to items that are **burned, their ashes are permitted.** Accordingly, due to a concern that one who burns an item that should be buried might derive benefit from the ashes, the Sages prohibited the burning of any item that is buried.


###### Temurah 34a:14
[Temurah 34a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:14)

וְנִקְבָּרִין אֶפְרָן אָסוּר? וְהָתַנְיָא: דַּם הַנִּדָּה וּבְשַׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁנִּפְרְכוּ — טְהוֹרִין, מַאי לַָאו טְהוֹרִין וּמוּתָּרִין? לָא, טְהוֹרִין וַאֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is the *halakha* with regard to items that are **buried** that **their ashes are prohibited? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **the blood of a menstruating woman and the flesh of a corpse,** which normally render one ritually impure whether they are dry or wet, in a case **where** they dried up and **crumbled,** they are **ritually pure. What, is it not** correct to infer from the *baraita* that they are **ritually pure and** one is **permitted** to derive benefit from them, despite the fact that a corpse is an item that is buried? The Gemara rejects this inference: **No,** the *baraita* means that they are **pure** only in the sense that they do not render one ritually impure, **but** it is nevertheless **prohibited** to derive benefit from them.


###### Temurah 34a:15
[Temurah 34a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:15)

מֵתִיב רַב פִּנְחָס: עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁנִּתְמַצָּה דָּמָהּ, מוּרְאָתָהּ וְנוֹצָה שֶׁלָּהּ יָצְאוּ מִידֵי מְעִילָה. מַאי לַָאו יָצְאוּ מִידֵי מְעִילָה וּמוּתָּרִין? לָא, יָצְאוּ מִידֵי מְעִילָה וַאֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pineḥas raises an objection** from another *baraita*: With regard to **a burnt offering of the bird whose blood was squeezed** onto the wall of the altar in the appropriate manner, **its crop and its feathers,** which do not ascend upon the altar, **have** been **removed from** the *halakhot* of **misuse. What, is it not** correct to infer from this that **they have** been **removed** entirely **from** the *halakhot* of **misuse** and are no longer consecrated? **And** therefore one is **permitted** to derive benefit from them, despite the fact that the crop and feathers are buried, as they are tossed to the eastern side of the altar and are swallowed in their place. Evidently, it is permitted to derive benefit from items that are buried. The Gemara rejects this claim: **No,** the *baraita* means that **they have** been **removed from** the *halakhot* of **misuse, but** one is nevertheless **prohibited** to derive benefit from them.


###### Temurah 34a:16
[Temurah 34a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:16)

וְנִשְׂרָפִין דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ אֶפְרָן מוּתָּר? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: כׇּל הַנִּשְׂרָפִין אֶפְרָם מוּתָּר, חוּץ מֵאֵפֶר אֲשֵׁירָה — וְאֵפֶר דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לְעוֹלָם אָסוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is it the *halakha* with regard to **consecrated** items that are **burned** that **their ashes are permitted? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **all** prohibited items **that must be burned, their ashes are permitted, except for wood from a tree** used as part of idolatrous rites **[*ashera*]. And ash of consecrated** property **is prohibited forever.**


###### Temurah 34a:17
[Temurah 34a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:17)

וּמִיעְרָב הוּא דְּלָא קָעָרֵיב לְהוּ וְתָנֵי לְהוּ, מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲשֵׁירָה יֵשׁ לָהּ בְּטִילָה בְּגוֹי, הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵין לוֹ בְּטִילָה עוֹלָמִית. קָתָנֵי מִיהָא: אֵפֶר הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְעוֹלָם אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Before summarizing the question, the Gemara explains why the *baraita* teaches the *halakhot* with regard to an *ashera* and consecrated property separately: **And** the *tanna* **did not combine them** into one phrase **and teach them** together, **because an *ashera*** can become permitted, as it **has** the option of **nullification by a gentile,** whereas **consecrated** property **never has** the option of **nullification.** The Gemara concludes its question: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches** that the **ash of consecrated** property **is prohibited forever.**


###### Temurah 34a:18
[Temurah 34a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:18)

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כְּגוֹן דְּנָפְלָה דְּלֵיקָה בַּעֲצֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ מֵאֵלֶיהָ, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא יְדִיעַ מַאן, דְּלָא הָוֵי אִינִישׁ דְּלִמְעוֹל, דְּלִיפּוֹק אֶפְרָן לְחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama said:** In general, it is permitted to derive benefit from the ash of burnt consecrated property. But this is the *halakha* either in a case where the consecrated property has been disqualified in some manner, as in the mishna, when its sanctity is weakened, or in a case where one would be liable for misuse of consecrated property when burning it. In such a situation, it is the misuse which causes the consecrated property to become non-sacred. By contrast, the *baraita* is dealing with a case where the ash remains prohibited, **for example, if a fire fell by itself onto consecrated wood. Since it cannot** be **known who** burned the wood, as **there is no person who misused** the wood in order **that its ash should change to non-sacred** status, the ash is therefore prohibited.


###### Temurah 34a:19
[Temurah 34a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:19)

רַב שְׁמַעְיָה אָמַר: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָא מַתְנִיתָא בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן תַּנְיָא, דִּלְעוֹלָם אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shemaya said: When this *baraita* was taught,** it was **taught with regard to the removal of the ashes** every morning, i.e., the rite in which the priest removes some of the ashes from upon the altar and places them on the ground beside the altar. **In** this instance, the *halakha* is **that** the ash **is prohibited forever.**


###### Temurah 34a:20
[Temurah 34a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:20)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְשָׂמוֹ״ בְּנַחַת, ״וְשָׂמוֹ״ כּוּלּוֹ, ״וְשָׂמוֹ״ שֶׁלֹּא יְפַזֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the removal of the ashes: The verse states: “And he shall take up the ashes to which the fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3). The term **“and he shall put them”** indicates that he shall place them down **gently,** rather than cast them down. Additionally, the emphasis on “them” in the term **“and he shall put them”** teaches that he shall put **all of them.** Finally, it is derived from the superfluous “and” in the term **“and he shall put them” that he shall not scatter** the ashes. The ruling of the *baraita* that all of the ashes must be placed in the ground indicates that even after the consecrated item is burned, the ashes remain sanctified and are prohibited.


###### Temurah 34a:21
[Temurah 34a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/34a:21)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ יֵשׁ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת תְּמוּרָה.**