Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 32 for kids: Can It Be Redeemed?

תמורה ל״ב

💰 This daf asks what happens when someone dedicates the value of an animal that is already sacred. It also asks whether sacred animals that died can be redeemed or must be buried.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 32a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 32b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Temurah 32

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 32 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 32a, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. From one sanctity to another — If someone consecrates an item designated for Temple maintenance for the altar, nothing happens. An altar offering cannot be changed from a burnt offering to a peace offering, or vice versa.
  2. And one may consecrate them — This refers to animals consecrated for the altar.
  3. A consecration of their value — If someone says of a burnt offering, “This is for Temple maintenance,” its value is assessed according to the rights he still has in it, and he pays that amount to the treasurer. As taught in Arakhin, a person may dedicate his offerings: If the offering fulfills a vow, he pays its full value, because he must replace it if it dies or is stolen. If it is a voluntary offering, he pays only the value of his right to choose a priest to offer it and receive its hide. The same distinction applies whether he dedicates the value to priests or consecrates it for Temple maintenance.
  4. And one may dedicate them — If someone dedicates an altar offering to the priests, he pays them the value of his rights in it, as explained above.
  5. If they died — Altar offerings must be buried even if they developed a blemish but had not yet been redeemed. They cannot be redeemed after death and fed to dogs, because redemption requires the animal to be presented and assessed while alive. Alternatively, this refers to someone who improperly slaughtered them before redemption: They can no longer be redeemed and eaten, and must be buried.
  6. They may be redeemed — Animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are not subject to the requirement that they be presented and assessed while alive, as the Gemara explains.
  7. Dedications to priests — An unspecified dedication goes to the priests. Rashi specifies “to priests” because an item can also be dedicated for Temple maintenance if the person says so explicitly.
  8. He has done nothing — He does not even owe the priests the value of his rights in the offering.
  9. Every dedicated item that is most holy — The item was already consecrated to the Lord, so the priests acquire no right to it.
  10. He has done nothing — The items remain consecrated for Temple maintenance, and there is no right to choose a recipient priest in their case.
  11. Likewise, dedications to priests — The person retains no rights in them, not even the right to choose a recipient priest, because they must go to a priest of the watch then serving. This follows the view in Arakhin that treats movable items like dedicated land.
  12. But altar offerings — Since the owner retains the right to choose a priest, the baraita seems to imply that dedicating an altar offering to priests takes effect, and he must pay the priests the value of that right.
  13. That he omitted — He omitted altar offerings rather than listing them with these cases.
  14. He omitted it for this reason — Consecrating the value of an altar offering for Temple maintenance takes effect, and the owner pays its assessed value. Dedicating it to priests does not take effect, as the verse explicitly excludes it.
  15. And let him teach it alongside these — Let the baraita also say that dedicating an altar offering to priests has no effect.
  16. Two — The baraita lists cases in which neither of two other forms of sanctity can take effect.
  17. Does this not mean a consecration of its value — “One may consecrate them” means for Temple maintenance, while “one may dedicate them” means to the priests, paying the priests the value of one’s rights in the offering.
  18. Whether he uses the term “consecration” — Whether he describes an altar offering as consecrated for Temple maintenance or as dedicated for Temple maintenance, he pays the assessed value to the treasurers.
  19. Ulla said — The verse appears to disagree with Rav Huna. Had it said only “a dedicated item that is most holy,” it could have meant that dedication does not take effect on something already most holy. But “every dedicated item” implies that dedication takes effect even on such an item.
Tosafot on Temurah 32a, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. One may consecrate them by a consecration of value — This means assessing their value. As explained in Arakhin, if someone pledged a burnt offering and then consecrated it for Temple maintenance, he pays its full value, since he would have had to replace it if it were lost. If he had offered it voluntarily, he pays the value of the benefit he still has in it. Rashi explains that he could receive a small payment to have it offered during the priestly watch of his grandson. But that explanation of such a payment appears only in the discussion of a firstborn animal. Rather, Arakhin says explicitly that one assesses how much a person would pay to have this ox offered as a burnt offering, although he is not obligated to do so. Arakhin derives this consecration of value from the verse about devoted items, which teaches that dedication can take effect upon offerings of greater or lesser sanctity. It refers to offerings consecrated for the altar: as the Gemara says, associating an item consecrated for Temple maintenance with an altar offering or a dedication to priests accomplishes nothing. Rashi explains that one has no benefit of discretion in an item consecrated for Temple maintenance. My teacher finds this unconvincing: why could we not assess how much someone would pay toward Temple maintenance, though not obligated? Rather, owners retain a right to redeem altar offerings if they become blemished. Once owners consecrate an item for Temple maintenance, however, they have no greater claim to it than anyone else and therefore cannot associate it with another dedication.
  2. Every devoted item is most holy to the Lord — At first glance, Rav Huna follows the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in Arakhin. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that an unspecified dedication goes to Temple maintenance, citing this verse. The Sages say it goes to the priests, and read the verse as teaching that dedication takes effect upon offerings of greater or lesser sanctity. Their reading fits Rav Huna’s interpretation: that rule applies specifically to dedications ‘to the Lord.’ Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, by contrast, does not read the verse as discussing the association of an existing offering with a further consecration of value.
  3. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance that one associates with either altar offerings or dedications to priests accomplish nothing — Rashi explains that altar offerings have a benefit of discretion, as the mishna describes, but items consecrated for Temple maintenance have no such benefit.
  4. Dedications to priests that one associates with another sanctity, etc. — Rashi explains that the donor has no benefit of discretion: he must give the item to a priest of the watch serving at that time. Rashi adds a distinction involving the view that movable property is not treated like land in this matter, but Rabbi could not understand his wording. My teacher instead suggests that the case concerns a donor who is himself a priest and follows the view that movable property is not treated like land.
  5. But didn’t Ulla say that associating a burnt offering with Temple maintenance gives the treasurers only the power to delay it? — Rashi explains that the offering cannot be sacrificed until the treasurers attend, but nothing is owed to Temple maintenance. He takes the Gemara’s answer, ‘by rabbinic law,’ to mean that the further consecration takes effect only rabbinically and that the verse merely supports that rule. This is difficult: the mishna says that such offerings can be consecrated by a consecration of value, and Arakhin presents the verse as the source of that law. Rather, Ulla agrees that the donor owes the assessed value to Temple maintenance. His point is that the treasurers can delay slaughter until the assessment is made, but the further consecration does not take hold of the animal itself. The difficulty comes from the suggestion that the burnt offering can also be dedicated to priests: unlike a pledge to Temple maintenance, a mere pledge of money to priests can be withdrawn, so such a dedication must take hold of an object. Why, then, would the treasurers have only the power to delay slaughter? The answer is that the dedication to priests takes hold of the animal itself only by rabbinic law, while the verse establishes at least a debt by Torah law. Rabbi also found an explanation in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak: Ulla’s mention of Temple maintenance, but not dedications to priests, suggests that he agrees with Rav Huna that a dedication to priests accomplishes nothing. The Gemara answers that the rule allowing such a dedication is rabbinic.
Rashi on Temurah 32b, in English Tab translation (14)
  1. The treasurers — The burnt offering cannot be sacrificed until the Temple treasurers come to stand by it, since an offering must not be sacrificed without its owner present. But he pays no money toward Temple maintenance, and certainly none toward dedications to priests: even Rav Huna, who disagreed about dedications to priests, agreed about Temple maintenance.
  2. And it answers: By rabbinic law — The earlier baraita implies that a consecration of value takes effect on offerings consecrated for the altar. That is only by rabbinic law; by Torah law, the treasurers’ presence is the sole delay. Ulla’s explanation is also rabbinic, and the verse merely supports it. The verse itself teaches that misuse laws apply to dedications to priests: even slight benefit from a dedicated item is misuse.
  3. To include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the laws of misuse — The verse says “the Lord’s.” Rabbi Yannai also derives offerings of the most sacred order from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s teaching, since the verse says “all the fat.” Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mentions offerings of lesser sanctity because, in his view, sin offerings and guilt offerings are already included among “the Lord’s holy items”: their owners receive no portion. Rabbi Yannai, however, needs the verse to include them, although both are called “most holy” in the section beginning “Command Aaron.” Another reading asks: How do we know this? That is, how does “every dedicated item” imply that a dedication can take effect on an offering consecrated for the altar?
  4. Can they be sacrificed? — If someone also consecrated them for Temple maintenance, why may they be sacrificed without redemption? The statement says that only the treasurers’ presence delays them, yet the verse says “every dedicated item is holy,” implying that the dedication takes effect. It should then prohibit slaughter and sacrifice until the additional consecration is redeemed.
  5. Two counts of misuse — One for an offering consecrated for the altar and one for property consecrated for Temple maintenance. But if the latter consecration takes effect only by rabbinic law, why would there be two counts?
  6. Fit — It would be fit for two counts of misuse if the second consecration took effect by Torah law. But it takes effect only by rabbinic law.
  7. Both offerings consecrated for the altar, and so on — “If they died, they must be buried” applies to both kinds of consecration. Later, the Gemara derives the reasons of both Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis from verses, according to both Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish.
  8. Both agree — Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish agree that, according to Rabbi Shimon, offerings consecrated for Temple maintenance do not require standing and appraisal, but offerings consecrated for the altar do. The mishna specifies that those consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed, rather than saying simply that they may be redeemed.
  9. And everyone agrees — Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish also agree that, for offerings consecrated for the altar, neither Rabbi Shimon nor the Rabbis require standing and appraisal for an animal blemished from the outset, for the reason explained later. This does not apply to offerings consecrated for Temple maintenance: according to the Rabbis, they require standing and appraisal whether the blemish came before or after consecration. For Temple maintenance, even wood and stones can be consecrated.
  10. That is why Rabbi Shimon needed to specify — Had he said simply “they may be redeemed,” it would have sounded as though he disagreed about both kinds of consecration, since the first tanna discussed both. He therefore specified which kind he meant.
  11. But according to Reish Lakish — He says that the Rabbis’ ruling concerns only offerings consecrated for Temple maintenance.
  12. Why did he need to — Why did Rabbi Shimon need to specify?
  13. Let him say it without specifying — We would know that he meant only offerings consecrated for Temple maintenance, since the preceding ruling did not discuss redemption or burial for offerings consecrated for the altar at all.
  14. Rabbi Shimon — As presented in the mishna, he did not know precisely what the Rabbis meant and assumed they were speaking about both kinds of consecration.
Tosafot on Temurah 32b, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. For misuse, though “most holy” is written — If “every dedicated item” is not read as including dedications to priests, where does Scripture call those dedications “most holy”? My teacher points to another verse about dedications to priests: “When the field goes out in the Jubilee, it shall be holy to the Lord, like a dedicated field; it shall be the priest’s possession.” Here “most holy” need not be exact; the point is that it is holy to the Lord. Another explanation is that “most holy” plainly refers to dedications to priests, since the verse continues, “It shall not be sold or redeemed.” Those dedications cannot be redeemed, whereas dedications for Temple maintenance are meant to be redeemed. A separate inclusion is still needed for consecrating an offering’s added value, which “holy to the Lord” might seem to exclude. But liability for misuse follows from the plain meaning of “most holy.”
  2. The treasurers alone can delay it — That is, they may prevent the burnt offering from being slaughtered until they appraise it, but not until its value is paid. Consecrating its added value creates only a debt, by scriptural decree.
  3. It is forbidden to slaughter it until it is redeemed — This suggests that the dedication takes hold of the burnt offering itself. The Gemara answers that the ban on slaughtering it is rabbinic; Torah law does require payment of its value for Temple maintenance. Elsewhere, the Gemara says that even according to the view that a dedication for Temple maintenance does not take hold by Torah law, this applies only to the meat. How can anyone hold that such a dedication does not take hold here? Rashi explains that the view that it does take hold follows the question here, which assumes the ban on slaughter is biblical; the view that it does not follows the answer that the ban is rabbinic. Even then, that applies only to the meat: the hide becomes consecrated and requires redemption.
  4. If it is rabbinic, why are there two counts of misuse? — One might ask: Elsewhere, misuse is recognized by rabbinic law, as with blood and turtledove eggs. But those are things from which people do not already refrain. Here people already refrain from using the animal because of its original consecration.
  5. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: According to the Rabbis, both altar offerings and dedications for Temple maintenance required standing and appraisal — Thus the mishna’s rule that animals that died must be buried also applies to the most sacred offerings mentioned later. Rabbi Shimon disagrees: dedications for Temple maintenance did not require standing and appraisal.
  6. Reish Lakish said: According to the Rabbis, altar offerings did not require standing and appraisal, but dedications for Temple maintenance did — Thus the mishna’s rule that animals that died must be buried applies only to dedications for Temple maintenance. Although the opening rule about not changing them names both kinds of consecration, not every rule in the mishna applies to both: the rule about consecrating added value applies only to altar offerings. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis and takes the reverse position: dedications for Temple maintenance did not require standing and appraisal, but altar offerings did.
  7. Everyone agrees that an animal blemished from the outset did not require standing and appraisal — This applies specifically to altar offerings. For dedications for Temple maintenance, even according to the view that standing and appraisal are required, there is no distinction between an unblemished animal and one blemished from the outset, as the discussion shows.
  8. But according to Reish Lakish — He says the Rabbis’ rule here does not concern altar offerings, which did not require standing and appraisal; if they died, they should be redeemable. But why must he say this? Perhaps the rule does concern altar offerings, and they cannot be redeemed because consecrated animals may not be redeemed to feed them to dogs.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Temura 32.