Temurah 62
אין נותנין מהן לאומנין בשכרן מה שאין כן בקדשי בדק הבית
AFTER THEIR REDEMPTION;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture saying 'flesh', thus excluding milk. The case of the issue is where the pregnancy took place before redemption and the birth after redemption, but where the pregnancy took place after redemption, it would be permissible. But in the case of dedications for the repairs of the Temple, even if the pregnancy took place before redemption, it would be permissible, for the consecration was for their value and therefore the holiness is not so stringent.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וכללא הוא דכל קדשי מזבח עושין תמורה
TO ARTISANS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For helping to build something in the Temple. Wages are paid, however, from dedications for the repairs of the Temple.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
המנחות והעופות אין עושין תמורה
THERE ARE [REGULATIONS] WHICH APPLY TO DEDICATIONS FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE [WHICH ARE NOT FOUND ELSEWHERE], SINCE UNSPECIFIED DEDICATIONS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it is not specified whether for repairs of the Temple or for the altar.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אין הולד עושה תמורה
APPLIES TO THEIR PRODUCTS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one dedicated an animal, the value of which goes for the repairs of the Temple, its milk must not be used or if one dedicated a hen, its eggs must not be used unlawfully, unlike the case of the milk and eggs belonging to dedications for the altar.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
הא מני ר' יהודה היא דאמר
AND THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED FROM THEM FOR THE PRIEST.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Marginal Gloss. Cur. edd.: 'to the owners'. Whereas with dedications for the altar in the majority of cases the flesh is eaten by the priests. and even in the case of a burnt-offering the skin is used by the priest.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
אין תמורה עושה תמורה כי
But is there not the case of the offspring [of a dedicated animal] which is a dedication for the altar, and we have learnt: The offspring [of a dedicated animal] does not effect exchange? - Our Mishnah represents the opinion of R'Judah who holds that the offspring can effect exchange.
קתני אעיקר זיבחא
But is not the exchange itself a dedication for the altar, and we have learnt: One exchange cannot effect another exchange? - [The Mishnah] refers to original dedications.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first dedication and not an exchange which is the second dedication arising from an exchange with the first.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
השתא דאתית להכי אפי' תימא רבנן כי קתני אעיקר זיבחא
Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, you may even say that the Mishnah above will be in accordance also with the opinion of the Rabbis [the disputants of R'Judah], since it only refers to original dedications.
ואין נותנין מהן לאומנין כו'
AND WAGES ARE NOT PAID FROM THEM TO ARTISANS etc. We infer that we do pay from the dedications for the repair of the Temple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since I might have thought that one can, only use money set aside for Temple repairs for the purchase of stone and wood, which are actually used in the building and repairing of the Temple, but that it is forbidden to pay workmen with this money and it becomes hullin if used in that manner. There would then have to be a special fund donated for this purpose wherewith to pay workmen.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
דתניא
For we learnt: If one dedicated his estate and he had among them animals fit for the altar, males and females, R'Eliezer says: The males are to be sold for the purpose of being used as burnt-offerings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since unblemished dedications can never be excluded from being offered on the altar.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
המקדיש נכסיו והיה בהן בהמה ראויה לגבי מזבח זכרים ונקבות
and the females are to be sold for the purpose of being used as peace-offerings and their monies, with the rest of the estate, are devoted to the repairs of the Temple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Eliezer holds that unspecified dedications go for the repair of the Temple even in the case of animals, except those which are fit for the altar.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
רבי אליעזר אומר
R'Joshua, however, says: The males are themselves offered as burnt-offerings and the females are sold for the purpose of peace-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We see consequently that according to R. Joshua anything fit for the altar is generally intended to be used for the altar unlike the opinion stated in the Mishnah; v. supra 20a.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
ופליגא דרב אדא בר אהבה דאמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב
For R'Adda B'Ahabah reported in the name of Rab: In the case of a herd consisting altogether of male animals even R'Eliezer agrees,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the dedications were meant for the altar.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
אין חולק את נדרו ומדנקבות לאו עולות זכרים נמי לאו עולות
R'Eliezer holds: A man does not divide his vow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Half for one kind of dedication and the other half for a different kind of dedication.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
ל"א אמרי לה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב
R'Joshua, however, says: A man does divide his vow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Males for burnt-offerings and females for the value of burnt-offerings, since he cannot offer females for peace-offerings without redemption');"><sup>28</sup></span>
בשלא הקדיש אלא בהמה אפי' ר"א מודה דלא שביק איניש קדשי מזבח ומקדיש לבדק הבית
Another version is current as follows: R'Adda B'Ahabah reported in the name of Rab: If he dedicated animals only, even R'Eliezer admits,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That unspecified dedications are for the altar. For although there are female animals, since all are fit for the altar, we may suppose that they are meant for the altar. Male animals are therefore offered as burnt-offerings and female animals are sold and with the money burnt-offerings are bought, as we can say that he dedicated them all for the altar.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
אין אדם חולק את נדרו
R'Eliezer holding that one does not divide his vow, and since therefore the rest of the estate is not for dedications for the altar, the animals [of the estate] are also not for the altar; whereas R'Joshua says: A man does not divide his vow.
ורבי יהושע סבר
It is for this reason that it say 'together with the rest of the estate, go for the repair of the Temple'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As we are dealing with the case where there is other property in addition to animals.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
אדם חולק את נדרו
But according to the first version [of R Adda's teaching],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in a herd where half were male animals and the other half were female animals, R. Eliezer holds that a man does not divide his vow, half for the altar and half for the Temple repairs, and even where there is no other estate and one can maintain that everything was meant for the altar');"><sup>31</sup></span>
ודמיהן יפלו עם שאר נכסים לבדק הבית
let R'Eliezer say: They [the monies] shall go to the repairs of the Temple?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does it then say: 'They (their monies) and the other property etc.', since often there is no other estate according to this version.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
חלב המוקדשין וביצי תורין לא נהנין ולא מועלין
the law of sacrilege applies to its eggs; [if one dedicated the value of] a she-ass [ the repairs of the Temple], the law of sacrilege applies to its milk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the animal is unclean, the holiness of the dedication for the repair of the Temple attaches to it as if it were a clean animal.');"><sup>40</sup></span>
בד"א
And even according to the authority who holds that the law of sacrilege applies to the products of dedications for the altar, this only refers to products which are fit for the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The offspring of a dedicated animal (Rashi) . Tosaf. explains that the term 'products' refers to the blood of sacrifices and the passage means this: And even according to the authority who holds that the law of sacrilege applies to 'products', i.e., the blood of a sacrifice, this only refers to blood which is fit to be sprinkled, but to 'products' like milk of dedicated animals and eggs of turtle-doves, the law of sacrilege does not apply.');"><sup>41</sup></span>