Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 33 for kids: Bury or Burn?

תמורה ל״ג

🔥 This daf asks when a consecrated animal can be redeemed and when it must be buried. A new mishna lists things that are buried and things that are burned.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 33a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 33b 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 33

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 33 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 33a, in English Tab translation (25)
  1. And the Torah says to perform standing and valuation for it — The next verse says, “He shall set it before the priest, and the priest shall value it.” This must concern animals consecrated for the altar, since redemption requires a permanent blemish. Animals consecrated for Temple maintenance can be redeemed even when unblemished. Thus, according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar also require standing and valuation. This is an unattributed teaching in the Sifra, which follows Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon’s disputant, and so supports Rabbi Yoḥanan. We learn the Rabbis’ view of animals consecrated for the altar here, and their view of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance from the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says they may be redeemed, implying that he heard the Rabbis say they must be buried.
  2. Whether good or bad — This means that good and bad are treated alike: an unblemished animal and a blemished one have the same rule.
  3. “It” excludes animals consecrated for the altar — The words “he shall set it” and “he shall value it” therefore do not refer back to the beginning of the passage, which discusses animals consecrated for the altar.
  4. And Rabbi Yoḥanan — He agrees that “whether good or bad” refers to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance. But he holds that “he shall set it” and “he shall value it” refer both to those animals and to the animals consecrated for the altar mentioned earlier. For him, “it” excludes an animal that was blemished before it was consecrated for the altar. Reish Lakish needs no separate exclusion for such an animal: in his view, the Rabbis exempt all animals consecrated for the altar from standing and valuation, even if consecration preceded the blemish.
  5. Even undomesticated animals and birds — Such as geese and chickens, which are not eligible for the altar at all.
  6. “Between good and bad” should have been written — That would indicate a distinction between them. “Whether good or bad” instead indicates that both are treated alike.
  7. Unblemished animals that died must be buried — Even for animals not subject to standing and valuation, the Rabbis required burial as an added stringency if they died unblemished, since they had been fit for sacrifice.
  8. Animals consecrated for the altar — At this point, the Gemara assumes they can be redeemed because they were not subject to standing and valuation.
  9. But animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, and so on — They were subject to standing and valuation.
  10. Rabbi Shimon says, and so on: Unblemished animals must be buried — This is an added stringency.
  11. Blemished animals may be redeemed — The Gemara later asks how Rabbi Shimon can say that animals consecrated for the altar may be redeemed: both Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish say that, according to Rabbi Shimon, they require standing and valuation.
  12. The first clause challenges Rabbi Yoḥanan — It says that, according to the Rabbis, blemished animals consecrated for the altar may be redeemed.
  13. An animal blemished from the outset — That is why an animal consecrated for the altar may be redeemed. An animal consecrated for Temple maintenance must be buried, since there is no distinction there between a blemish present from the outset and one that arose after consecration.
  14. And this makes sense, for if consecration preceded the blemish — And if the Rabbis’ reasoning followed Reish Lakish, that animals consecrated for the altar do not require standing and valuation, Rabbi Shimon should have disagreed and said that they must be buried. He holds that they do require standing and valuation. Since he does not disagree, the case must be an animal blemished from the outset. That is why animals consecrated for the altar may be redeemed; according to Rabbi Shimon, those consecrated for Temple maintenance may also be redeemed, since they do not require standing and valuation.
  15. Let us say this challenges Reish Lakish — The baraita itself indicates that it concerns an animal blemished from the outset. If so, perhaps only that animal may be redeemed; according to the Rabbis, one consecrated before its blemish must be buried.
  16. When consecration preceded the blemish — The Rabbis’ reasoning is that animals consecrated for the altar were not subject to standing and valuation.
  17. Rabbi Shimon should disagree — He should say that animals consecrated for the altar must be buried. Why, then, does the baraita say that according to him both animals consecrated for the altar and those consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed?
  18. Reish Lakish answers by reversing the wording, presenting an objection from another baraita — He found another version that reverses the wording, and uses it to challenge Rabbi Yoḥanan. Reish Lakish does not use the version quoted here, which explicitly says that, according to Rabbi Shimon, animals consecrated for the altar may be redeemed.
  19. Rather, he reverses the wording and cites another version: “Whether unblemished,” and so on — On close inspection, the two versions make the same point; the version above, however, explicitly says that according to Rabbi Shimon, animals consecrated for the altar may be redeemed.
  20. In what case is this said — The first tanna says blemished animals consecrated for Temple maintenance must be buried, but those consecrated for the altar may be redeemed because they do not require standing and valuation. Rabbi Shimon disputes the ruling on animals consecrated for Temple maintenance: where the first tanna says they must be buried, he says they may be redeemed.
  21. A challenge to Rabbi Yoḥanan from this latter clause — According to the first tanna, it says that animals consecrated for the altar may be redeemed.
  22. An animal blemished from the outset — Such an animal consecrated for the altar may be redeemed. An animal consecrated for Temple maintenance must be buried, since its rule does not depend on whether it was unblemished or blemished from the outset.
  23. Rabbi Shimon should disagree — He should give both rulings: animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed, while those consecrated for the altar must be buried. But he disputes only the first tanna’s ruling that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance must be buried, and says instead that they may be redeemed. He says nothing against the ruling that animals consecrated for the altar may be redeemed. This indicates that the animal was blemished from the outset.
  24. He does disagree there too — The baraita states his disagreement about animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, and he likewise disagrees about animals consecrated for the altar, holding that they must be buried.
  25. According to Reish Lakish, who says that according to the Rabbis, and so on — He reads the baraita’s ruling that animals consecrated for the altar may be redeemed as applying even when consecration preceded the blemish. This raises the question of whether such an animal may be redeemed to feed dogs. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who limits the ruling to an animal blemished from the outset, there is no difficulty: it never acquired bodily sanctity. But according to Reish Lakish, the question remains.
Tosafot on Temurah 33a, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. How, then, do I interpret “an animal that may not be offered”? — It refers to blemished animals that may be redeemed. The verse cannot instead be read the other way around: “may not be offered” implies that the animal is disqualified only as an offering, but may be used for ordinary purposes.
  2. And the Torah requires it to be stood before the priest and valued — This requirement appears in the same passage as “an animal that may not be offered.” An unattributed teaching in the Sifra follows Rabbi Yehuda, so the Rabbis generally require standing and valuation for animals consecrated for the altar. As for animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, this can be inferred from the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says they may be redeemed, implying that the Rabbis say they may not. Alternatively, it follows from “the priest shall stand it ... whether good or bad”: what has no distinction between good and bad? Animals consecrated for Temple maintenance.
  3. Even an undomesticated animal and even a bird — For example, someone might consecrate chickens for Temple maintenance. When Menachot says that birds cannot be redeemed, it refers to birds consecrated with intrinsic sanctity for the altar.
  4. Unblemished animals are buried; blemished animals may be redeemed — At this stage, the assumption is that animals consecrated for the altar are not subject to standing and valuation. Unblemished ones are buried because they cannot be redeemed without a blemish.
  5. Rabbi Shimon says unblemished animals are buried — Even though animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are not subject to standing and valuation according to him, unblemished ones are buried because, as explained below, they are fit to be offered.
  6. What case is this? An animal blemished from the outset — Even so, if it was consecrated for Temple maintenance, it is buried: such animals are subject to standing and valuation in every case. Since they are consecrated only for their value, there is no reason to distinguish an animal unblemished from the outset from one blemished from the outset.
  7. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish presents a different version of the teaching — He holds that the version above is mistaken. In his version, both unblemished and blemished animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are buried, in accordance with the Rabbis, who hold that they are subject to standing and valuation. Rabbi Shimon says unblemished ones are buried because they are fit to be offered and are treated more stringently, like animals consecrated for the altar. The statement “When does this apply? To animals consecrated for Temple maintenance” returns to the first opinion; hence it says they are buried. But regarding animals consecrated for the altar, Rabbi Shimon says that unblemished ones are buried and blemished ones may be redeemed, since they are not subject to standing and valuation. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yoḥanan, who offers an answer, and Reish Lakish, for whom Rabbi Shimon indeed disagrees with the Rabbis. Rashi asks why we cannot read the first version the same way, and what makes this version preferable. The two differ: in the first version, if the first opinion’s blemished animals are altar offerings that became blemished after consecration, it is natural to read Rabbi Shimon’s statement that altar offerings may be redeemed as referring to those same animals. In the later version, Rabbi Shimon says nothing in his own statement about altar offerings. Thus the Rabbis’ statement that blemished altar offerings may be redeemed can refer to animals consecrated before they became blemished, with Rabbi Shimon disagreeing. The teaching repeats the point because Rabbi Shimon had said nothing about altar offerings or made his position on them clear.
Rashi on Temurah 33b, in English Tab translation (22)
  1. What is the case here? — When the baraita says the animals died, it does not mean they died naturally. Rather, someone transgressed and slaughtered them before redemption; the ruling is that they may then be redeemed and eaten.
  2. Rabbi Meir says they must be buried — He follows Rabbi Shimon, who says that animals consecrated for the altar require standing and valuation.
  3. They may be redeemed — Because they did not require standing and valuation.
  4. Because they are fit for sacrifice — The Sages imposed a stricter rule on unblemished animals fit for the altar.
  5. According to Rabbi Yohanan, who explains it as an animal blemished from the outset — He says that this is why Rabbi Shimon does not disagree. That implies everyone agrees such an animal does not require standing and valuation, yet the Mishnah suggests otherwise. This is not a difficulty for Reish Lakish: he explains the case as an animal consecrated while unblemished that later developed a blemish. He could say that an animal blemished from the outset is like one consecrated for Temple maintenance—even if designated for the altar, it is consecrated only for its monetary value—and that, according to the Rabbis, it requires standing and valuation. But it is a difficulty for Rabbi Yohanan.
  6. And the priestly gifts — The foreleg, jaw, and maw.
  7. May be shorn and worked — After redemption.
  8. Their offspring and milk are permitted — Even if the animals conceived before redemption and gave birth afterward.
  9. And Rav said — Regarding the Mishnah in the second chapter of Bekhorot, its ruling that the animals may be redeemed follows Rabbi Shimon, who says that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed if they die. He treats an animal blemished from the outset like one consecrated for Temple maintenance, but the Rabbis disagree.
  10. And those who disagree with him — Why did Rav not say that the ruling follows both Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis? Rav agrees with Reish Lakish that, according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar do not require standing and valuation. Thus the opening ruling in Bekhorot, that animals blemished from the outset may be redeemed, could follow the Rabbis. But its later ruling—that animals consecrated before developing a blemish must be buried if they die—could not. The entire Mishnah therefore cannot follow the Rabbis.
  11. Alternatively, Rav agrees with Rabbi Yohanan — Both animals consecrated for the altar and those consecrated for Temple maintenance require standing and valuation, except animals blemished from the outset. Rav could therefore apply both parts of that Mishnah to Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis alike, and say that its ruling follows Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him.
  12. Mishnah: They must be buried — The miscarried fetuses.
  13. The placenta must be buried — There is no placenta without a fetus. All these items are buried because deriving benefit from them is forbidden.
  14. Non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard must be burned — Lest they be confused with disqualified offerings. If they were buried, people might not know whether they had been non-sacred animals or offerings and might conclude that offerings disqualified by impurity or by being left over should also be buried. But Pesachim 24a teaches from the verse, “In a holy place it shall be burned with fire,” that all disqualified offerings must be burned.
  15. Likewise, a wild animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard — Even if it is non-sacred and there is no risk of confusing it with a disqualified offering—since everyone knows wild animals cannot be offerings—it must still be burned.
  16. Leaven during Passover — Pesachim 27b explains the reason: the rule is derived from leftover sacrificial meat.
  17. Impure terumah — It too must be burned. Shabbat 25a explains why one may derive benefit from it; as Pesachim 23a says, it was given to you to burn beneath your cooking pot.
  18. Vineyard mixtures — The verse says, “Lest the full yield ... become forbidden,” understood here to mean that it must be burned. The rule for orlah is derived from vineyard mixtures.
  19. Those usually disposed of in this way — This refers to orlah and vineyard mixtures: foods are burned, and liquids are buried.
  20. And one may light them — One may use terumah bread and oil as fuel and benefit from the light.
  21. Outside their time — That is, with intent to eat them outside the permitted time or outside the permitted place.
  22. They must be burned — As explained above, the verse teaches that all disqualified sacred offerings must be burned.
Tosafot on Temurah 33b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. As it is taught: All consecrated animals that developed a blemish and were slaughtered—Rabbi Meir says they must be buried — This concerns animals consecrated for the altar. Rabbi Meir holds, like Rabbi Shimon, that they require standing before a priest for valuation; according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, even the Sages of the mishna hold this. The Sages here say they may be redeemed because they hold that standing is not required. This fits Reish Lakish: they are the Sages of the mishna, who require standing for animals consecrated for Temple maintenance but not for the altar. But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, both the Sages of the mishna and Rabbi Shimon require it for altar animals. Who, then, are the Sages here? We cannot say these animals were blemished before consecration and that the dispute is the one involving the tanna of Levi’s school: the baraita in Me’ilah explicitly says they were unblemished altar animals that later developed blemishes and were slaughtered in violation of the prohibition. Some texts ask whether the Sages here refute Rabbi Yoḥanan; he can answer that they are not the Sages of the mishna. This passage alone could also be explained as referring to Temple-maintenance animals, with ‘the Sages’ expressing Rabbi Shimon’s view. But a baraita in Me’ilah explicitly disputes what happens to unblemished altar animals, and there the answer must be that its Sages differ from those of the mishna. Why does Rabbi Yoḥanan need to posit a third view, rather than identify the Sages here with those in Me’ilah? Because the mishna has Rabbi Shimon specify that dead Temple-maintenance animals may be redeemed, implying that its first tanna was speaking about those animals too, as explained throughout the discussion.
  2. Because they are fit to be offered — But Shevuot says that a slaughtered red heifer may be redeemed and attributes this to Rabbi Shimon, who does not require standing and valuation for Temple-maintenance animals. Why, then, is the heifer not buried, since it is unblemished? There is a distinction: one who consecrates an unblemished animal for Temple maintenance wrongly assigns an animal fit for the altar to another purpose. It is therefore fitting that it be buried if it dies. A red heifer, by contrast, was assigned to its proper purpose and may be redeemed. Alternatively, we are especially strict with unblemished Temple-maintenance animals destined for the altar because of the altar’s claim on them.
  3. These are burned: fruit from a tree’s first three years and mixed plantings in a vineyard — Why mixed plantings are burned is understandable: the verse says, ‘lest the crop become forbidden,’ which is read as ‘lest it be burned in fire.’ But why must the fruit from a tree’s first three years be burned? Rashi explains that it is linked by analogy to mixed plantings in a vineyard.
  4. The ashes of things that must be burned are permitted, but the ashes of things that must be buried are forbidden — Why? My teacher explains that when Scripture commands burning, completing that command is like completing the object’s prescribed use: an object whose prescribed use is complete is no longer subject to misuse of consecrated property, and its prohibition likewise ends. An asherah tree remains forbidden even though Scripture commands its burning, because the verse says, ‘Let nothing of the banned thing cling to your hand.’ For things that must be buried, Scripture commands no burning that would end their prohibition, so it remains.

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 33.