Temurah — Daf 32a

מתני׳ אחד קדשי מזבח ואחד קדשי בדק הבית אין משנין אותן מקדושה לקדושה ומקדישין אותן הקדש עילוי ומחרימין אותן ואם מתו יקברו רבי שמעון אומר קדשי בדק הבית אם מתו יפדו

גמ׳ אמר רב הונא קדשי מזבח שהתפיסן לחרמי כהנים לא עשה כלום מאי טעמא אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, כח) כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה' כל חרם דקדש קדשים הוי ההוא לה' ליהוי

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

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

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

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

וליתנייה גבי הנך תנא דאית ביה תרתי קתני דלית ביה תרתי לא קתני

תנן מקדיש אותן הקדש עילוי מאי לאו הקדש עילוי לבד"ה ומחרימין לחרמי כהן

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

והא לא תני הכי דתניא בברייתא הקדש עילוי קדשי בדק הבית מחרימין אותם חרמי כהנים ועוד הא תניא קדשי מזבח שהקדישו לחרמי כהנים מה שעשה עשוי תיובתא דרב הונא תיובתא

והא רב הונא קרא קאמר אמר עולא אמר קרא חרם כל חרם

ומי אמר עולא הכי והא אמר עולא המתפיס עולה לבד"ה אין בה אלא עיכוב

MISHNAH. NEITHER DEDICATIONS FOR THE ALTAR NOR DEDICATIONS FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE MAY BE CHANGED FROM ONE HOLINESS TO ANOTHER.1 WE MAY DEDICATE THEM2 WITH A VALUE-DEDICATlon,3 AND WE MAY DECLARE THEM HEREM.4 IF THEY5 DIE,6 THEY ARE BURIED.7 R. SIMEON SAYS: DEDICATIONS FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE, IF THEY DIED, THEY ARE REDEEMED.8 GEMARA. Said R. Huna: If one designated9 dedications for the altar for dedications as priestly property,10 his action is of no consequence.11 What is the reason? Scripture says: Every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord,12 intimating that every devoted thing that comes from what is most holy13 belongs to the Lord.14 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.15 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.16 Now this implies that if one designated dedications for the altar17 by dedicating them as priestly property, his action is valid.18 Shall we say that this refutes R. Huna? — R. Huna can answer you: When [the Tanna] leaves over this case,19 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,20 but if for dedication as priestly property, his action is of no consequence.21 But why not state this case,22 together with others [in the Baraitha above]?23 — He [the Tanna in the Baraitha] mentions a case which has both aspects,24 but does not state a rule which has not both aspects.25 We have learnt: WE MAY DEDICATE THEM WITH A VALUE-DEDICATION, AND WE MAY DECLARE THEM HEREM. 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?26 — No. In both cases the reference is to dedications for the repairs of the Temple,27 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.28 But it is not so! For it has been taught: We may dedicate them29 with a value-dedication for the repairs of the Temple, and we may declare them herem as priestly property.30 And, moreover, it has been [explicitly] taught: If dedications for the altar are dedicated as priestly property, the act is valid.31 Shall we say that this refutes R. Huna? — It is a refutation. But does not R. Huna adduce a Scriptural text?32 — Said ‘Ulla:33 Scripture [could have] said: ‘A devoted thing’ and it says ‘every devoted thing’.34 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 repair of the Temple, one must not change this for a dedication for the altar or vice versa. 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). value to the priest and if nedabah he gives a small amount as consideration to the priest (R. Gershom). 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. XXVII, 12-13. 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’. Gershom). consecration (Rashi). particular division. 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. as R. Huna teaches, whereas if they were designated for repairs of the Temple, the action would be valid.