Temurah

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]. 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 to the exclusion of this3 which is not offered to-day but to-morrow [maybe]. And the Divine Law says the sacrifice requires to be presented and appraised.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]? 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.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. And Levi himself taught the same in his Baraitha:8 Even a beast and even birds9 — [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 the text should read ‘between good and bad’?13 — This remains a difficulty. An objection was raised: If they die unblemished they are buried,14 if blemished they are redeemed. This refers only to dedications for the altar.15 But dedications for repairs of the Temple,16 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 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.19 It also stands to reason.20 For if you say that the case is where their dedication preceded their blemish,21 why does not R. Simeon dispute in that connection?22 Hence you must [must you not] say that the case here is of an animal blemished from the beginning.23 But then are we to say that this refutes Resh Lakish?24 Resh Lakish will explain [the Baraitha]25 as dealing with a case where their dedication was prior to their blemish.26 If so, let R. Simeon dispute with reference to it?27 — Resh Lakish reverses [the names of the authorities in the Baraitha] and asks a question from another Baraitha28 [as follows]: If they die, whether unblemished or blemished, they are buried. This applies29 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 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.33 It stands to reason.34 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?35 Shall we say that this refutes Resh Lakish?36 — Resh Lakish will answer you: We are dealing here with a case where their dedication preceded their blemish.37 But why does not R. Simeon differ with reference to it?38 — Resh Lakish can answer you: R. Simeon does indeed differ.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 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). dedications for the altar. 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. repairs for the Temple, as they have not any bodily holiness for the altar (Tosaf.). however, implies that whether blemished or unblemished they are both alike. Rabbis gave them an advantage, since they were fit for the altar. since there is no difference between an animal blemished before dedication or after dedication. because dedications for the altar are not included in the law of being presented and appraised. for the altar are included in the law of being presented and appraised (R. Gershom). 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. 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. and appraised. Simeon say that dedications for the altar as well as dedications for the repair of the Temple are redeemed? and appraised are required, they are buried. the repairs of the Temple are buried, since in that case there is no difference whether a blemish occurred previous to dedication or after. 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 (Rashi). 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. 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.