Temurah

THEIR ISSUE AND MILK ARE FORBIDDEN1 AFTER THEIR REDEMPTION;2 IF ONE KILLS THEM WITHOUT [THE TEMPLE COURT] HE IS GUILTY [OF A TRANSGRESSION]3 AND WAGES ARE NOT PAID FROM THEM4 TO ARTISANS,5 WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH DEDICATIONS FOR TEMPLE REPAIRS. THERE ARE [REGULATIONS] WHICH APPLY TO DEDICATIONS FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE [WHICH ARE NOT FOUND ELSEWHERE], SINCE UNSPECIFIED DEDICATIONS6 GO TO THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE, DEDICATION FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE TAKES EFFECT ON ALL THINGS,7 THE LAW OF SACRILEGE8 APPLIES TO THEIR PRODUCTS,9 AND THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED FROM THEM FOR THE PRIEST.10 GEMARA. Now is this a general rule, that all dedications for the altar effect exchange? Is there not a case of birds which are dedicated for the altar, and we have learnt: Meal-offerings and birds do not effect exchange? — [The Mishnah] speaks only of beasts. 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. 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.11 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. 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.12 [Whence do we derive this?]13 Said R. Abbahu: Since Scripture says. And let them make Me [a sanctuary],14 [intimating] from what is Mine.15 THERE ARE [REGULATIONS] WHICH APPLY TO DEDICATIONS FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE;16 UNSPECIFIED DEDICATIONS GO FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE. Who is the Tanna who holds that unspecified dedications17 go for the repairs of the Temple?18 — R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan: It is not R. Joshua.19 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-offerings20 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.21 R. Joshua, however, says: The males are themselves offered as burnt-offerings and the females are sold for the purpose of peace-offerings.22 Burnt-offerings are purchased with their monies and the rest of the estate is devoted to the repairs of the Temple. And this23 will differ from the opinion of R. Adda b. Ahabah [reporting Rab].24 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,25 since a man will not ignore dedications for the altar and make dedications for the repair of the Temple. The point at issue, however, is with reference to a herd where half were male [animals] and the other half female [animals]. R. Eliezer holds: A man does not divide his vow,26 and since the female animals are not meant for burnt-offerings,27 therefore even the male [animals] are also not meant for burnt-offerings. R. Joshua, however, says: A man does divide his vow.28 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,29 since a man does not ignore dedications for the altar and make dedications for the repairs of the Temple. The point at issue, however, is where there is other property with them [the animals]. 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. Now according to the latter version [of R. Adda b. Ahabah's teaching], it is in order to state [above]: Their monies, together with the rest of the estate, go for the repair of the Temple. It is for this reason that it says ‘together with the rest of the estate, go for the repair of the Temple’.30 But according to the first version [of R. Adda's teaching],31 let R. Eliezer say: They [the monies] shall go to the repairs of the Temple?32 — Do in fact read so:33 And their monies go for the repair of the Temple. DEDICATIONS FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE TAKE EFFECT ON ALL THINGS. What does this include34 — Said Rabina: It includes the shavings [of a tree]35 and sproutings.36 SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THEIR PRODUCTS. What does this37 include? — Said R. Papa: It includes the milk of dedicated animals38 and the eggs of turtle-doves, as we learnt: With regard to milk of dedicated animals and eggs of turtle-doves, one may not benefit from them nor does the law of sacrilege apply to them. This only refers to dedications of the altar, but as regards dedications for repairs of the Temple. [e.g.,] if one dedicated a hen,39 the law of sacrilege applies to its eggs; [if one dedicated the value of] a she-ass [for the repairs of the Temple], the law of sacrilege applies to its milk.40 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,41 but to products which are not fit for the altar the law of Sacrilege does not apply. 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. Temple. dedicated a hen, its eggs must not be used unlawfully, unlike the case of the milk and eggs belonging to dedications for the altar. flesh is eaten by the priests. and even in the case of a burnt-offering the skin is used by the priest. 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. those which are fit for the altar. altar unlike the opinion stated in the Mishnah; v. supra 20a. Joshua. peace-offerings without redemption (Rashi). Thus we see that according to R. Adda, even R. Eliezer will maintain that unspecified dedications are for the altar, the case however being different here in the Baraitha for the reason explained. 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. 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 (Rashi). to this version. a clean animal. 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.