Temurah

that blemished animals are redeemed and we explained this [as being a case] where dedications preceded their blemish, may we infer from here that we may redeem [disqualified] dedicated animals in order to give them for food to dogs?1 — [No,] the case here2 is where he transgressed and killed them [before redemption]3 as it has been taught: As regards animals in which a blemish occurred and which he killed, R. Meir says: They shall be buried,4 whereas the Sages say they are redeemed.5 Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera: According to R. Simeon, who says that dedications for the repairs of the Temple were not included in the law of being presented and appraised, why are unblemished dedicated animals buried?6 — It is because they are fit to be offered,7 as it has been taught: If one caused unblemished animals to be invested [with the holiness of] dedications for the repairs of the Temple, when they are redeemed [for their value] they can only be redeemed in order to be used on the altar, since everything which is fit for use on the altar is never released from the lien of the altar. Said R. Papa to Abaye [or according to another version, to Raba]: According to R. Johanan who explains [the Baraitha above] as dealing with the case of an animal blemished from the beginning,8 which would imply that all the authorities [in the Baraitha] hold that an animal blemished from the beginning is not included in the law of being presented and appraised — is it indeed not [included]? Have we not learnt: All dedicated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their dedication, if redeemed are subject to the law of the firstling and the priestly gifts;9 they become hullin to be shorn and worked after their dedication; their issue and milk are permitted after their dedication;10 if one kills them without [the Temple court] he does not incur any guilt; they do not effect exchange; and if they die, they are redeemed.11 And Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab:12 This13 is the teaching of R. Simeon who says 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,14 as we have learnt: R. Simeon says, Animals dedicated for the repairs of the Temple, if they die are redeemed; but R. Simeon admits that a dedicated animal blemished from the beginning is redeemed. What is the reason? Scripture says, ‘it’,15 the word ‘it’ excluding the case of a dedicated animal blemished from the beginning. The Sages, however, say: Even a dedicated animal blemished from the beginning is also included in the law of being presented and appraised!16 — He [Abaye]17 said to him [R, Papa]: Whose opinion do the Sages represent? That of the Tanna of the School of Levi.18 If so, why does Rab say above: ‘This is the opinion of R. Simeon’ and nothing more? Should he not have said: This is the opinion of R. Simeon and [the Rabbis] who differ from him?19 — He [Abaye] answered him: The reason why he [Rab] does not state this is because he holds the opinion of Resh Lakish who says that, according to the Rabbis, dedications for the repairs of the Temple are included in the law of being presented and appraised, whereas dedications for the altar are not,20 the first clause [of the cited Mishnah] saying: And if they die they are redeemed;21 while the latter clause [of the Mishnah says]: If they22 die they are buried.23 And if you prefer [another solution] I may say: Rab holds the opinion of R. Johanan;24 and as for your difficulty that [Rab] should have stated: ‘This is the teaching of R. Simeon and [the Rabbis] who differ from him’, read here: This is the opinion of R. Simeon and the Rabbis who differ from him.25 MISHNAH. AND THE FOLLOWING ARE THE THINGS WHICH ARE TO BE BURIED:26 IF A DEDICATED ANIMAL HAD AN UNTIMELY BIRTH IT IS TO BE BURIED;27 IF A DEDICATED ANIMAL HAD AN AFTERBIRTH IT28 IS TO BE BURIED.29 AN OX WHICH WAS CONDEMNED TO BE STONED;30 THE HEIFER WHOSE NECK WAS BROKEN; THE BIRDS [BROUGHT IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURIFICATION] OF A LEPER;31 THE HAIR OF A NAZIRITE;32 THE FIRSTBIRTH OF AN ASS;33 [A MIXTURE OF] MEAT AND MILK; AND HULLIN WHICH WERE KILLED IN THE TEMPLE COURT. R. SIMEON HOWEVER SAYS: HULLIN WHICH WERE KILLED IN THE TEMPLE COURT ARE TO BE BURNT.34 AND LIKEWISE [SAYS R. SIMEON] AN ANIMAL OF CHASE WHICH WAS KILLED IN THE TEMPLE COURT [IS ALSO BURNT].35 AND THE FOLLOWING ARE TO BE BURNT: LEAVENED BREAD ON PASSOVER IS TO BE BURNT; UNCLEAN TERUMAH; ‘ORLAH;36 MIXED SEEDS IN THE VINEYARD;37 THAT38 WHICH IT IS CUSTOMARY TO BURN39 IS TO BE BURNT AND THAT WHICH IT IS CUSTOMARY TO BURY40 IS TO BE BURIED. WE MAY BURN41 THE BREAD AND OIL OF [UNCLEAN] TERUMAH.42 ALL DEDICATED ANIMALS WHICH WERE KILLED [WITH THE INTENTION OF BEING EATEN] BEYOND THE ALLOTTED TIME OR BEYOND THE ALLOTTED PLACE43 ARE TO BE BURNT. redemption is meant for dogs. Now according to R. Johanan who explains the Baraitha as referring to a case of an animal blemished from the beginning, before dedication, it does not matter to us if the animal is redeemed for dogs to eat, as no physical holiness is possessed by an animal in such circumstances. Jewish consumption. presentation and valuation, and since this cannot be carried out now, after being killed, the animal is buried. are redeemed. law of presentation and valuation, contrary to the opinion of R. Johanan. This creates no difficulty according to Resh Lakish, since he explains the Baraitha above as dealing with a case of an unblemished animal which became blemished after dedication. We can therefore say that a dedicated animal blemished from the outset is on a par with a dedication for the repairs of the Temple, for although he dedicated it for the altar, nevertheless it is like a dedication for the repairs of the Temple, being holy only for its value and it is included in the law of presentation and valuation according to the Rabbis (Rashi). included in the law of presentation and valuation. blemished from the beginning. the opinion of the Rabbis and therefore Rab could not have taught: This is the opinion of R. Simeon and those who differ with him. appraised, except for the case of an animal blemished from the outset, and both the first and second clauses of the Mishnah in Bek. will thus represent the opinion of the Rabbis as well as of R. Simeon. clean Nazirite who completed the period of his vow is burnt under the pot where his sacrifices boiled. be said that in all cases of disqualified dedications it is permissible to bury them, whereas the law is that disqualified dedications are burnt. still burn it if it was killed in the Temple court on account of an animal of hullin which is burnt in similar circumstances. burying is inferred from kil'ayim (v. Rashi). being burnt, the Mishnah informs us here that in the case of terumah we may derive a benefit from it.