Temurah 65

Chapter 65

א הא מה אני מקיים (ויקרא כז, יא) ואם [כל] בהמה אשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן לה' בבעלי מומין שיפדו

1 How therefore do I explain the text: And if it be any unclean beast of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord?1 It refers to blemished animals [which were redeemed].

ב יכול יפדו על מום עובר ת"ל אשר לא יקריבו ממנה שאינה קריבה כל עיקר יצתה זו שאינה קריבה היום אלא למחר

2 One might think that they may be redeemed on account of a transitory blemish. The text, however, states: 'Of which they may not bring an offering', thus referring to a sacrifice which is not offered at all,2

ג ואמר רחמנא עביד לה העמדה והערכה

3 to the exclusion of this3 which is not offered to-day but to-morrow [maybe].

ד אמר רב גידל אמר רב מ"ט דריש לקיש דאמר לרבנן קדשי בדק הבית היו בכלל העמדה והערכה קדשי מזבח לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה דאמר קרא (ויקרא כז, יב) והעריך הכהן אותה בין טוב ובין רע

4 And the Divine Law says the sacrifice requires to be presented and appraised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since immediately after Scripture says: 'Then he shall present it before the priest and the priest shall value it'. And this text certainly refers to dedications for the altar, since a permanent blemish is required for redemption, for if it refers to dedications for the repairs of the Temple, what difference is there between an unblemished and a blemished animal, as even an unblemished animal is redeemed in such circumstances? Consequently we see that dedications for the altar are also included in the law of being presented and appraised according to the view of the Rabbis in the MISHNAH: For this Baraitha is the opinion of the Rabbis and an anonymous view in the Sifra is that of R. Judah, the disputant of R. Simeon. Thus the Baraitha will be according to the opinion of R. Johanan alone. Now from here we learn the law of dedications for the altar, according to the Rabbis, and from the Mishnah we learn the law of dedications for the repairs of the Temple. For since R. Simeon said in the Mishnah that dedications for repairs of the Temple are redeemed, this implies that according to the Rabbis they are buried (Rashi) .');">4 R'Giddal reported in the name of Rab: What is the reason of Resh Lakish in saying that according to the Rabbis dedications for the altar are included in the law of being presented and appraised, whereas dedications for the repairs of the Temple are not included in the law of being presented and appraised? Because Scripture says: And the priest shall value it whether it be good or bad.5 Now what is the kind of dedication where there is no difference between 'good' [an unblemished animal] and 'bad' [a blemished animal]?

ה איזהו דבר שאינו חלוק בין טוב לרע הוי אומר זה קדשי ב"ה ואמר קרא אותה למעוטי קדשי מזבח

5 You must admit that it is dedications for the repairs of the Temple and Scripture says 'it', thus excluding dedications for the altar.6 And what will the text 'it' exclude according to the opinion of R'Johanan? - It excludes an animal blemished from the beginning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prior to the dedication. R. Johanan certainly holds that the text, 'Whether it be good or bad' refers to dedications for the repairs of the Temple. Nevertheless the text, 'And the priest shall value it' refers both to the text, 'Of which they do not offer', which we explained above as dealing with dedications for the altar and to the later text, 'Whether it be good etc.', which deals with dedications for the repairs of the Temple. And the text 'it' excludes an animal blemished from the beginning from being dedicated for the altar. And, according to Resh Lakish, there is no need to exclude the case of an animal blemished from the beginning from the law of being presented and appraised, since according to his opinion, the Rabbis hold that dedications for the altar are not, included in the law of being presented and appraised, even if the dedication preceded the blemish, and how much more so is this the case with an animal blemished from the beginning.');">7 And according to the Tanna of the School of Levi who says that even an animal blemished from the beginning is included in the law of being presented and appraised - for Levi taught: All sacrifices are included in the law of being presented and appraised, even an animal blemished from the beginning.

ו ורבי יוחנן אותה למעוטי מאי למעוטי בעל מום מעיקרו

6 And Levi himself taught the same in his Baraitha:8 Even a beast and even birds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., geese and hens which are not fit for the altar (Rashi) . He causes them to be invested with the holiness of the repairs for the Temple, as they have not any bodily holiness for the altar (Tosaf.) .');">9

ז ולתנא דבי לוי דאמר דאפילו בעל מום מעיקרו בכלל העמדה והערכה דתני לוי הכל היו בכלל העמדה והערכה ואפילו בעל מום מעיקרו וכן תני (ר') לוי במתניתיה ואפי' חיה ואפילו עופות והכתיב אותה קשיא

7 - [what then does the word 'it' exclude? ]10 - It is indeed a question. Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: What is the reason of R'Simeon in saying that dedications for the altar are included in the law of being presented and appraised, whereas dedications for the repairs of the Temple are not? Because Scripture says: 'And the priest shall value it whether it be good or bad'.11 Now what is the kind of dedication in which there is a difference between 'good' [an unblemished animal] and 'bad' [a blemished one]? You must admit it is dedications for the altar, and Scripture says, 'it', thus excluding the case of dedications for the repairs of the Temple. If so,12

ח אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מ"ט דר"ש דאמר קדשי מזבח היו בכלל העמדה והערכה קדשי ב"ה לא היו דאמר קרא (ויקרא כז, יב) והעריך הכהן אותה בין טוב ובין רע איזהו דבר שחלוק בין טוב ובין רע הוי אומר זה קדשי מזבח ואמר קרא אותה למעוטי ב"ה

8 the text should read 'between good and bad'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would have implied that there is a difference between good and bad. The text, Whether it be good or bad, however, implies that whether blemished or unblemished they are both alike.');">13 - This remains a difficulty. An objection was raised: If they die unblemished they are buried,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even those which are not included in the law of being presented and appraised. Where they died unblemished, the Rabbis gave them an advantage, since they were fit for the altar.');">14 if blemished they are redeemed. This refers only to dedications for the altar.15 But dedications for repairs of the Temple,16

ט אי הכי בין טוב לרע מיבעי ליה קשיא

9 whether they are unblemished or blemished, are buried. R'Simeon, however, says: In the case of both dedication for the altar and dedication for the repairs of the Temple, if unblemished they are buried,17

י מיתיבי מתו תמימין יקברו ובעלי מומין יפדו בד"א בקדשי מזבח אבל בקדשי ב"ה בין תמימין בין בעלי מומים יקברו

10 if blemished they are redeemed. Shall we say that this refutes R'Johanan from the first clause?18 - R'Johanan can answer you: We are dealing here with an animal which became blemished from the beginning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore they are redeemed, whereas in the case of dedications for the repairs of the Temple, they are buried since there is no difference between an animal blemished before dedication or after dedication.');">19 It also stands to reason.20

יא ר"ש אומר אחד קדשי מזבח ואחד קדשי בדק הבית תמימים יקברו בעלי מומין יפדו תיובתא דרבי יוחנן מרישא

11 For if you say that the case is where their dedication preceded their blemish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Baraitha says, according to the Rabbis, that they are redeemed, the reason being as Resh Lakish explains, because dedications for the altar are not included in the law of being presented and appraised.');">21 why does not R'Simeon dispute in that connection?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And say: Dedications for the altar are buried, since according to R. Simeon it is the opinion of all that dedications for the altar are included in the law of being presented and appraised (R. Gershom) .');">22 Hence you must [must you not] say that the case here is of an animal blemished from the beginning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since therefore R. Simeon does not dispute on this point we can infer that the Baraitha is dealing with an animal blemished from the beginning, and therefore according to the Rabbis, dedications for the altar are redeemed and dedications for the repairs of the Temple are buried, and according to R. Simeon, even dedications for the repairs of the Temple are also redeemed, since these are not included in the law of being presented and appraised.');">23

יב אמר לך ר' יוחנן הכא במאי עסקינן בבעל מום מעיקרו

12 But then are we to say that this refutes Resh Lakish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We see that the Baraitha deals with the case of an animal blemished from the beginning and we can therefore say that the reason why the Rabbis hold that the animals are redeemed is because the blemish preceded the dedication, but if the dedication preceded the blemish, then even the Rabbis will hold that they are buried. This would be unlike the opinion of Resh Lakish who holds that dedications for the altar are not included in the law of being presented and appraised.');">24 Resh Lakish will explain [the Baraitha]25

יג ה"נ מסתברא דאי תימא שקדם הקדישן את מומן ליפלוג ר"ש עלה אלא לאו ש"מ בבעל מום מעיקרו

13 as dealing with a case where their dedication was prior to their blemish.26 If so, le R'Simeon dispute with reference to it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., dedications for the altar, and say that they are burnt according to the view of Resh Lakish? Why then does R. Simeon say that dedications for the altar as well as dedications for the repair of the Temple are redeemed?');">27

יד אלא לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דר"ל

14 - Resh Lakish reverses [the names of the authorities in the Baraitha] and asks a question from another Baraitha28

טו ר"ל מוקים לה בשקדם הקדישן את מומן אי הכי ניפלוג ר"ש עלה

15 [as follows]: If they die, whether unblemished or blemished, they are buried. This applies29

טז ר"ל מיפך אפיך והכי מותיב ממכילתא אחריתי מתו בין תמימין בין בעלי מומין יקברו

16 to dedications for the repairs of the Temple, but dedications for the altar are redeemed.30 R'Simeon says: If [they died] unblemished they are buried, if blemished they are redeemed.31

יז ר"ש אומר תמימים יקברו ובעלי מומין יפדו תיובתא דרבי יוחנן מסיפא

17 Shall we say that R'Johanan can be refuted from the latter clause of the teaching [of the former Tanna]?32 - R'Johanan can answer you: We are dealing here with an animal blemished from the beginning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not included in the law of being presented and appraised, and therefore is redeemed. And dedications for the repairs of the Temple are buried, since in that case there is no difference whether a blemish occurred previous to dedication or after.');">33 It stands to reason.34

יח אמר לך ר' יוחנן הכא במאי עסקינן בבעל מום מעיקרו ה"נ מסתברא דאי תימא בשקדם הקדישן את מומן ניפלוג ר"ש עלה

18 For if you say that it is a case of where their dedication preceded the blemish, why does not R'Simeon dispute with reference to it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And say two things: Dedications for the repairs of the Temple are redeemed and dedications for the altar are buried. Since therefore he only differs as regards dedications for the repairs of the Temple, holding that they are redeemed, and is silent with regard to dedications for the altar which according to the Rabbis are redeemed, this proves that we are dealing with animals blemished from the beginning, i.e., before dedication');">35 Shall we say that this refutes Resh Lakish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since if we interpret the Baraitha as dealing with animals blemished from the beginning, we can infer from the words of the Rabbis that where the blemish occurred after dedication, dedications for the altar are buried, whereas according to Resh Lakish, the Rabbis hold that the dedications for the altar are not included in the law of being presented and appraised, and therefore should be redeemed.');">36 - Resh Lakish will answer you: We are dealing here with a case where their dedication preceded their blemish.37

יט אלא לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דר"ל אמר לך ר"ל הכא במאי עסקינן בשקדם הקדישן את מומן וניפלוג ר"ש עלה אמר לך ר"ל ה"נ דפליג ר"ש

19 But why does not R'Simeon differ with reference to it?38 - Resh Lakish can answer you: R'Simeon does indeed differ.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon not only differs with the Rabbis with reference to dedications for the repairs of the Temple, maintaining that they are redeemed, but also with reference to dedications for the altar, holding that they are buried, since they require being presented and appraised in accordance with the interpretation of Resh Lakish.');">39 Said R'Jeremiah to R'Zera: According to Resh Lakish, who says that according to the Rabbis dedications for the altar are not included in the law of being presented and appraised, since [the Baraitha above] states with reference to dedications for the altar

כ א"ל ר' ירמיה לרבי זירא לר"ל דאמר לרבנן קדשי מזבח לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה וקתני קדשי מזבח

Previous Chapter Next Chapter