Temurah 64

גזברין בלבד

for the approach of the Temple treasurer [as representatives of the owners]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who gives the necessary permission to kill the burnt-offering without redemption, but no money is given to the Temple treasurer. Now since the holiness in respect of repairs of the Temple has no effect on dedications for the altar, how much less does herem take effect on dedications for the altar, since R. Huna above, who holds that dedications for the repairs of the Temple take effect on dedications for the altar, yet maintains that herem for priests has no effect on dedications for the altar. How much more then will 'Ulla, who holds that dedications for the repair of the Temple have no effect on dedications for the altar, maintain that herem will have no effect on dedications for the altar. This will therefore refute 'Ulla's opinion above where he interprets the text 'every devoted thing, as teaching that herem has effect even on the most holy things, i.e., dedications for the altar (R. Gershom) .');">¹</span>

(לעולם רבנן) וקרא למעילה דאתא

- [The Baraitha above]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which left over the case of dedications for the altar which were designated as herem, implying that the action is valid.');">²</span>

למעילה למה ליה קרא

means Rabbinically<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But, according to the Torah, there is only the waiting for the Temple treasurer, for 'Ulla's explanation above is only according to Rabbinical requirement, the text adduced in this connection being a mere support for the Rabbinical enactment.');">³</span>

קדשי קדשים כתיב ביה

and the Bible text refers to sacrilege.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The main purpose of the text 'every devoted thing' is, however, to include the case of herem for priests as being subject to the law of sacrilege, interpreting the text thus: 'Every devoted thing belongs to the Lord', i.e., if one used it unlawfully there is sacrilege.');">⁴</span>

וליטעמיך הא דא"ר ינאי

[You say] in respect of sacrilege?

אין מעילה מפורשת מן התורה אלא בעולה בלבד שנא' (ויקרא ה, טו) נפש כי תמעול מעל וחטאה בשגגה מקדשי ה' המיוחדין לה' אבל חטאת ואשם לא נפקא אלא מדרבי

But what need is there for a Bible text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Every devoted thing'.');">⁵</span>

דתניא רבי אומר

for this purpose?

(ויקרא ג, טז) כל חלב לה' לרבות אימורי קדשים קלים למעילה

Is it not written in this connection, 'It is most holy'? - And suppose Scripture does say so, has not R'Jannai taught: The law of sacrilege is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, except in the case of a burnt-offering, since it says: If soul commit a trespass and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 15.');">⁶</span>

למה לי קרא

which means such dedications as are exclusively to the Lord; but that the law of sacrilege applies to a sin-offering and guilt-offering is derived only from the teaching of Rabbi, as it has been taught: Rabbi says, The text: All fat the Lord's,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 16.');">⁷</span>

קדשי קדשים כתיב בהו

this includes the emurim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrificial parts burnt on the altar.');">⁸</span>

אלא אע"ג דקדשי קדשים כתיב בהו בעי קרא לרביינהו למעילה

of dedications of a minor grade as subject to the law of sacrilege.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And from Rabbi's text R. Jannai also infers the cases of the most holy dedications as liable to the law of sacrilege, since Scripture says, 'All fat' (v. Rashi) .');">⁹</span>

חרמים נמי אע"ג דקדשי קדשים כתיב בהו בעי קרא לרבויינהו למעילה

Now here too we may ask, what need is there for a Bible text, for does it not say in connection with sin-offering and guilt-offering, 'Most holy'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 18 and VII. 1, resp.');">¹⁰</span>

גופא

We see then that although Scripture says, 'Most holy' in that connection, there is need for a text to include them under the law of sacrilege; and the same applies to herem, that although the text says in that connection, 'Most holy' there is need for a special text to include them under the law of sacrilege.

המקדיש עולה לבד"ה אין בה אלא עיכוב גיזברין בלבד

The text [stated above]: 'If one dedicated a burnt-offering, there is nothing to prevent the offering of a sacrifice, except that we must wait for the approach of the Temple treasurers'.

מיתיבי

An objection was raised: If one dedicated a burnt-offering for the repairs of the Temple, one must not kill it until it is redeemed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as stated above, if it is a neder he gives their full value to the Temple treasurer, and if a nedabah he gives a consideration (R. Gershom) .');">¹¹</span>

המקדיש עולה לבד"ה אסור לשוחטה עד שתפדה

- It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha which says, 'One must not kill, etc.'.');">¹²</span>

מדרבנן

is a Rabbinical enactment.

ה"נ מסתברא מדקתני סיפא

It also stands to reason, since the latter clause [of the Baraitha] says: If he transgressed and killed it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without redemption.');">¹³</span>

אם עבר ושחטה מה שעשה עשוי

the action is valid.

אלא מאי מדרבנן אי הכי אימא סיפא

Now if it were from the Torah, why is the act valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');">¹⁴</span>

ומועלין שתי מעילות

Then what will you say?

ואי (מעילה) מדרבנן אמאי שתי מעילות

That it is a Rabbinical enactment?

הכי קאמר

If so, read the latter clause: 'And if he unlawfully used the burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either the animal itself or its wool.');">¹⁵</span>

וראויה למעול בה שתי מעילות

he has transgressed twice the law of sacrilege'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Once on account of dedications for the altar and again on account of its being an object dedicated for its value for the repairs of the Temple.');">¹⁶</span>

ואם מתו יקברו כו'

Now if it were only a Rabbinical enactment why are there two transgressions of the law of sacrilege?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the holiness for the repairs of the Temple only attaches to it according to a Rabbinical enactment.');">¹⁷</span>

א"ר יוחנן

- The Baraitha means as follows: And it is capable of involving one in two transgressions of sacrilege.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the subsequent dedication for the repairs of the Temple were by enactment of the Torah, then there would be two transgressions of the law of sacrilege.');">¹⁸</span>

לרבנן אחד קדשי מזבח ואחד קדשי ב"ה היו בכלל העמדה והערכה

AND IF THEY DIED THEY ARE BURIED etc. Said R'Johanan: According to the Rabbis [of the Mishnah] both dedications for the altar and dedications for the repairs of the Temple are included in the law requiring the sacrifice to be presented<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the priest. Lit., 'made to stand'.');">¹⁹</span>

ור"ל אמר

and appraised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the priest. And since this cannot be done after death, therefore they are not redeemed but buried, and this applies to all kinds of dedications.');">²⁰</span>

לרבנן קדשי ב"ה היו בכלל העמדה והערכה קדשי מזבח לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה

Resh Lakish, however, says: According to the Rabbis, dedications for repairs of the Temple were included in the law of being presented and appraised, whereas dedications of the altar were not included in the law of being presented and appraised.

וזה וזה מודה לר"ש דקדשי ב"ה לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה וקדשי מזבח היו בכלל העמדה והערכה

And both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.');">²¹</span>

וד"ה בעל מום מעיקרו לא היה בכלל העמדה והערכה

admit that according to R'Simeon, the dedications for the repairs of the Temple were not included in the law of being presented and appraised, whereas dedications for the Temple were included in the law of being set down and appraised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Mishnah when it says: Dedications for the repairs of the Temple are burnt, means only dedications for the repairs of the Temple but not dedications for the altar.');">²²</span>

תנן ר"ש אומר

And [both]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.');">²¹</span>

קדשי בדק הבית שמתו יפדו

admit that according to all the authorities concerned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis and R. Simeon.');">²³</span>

בשלמא לרבי יוחנן דאמר

an animal blemished from the beginning [before dedication], is not included in the law of being presented and appraised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to dedications for the altar, since as regards dedications for repairs for the Temple, it is immaterial whether the blemish occurred before the dedication or after the dedication, for this dedication has effect even on wood and stone (Rashi and Tosaf.) .');">²⁴</span>

לרבנן אחד זה ואחד זה היו בכלל העמדה והערכה היינו דאיצטריך ר"ש לפרושי

We have learnt: R'SIMEON SAYS, DEDICATIONS FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE WHICH DIED ARE REDEEMED.

קדשי בדק הבית שמתו יפדו

Now this is quite correct according to R'Johanan who says that, according to the Rabbis, both [dedications for the altar] and [dedications for the repair of the Temple] are included in the law of being presented and appraised.

אלא לר"ל למה ליה לפרושי לימא

There is need therefore for R'Simeon to explain that dedications for the repairs of the Temple which died are redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise if he had not stated, 'If they died, they are buried', I might have thought that it refers to both dedications, since the Rabbis also deal with both forms of dedication.');">²⁵</span>

אם מתו יפדו

But according to Resh Lakish, what need is there for R'Simeon to explain this?

אמר לך ריש לקיש

Let him say: If they die, they are redeemed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And I should have known that he refers only to dedications for the repairs of the Temple, since the Mishnah is not concerned with dedications for the altar, whether as regards their redemption or their burial.');">²⁶</span>

ר"ש לא הוה ידע מאי דאמר ת"ק וה"ק ליה

- Resh Lakish can answer you: R'Simeon did not know what the first Tanna [in the Mishnah] meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To what kind of dedication the Rabbis alluded.');">²⁷</span>

אי בקדשי מזבח מודינא לך בקדשי בדק הבית אם מתו יפדו

And this is what he said to him: If you refer to dedications for the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the dedication requires to be presented and appraised.');">²⁸</span>

תניא כותיה דרבי יוחנן

I agree with you;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore they are buried.');">²⁹</span>

(ויקרא כז, ט) אם בהמה אשר יקריבו ממנה בבעלי מומין שיפדו הכתוב מדבר

if you refer to dedications for the repairs of the Temple, if they die they are redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As these are not included in the law of being presented and appraised.');">³⁰</span>

אתה אומר בבעלי מומין או אינו אלא בבהמה טמאה

It has been taught according to R'Johanan: Scripture says, And if it be any unclean beast of which they may not bring an offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 11.');">³¹</span>

כשהוא אומר (ויקרא כז, כז) אם בבהמה טמאה ופדה בערכך הרי בהמה טמאה אמור

the text refers to blemished animals which were redeemed. You say that the text refers to blemished animals, perhaps it is not so and it refers to an unclean animal? When, however, it says: And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thy estimation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 27.');">³²</span> the case of an unclean animal is thus already mentioned.