Temurah 63

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אחד קדשי מזבח ואחד קדשי בדק הבית אין משנין אותן מקדושה לקדושה

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>NEITHER DEDICATIONS FOR THE ALTAR NOR DEDICATIONS FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE MAY BE CHANGED FROM ONE HOLINESS TO ANOTHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., to offer a burnt-offering in place of a peace-offering, or vice versa. Similarly, if one dedicated something for the repair of the Temple, one must not change this for a dedication for the altar or vice versa.');">¹</span>

ומקדישין אותן הקדש עילוי ומחרימין אותן

WE MAY DEDICATE THEM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dedications for the altar.');">²</span>

ואם מתו יקברו

WITH A VALUE-DEDICATlon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If e.g., one said with reference to a burnt-offering: 'Let this animal (i.e., its value) be for the repairs of the Temple', the dedication is assessed and the money is given to the Temple treasurer. This applies to a neder, i.e., where he said: 'I vow to dedicate a burnt-offering', for since he is responsible if it became lost or died, therefore the whole animal belongs to him, and if he subsequently dedicated it for the repairs of the Temple, he must give the whole value of the dedication to the Temple treasurer. But in the case of a nedabah, i.e., where he said: 'This animal is to be a freewill-offering', since if it died or if it became lost, he is not responsible for it, if he therefore subsequently dedicated it for the repairs of the Temple, he only gives the Temple treasurer a small amount, in consideration for the right he has to receive a small sum from an Israelite friend for allowing the latter's grandson, a priest, to offer the animal and receive the skin of the burnt-offering (Rashi) .');">³</span>

רבי שמעון אומר

AND WE MAY DECLARE THEM HEREM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Devoted' (v. Lev. XXVII, 28) , consecrated for a sacred use. Here, too, if the animal is a neder, he gives the full value to the priest and if nedabah he gives a small amount as consideration to the priest (R. Gershom) .');">⁴</span>

קדשי בדק הבית אם מתו יפדו

IF THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dedications for the altar.');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב הונא

DIE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after becoming blemished but before redemption.');">⁶</span>

קדשי מזבח שהתפיסן לחרמי כהנים לא עשה כלום מאי טעמא

THEY ARE BURIED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they cannot be redeemed and given as food to the dogs. And even according to the authority who holds that we may give redeemed blemished dedications to the dogs as food, this only applies when they become trefah, since they can be set before us and appraised, but not when they are dead. Or IF THEY DIE means where he killed the animal before their redemption. There cannot therefore be any further redemption nor eating of them, since setting down and appraising are necessary (v. Gemara) . Consequently they are buried.');">⁷</span>

אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, כח) כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה' כל חרם דקדש קדשים הוי ההוא לה' ליהוי

R'SIMEON SAYS: DEDICATIONS FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE, IF THEY DIED, THEY ARE REDEEMED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As these are not included in the law of being required to be presented to the priest and appraised by him. V. Lev. XXVII, 12-13.');">⁸</span>

מיתיבי

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Said R'Huna: If one designated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he attached them'.');">⁹</span>

קדשי בדק הבית שהתפיסן בין לקדשי מזבח בין לחרמי כהנים לא עשה כלום

dedications for the altar for dedications as priestly property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Declaring them herem. Unspecified herem are meant for the priests. The reason why it mentions priestly property is because at times herem goes for the repairs of the Temple, as e.g., where he declares, 'Let this be herem for the repairs of the Temple'.');">¹⁰</span>

חרמי כהנים שהתפיסן בין לקדשי מזבח בין לקדשי בדק הבית לא עשה כלום

his action is of no consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He does not give the priest the value of the dedication nor a consideration, i.e., the smaller amount (Rashi and R. Gershom) .');">¹¹</span>

הא קדשי מזבח שהתפיס לחרמי כהנים מה שעשה עשוי תיובתא דרב הונא

What is the reason?

אמר לך רב הונא

Scripture says: Every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 28.');">¹²</span>

כי שיירה אהדא שיירה דקדשי מזבח שהתפיסן לבדק הבית מה שעשה עשוי אבל לחרמי כהנים לא עשה כלום

intimating that every devoted thing that comes from what is most holy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., dedications for the altar which were declared herem.');">¹³</span>

וליתנייה גבי הנך

belongs to the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not to the priests.');">¹⁴</span>

תנא דאית ביה תרתי קתני דלית ביה תרתי לא קתני

An objection was raised: If one designated dedications for repairs to the Temple, whether for dedication for the altar or for dedication as priestly property, his action is of no consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because an object dedicated for the repair of the Temple cannot itself be released from the purpose of its consecration (Rashi) .');">¹⁵</span>

תנן מקדיש אותן הקדש עילוי

If one designated dedications for priestly property, whether for dedication for the altar or for dedication for the repairs of the Temple, his action is of no consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he has no share in them, not even the right of disposal, since he can only give them to the priests of that particular division.');">¹⁶</span>

מאי לאו הקדש עילוי לבד"ה ומחרימין לחרמי כהן

Now this implies that if one designated dedications for the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is a right of disposal.');">¹⁷</span>

לא אידי ואידי קדשי בד"ה ולא שנא מפיק להו בלשון הקדש לבדק הבית ולא שנא מפיק להו בלשון חרמי לבדק הבית

by dedicating them as priestly property, his action is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he gives a consideration to the priests.');">¹⁸</span>

והא לא תני הכי דתניא בברייתא

Shall we say that this refutes R'Huna? - R'Huna can answer you: When [the Tanna] leaves over this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of dedications for the altar, which is not explicitly mentioned in the Baraitha.');">¹⁹</span>

הקדש עילוי קדשי בדק הבית מחרימין אותם חרמי כהנים

it is for the purpose [of teaching] that if he designated dedications for the altar for the repairs of the Temple, his action is valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he gives for the repairs of the Temple the value of a dedication.');">²⁰</span>

ועוד הא תניא

but if for dedication as priestly property, his action is of no consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is a definite Scriptural text: 'Every devoted thing, etc', excluding this case as explained above.');">²¹</span>

קדשי מזבח שהקדישו לחרמי כהנים מה שעשה עשוי

But why not state this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of dedications for the altar declared as priestly property.');">²²</span>

תיובתא דרב הונא תיובתא

together with others [in the Baraitha above]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the action is of no consequence.');">²³</span>

והא רב הונא קרא קאמר

- He [the Tanna in the Baraitha] mentions a case which has both aspects,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., dedications for the repair of the Temple, in regard to which his action is of no consequence, whether he designated them for the altar or as priestly property, dedications for the repairs of the Temple applying here in two instances as being of no avail.');">²⁴</span>

אמר עולא

but does not state a rule which has not both aspects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in regard to dedications for the altar only if they were designated as priestly property is the action of no avail, as R. Huna teaches, whereas if they were designated for repairs of the Temple, the action would be valid.');">²⁵</span>

אמר קרא חרם כל חרם

We have learnt: WE MAY DEDICATE THEM WITH A VALUE-DEDICATION, AND WE MAY DECLARE THEM HEREM.

ומי אמר עולא הכי

Now does not the expression VALUE-DEDICATION refer to the dedication for the repairs of the Temple and the expression 'WE MAY DECLARE THEM HEREM' mean as priestly property?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike the opinion of R. Huna above.');">²⁶</span>

והא אמר עולא

- No.

המתפיס עולה לבד"ה אין בה אלא עיכוב

In both cases the reference is to dedications for the repairs of the Temple,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The value of the dedications is given to the Temple treasurers.');">²⁷</span> and [the Mishnah teaches that] it is immaterial whether he expresses this in the language of 'dedication' For the repairs of the Temple or in the language of herem for the repairs of the Temple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if dedications for the altar have been declared herem for priests, the act is of no consequence.');">²⁸</span> But it is not so! For it has been taught: We may dedicate them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dedications for the altar.');">²⁹</span> with a value-dedication for the repairs of the Temple, and we may declare them herem as priestly property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the value belongs to the priests, as the property of the priests, and not to the Temple treasurer.');">³⁰</span> And, moreover, it has been [explicitly] taught: If dedications for the altar are dedicated as priestly property, the act is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what he did is done'.');">³¹</span> Shall we say that this refutes R'Huna? - It is a refutation. But does not R'Huna adduce a Scriptural text?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord'. How is then the text to be interpreted?');">³²</span> - Said 'Ulla:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This Scriptural text will not be in accordance with the opinion of R. Huna.');">³³</span> Scripture [could have] said: 'A devoted thing' and it says 'every devoted thing'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is in order to intimate that herem takes effect on all things, even upon most holy things.');">³⁴</span> But did 'Ulla say this? Did not Ulla say: If one designated a burnt-offering for the repairs of the Temple, there is nothing to prevent the offering of a sacrifice except that we must wait