Temurah 34 – What Is Buried, And What Is Burned

The following items are buried, because they are, for one reason or another, forbidden for benefit: the aborted fetus of a sacrifice or its afterbirth – because one cannot use them; an ox that killed a human and was executed by stoning – because its meat is prohibited for benefit; the shorn hair of a nazirite, and meat cooked with milk – because these, too, are forbidden for benefit.

And the following are burned: chametz on Passover – since Rabbi Yehudah says that it is the proper way to destroy it; Kohen's portion of grain that became ritually impure – because it would be too easy to make a mistake and use it; and fruit of a tree for the first three years (orlah), as well as grain that grew in a vineyard – for the same reason of preventing a mistake.

All things that must be buried may not be burned, and vice versa. Why is that? Because in the case of things that must be buried, their ash is also forbidden for benefit, but for things that must be burned – their ash is permitted.

End of Tractate Temurah

Art: David Fulton - A girl in an orchard with a basket of apples

Temurah 33 – For Redemption, The Sacrifice Must Be Standing

Earlier we said that a dead sacrifice cannot be redeemed, because it cannot stand up. The Torah said that, as part of the redemption process, the animal must undergo evaluation while it is standing. Since a dead animal cannot stand up, it cannot be redeemed. However, we still don't know if this refers to Altar consecrations, or to Temple consecrations. Rabbi Yochanan maintains that it refers to both; thus, a sanctified can never be redeemed, once it died by itself.

However, Resh Lakish, his student and constant companion in arguments, says that this requirement applies only to Temple consecrations, but animals that were consecrated as sacrifices on the Altar do not require standing up for evaluation, and may therefore be redeemed if they die.

Their disagreement is questioned on the basis of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that “Temple sacrifices that died may be redeemed.” According to Rabbi Yochanan, we understand why Rabbi Shimon had to clarify his disagreement. But according to Resh Lakish, why didn't Rabbi Shimon simply state, “They may be redeemed,” since we already know that we are talking about Temple sanctification? – Rabbi Shimon did not precisely know the position of the first teacher, and preferred to state his view in every detail.

Art: Philipp Peter Roos - A Goat And A Sheep In An Italianate Landscape

Temurah 32 – Altar And Temple Consecration Similarities

This is the similarity between the Altar and the Temple consecrations: both cannot be changed to another type of sanctity. If the owner of an animal that has been consecrated to the Temple for its value decided to change its sanctity and consecrated it to the Altar, he has accomplished nothing. Although Altar sanctity is higher than the Temple sanctity, it still does not take effect.

In the same vein, if an animal has already been consecrated to the Altar as one sort of offering, for example, as a peace offering, its sanctity cannot be changed to another one, such as burned offering.

If an animal consecrated for the Altar died, it must be buried. It cannot be redeemed, because, since it died of itself, even after redemption it can be only given to the dogs to eat, and it is not fitting to redeem a sacrifice if all we can do with it is feed it to the dogs. Some say that the reason here is different: even if the animal died through proper kosher slaughter, for redemption it has to stand up, as the Torah said, “and he shall stand the animal... and evaluate it,” and a dead animal cannot stand up.

Art: Laszlo Mednyanszky - Burial in the Carpathian Mountains

Temurah 31 – Altar And Temple Consecration Differences

Altar consecration is an animal that is destined to be a sacrifice. By contrast, Temple consecrations are used for all other Temple needs, such as repairs. Each category is in some ways more special than the other.

Altar consecrations can be used to make a (forbidden) sacrifice exchange; the intention to eat them beyond allotted time, actually leaving them over, or eating them while impure makes one liable to punishment; even if they are redeemed, their offspring and milk are still prohibited; one who slaughters them outside the Temple is liable; they cannot be given to craftsmen working in the Temple as their fee. All of these are not true for Temple consecration.

On the other hand, Temple consecrations are special, because if a person consecrates something without specifying if he meant for the Altar or for the Temple, it becomes consecrated for the Temple. What grows from them is prohibited for use, and one commits misappropriation if he uses it. What is it? For example, eggs of a hen, or milk of a she-donkey. Finally, the Kohanim get no benefit from Temple consecrations, but they do receive a hide or a portion of meat from Altar consecrations.

Art: Felix Edouard Vallotton - Mulet, Vegtables And Eggs

Temurah 30 – The Wage Of A Dog

We know that a sheep, if it was the wage of a harlot or served as exchange for a dog, cannot be brought as a sacrifice. However, a wage of a dog and an exchange of a harlot are permitted. But why? Why not include those categories also? – Because the Torah said, “they both are displeasing to God,” which means that only two are prohibited, not three or four. What is a wage of a dog? When one says, “Take this lamb as payment for letting me spend the night with your dog.”

If one gave a harlot coins as her wage, she can use them to buy a sacrifice – since only the actual item received as payment is prohibited as a sacrifice. However, if he gave her wine, oil, or flour, which can normally be brought in the Temple, these become prohibited.

As we learned, animals that were worshipped or sodomized are prohibited for the Altar. However, their offspring are permitted. That is true only if they were first sodomized – which made them prohibited – and then they conceived, and the offspring is a mixture of the prohibited mother and permitted animal father. If they first conceived and then were sodomized, then Rabbi Eliezer says that the offspring are also prohibited, because it is considered as part of the mother, and was as if sodomized with the mother.

Art: Pierre Auguste Renoir - Woman With A Black Dog

Temurah 29 – Harlot's Wage

If a harlot gets a sheep as a renumeration for her services, this sheep cannot be brought as a sacrifice in the Temple. What are the particulars? If one says to a harlot, “Take this lamb for your wage,” but gives her a hundred sheep, they are all forbidden for the Altar. Even though he promised only one sheep, and we could think that the other sheep are just a disinterested present, this teaches us that there is no such thing, and all sheep are her wage.

Similarly, if one says, “Take this lamb and let your slave-woman spend a night with my slave,” then Rabbi Yehudah the Prince says that this is not “harlot's wage,” but the Sages say that it is. “Similarly” refers only to the Sages. How are we to understand this disagreement? The Sages say, “The man really means himself and 'my slave' is just a refined language for his male member.” Using refined language is praiseworthy. And what is the reason of Rabbi Yehudah? He says that we are talking about a Hebrew slave, who is permitted to live with a slave-woman, and furthermore, the prohibition of harlot's wage apply only to prohibited women.

Art: Jean-Francois Millet - Seated Shepherdess

Temurah 28 – Forbidden Animal Mix-Up

Some animals are forbidden to be offered on the Altar, and if they are mixed up with permitted animals, they forbid the whole herd, even hundreds and thousands, for the Altar. These include one that sodomized a person or one that was sodomized, one that was designated for idolatrous purposes or actually worshipped, one given to a prostitute as a payment, one exchanged for a dog, a hybrid, a sick animal (terefah), and one born of Caesarean section.

An animal designated for idolatry is prohibited, but what's on it may be used, however, an animal that was actually worshipped makes all of its garments and ornaments prohibited as well. Both are permitted to be eaten.

That is the rule, but we already learned a very similar rule a while back, in Zevachim! There, if any of the five types of sin offerings that are not needed mixed with other animals, this makes the whole herd prohibited. Why is it repeated? Because in Zevachim all the mixed-in sacrifices were forbidden for benefit, so you might have thought that the ones above, who are permitted to regular use, don't prohibit the herd – the teacher had to tell us that they do.

Art: Cornelis van Leemputten - Shepherd Boys With Their Flock

Temurah 27 – The Meaning Of “In Place”

If one said, “This animal is in place of that sacrifice”, he has accomplished the (prohibited) exchange.

However the words “in place” may mean different things, depending upon context. For example, in the phrase “and if the white leprosy discoloration remains in its place,” it means “occupies the place,” similar to the sacrifice exchange, where one animal becomes a sacrifice instead of another one. On the other hand, when Isaiah says that “God promises to bring gold to replace copper stolen from His people,” this implies redemption, where the value of one object is replaced with the value of the other. In the world of sacrifices, this would be permitted redemption.

Abaye asked, “What if one said, 'These two animals are in place of those two blemished sacrifices,' did he mean prohibited exchange or permitted redemption?” When a person can do something in a permitted way, can we assume that he uses the chance, or does he want to do the wrong thing? He continued with the case of two animals, where one was unblemished, so that there he surely transgressed, but what about the other animal, where he could have done it in a permitted way? Then three animals, then four, where he already established a presumption of wrong-doing – does the person still have a chance? This remained unresolved.

Art: David The Younger Teniers - A Shepherd Boy talking to a milkmaid in a cowshed

Temurah 26 – Double Exchange And No Exchange

If one had three animals in front of him: a burned offering, a peace offering, and a regular animal, and he declared, “Let this (regular) animal be an exchange for the burned offering, exchange for the peace offering,” then it became an exchange for the burned offering only – this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir follows his view, which we saw before, that the first part of his statement is decisive.

Rabbi Yose says, “If that is what he intended from the outset, then, since it is impossible to utter two designations simultaneously, his declaration stands, but if he changed his mind in the process, it does not take effect.” Rabbi Yose is also consistent with his view, except that here he explicitly states his reason.

If one tried to make a sacrifice exchange but did not use the right term, for example, if he said, “Let this be deconsecrated onto that,” the exchange does not take place. However, if deconsecration was possible, such as when it was a sacrifice with a blemish, he effected the redemption. The new animal is consecrated, and if it is less expensive than the original one, he must add his money.

Art: Richard Ansdell - Feeding Goats in the Alhambra

Temurah 25 – Consecrating A Pregnant Animal

If one consecrates a pregnant animal as a sacrifice and says, “The fetus of this animal is designated as a burned offering, and she herself a peace offering,” then his declaration takes effect. Since he consecrated the fetus first, his subsequent declaration applies to mother only.

However, if he said, "I designate this animal as a peace offering and its fetus as a burned offering," then both the animal and the fetus are peace offerings. His first words take effect immediately, and the mother becomes a peace offering, with everything inside her – that is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. His ruling principle as that we always “seize upon the first expression,” that is, we view the first part of his statement as decisive, and ignore any contradicting subsequent declarations.

Rabbi Yose says that we ask him about his intent. If, from the outset, he wanted the mother to become a peace offering, and the fetus – a burned offering, then we view these desires as part of the same statement. It is impossible for a human to express both desires simultaneously, but only this prevented him from doing so, thus both his intentions takes effect. Rabbi Yose's principle is that both parts of one's statement are important. Only if he changed his mind in the middle, then his subsequent changes are ineffectual.

Art: Richard Ansdell - Highland Folk - Two Lambs, a Ewe and a Fox

Temurah 24 – The Conundrum of Surplus Funds From Sin Offering

If one had money designated to buy a sin offering, the sin offering was brought, but some funds still remained, what are we to do with it? On the one hand, we saw multiple cases where a left over sin offering is allowed to die, and the leftover money is thrown into the Dead Sea. On the other hand, that was true for complete offerings and bundles of money, but here we have leftovers. Yehoyada the Kohen proved that the leftover money can be used to bring burned offerings of the congregation. His proof was based on the double language of “guilt, guilt.” Since the second “guilt” was not needed, he applied it to sin offerings.

Since Yehoyada's proof was generally accepted and admired, why was there a need to formulate a similar ruling we just learned? – One might have thought that it applied only to leftovers of one sacrifice, and here we see that you can even mix the money of two.

A loophole to circumvent Kohen's rights in a firstborn animal: if one has in his flock an animal that is pregnant with her first offspring, he can says, “If it is pregnant with a male, let this male be consecrated as a burned offering.” There are also further combinations of his statements and possible multiple births of offspring of different genders.

Art: Richard Ansdell - A Ewe with Lambs and a Heron Beside a Loch

Temurah 23 – Lost Sin Offering

There are seven cases dealing with lost sin offerings. The first and the classic one was mentioned before: one designated an animal as a sin offering and it was lost, he offered another one in its stead, and then the first one was found – the first one is now left to die. A case parallel to this one: one designated coins for his sin offering, the coins were lost, he achieved atonement with another offering, and then the coins were found – he should take the coins to the Dead Sea and cast them into its waters.

Another case is when he found the money earlier: he designated money for his sin offering, then lost it, designated another set of coins, but before he could buy a new animal, the first money was found. If he now uses one of the piles of coins, he would have to throw the other one into the Dead Sea, as we just learned. Rather, he mixes the two piles, and uses some of that money for his sin offering. The remainder is now classified as a surplus remaining from a sin offering and, for reasons we will learn later, can be put into the Temple chest for voluntary communal offerings. Other cases are just as interesting, but there is no room for them in our short summary.

Art: John Singer Sargent - The Dead Sea

Temurah 22 – Child Of A Sin Offering

Earlier we mentioned that there are unfortunate cases when a sin offering cannot be used, but is instead locked in a room and left to die. Now we can explain those cases.

A child of a sin offering cannot atone for any sin, since it was not consecrated for that purpose. It is nevertheless consecrated as a sacrifice, and, lacking a purpose, represents one of these cases. Was the animal already pregnant when consecrated, or did it conceive after being consecrated – that is a subject of an earlier disagreement between Rabbi Yochanan and Bar Padda.

An exchange of a sin offering becomes consecrated. However, it cannot be offered as a sin offering, since consecrating the exchange it itself a sin.

A sin offering whose owner died is also left to die. Normally, a sacrifice is brought by the heirs of the deceased. However, a sin offering is no longer needed, since death itself serves as an atonement for one's sins.

A sin offering that has grown older than a year, or one that was lost and later found blemished, has a hope: if the owner already atoned for their sins with a different offering, it is left to die, but if he rather wanted to replace his defective sin offering with a valid one, then it is left to graze and sold when it gets a blemish, and the money is used for another sacrifice.

Art: George Shalders- Sheep Grazing

Temurah 21 – Firstborn And Tithe Animals, Redux

An animal cannot be designated as a firstborn, rather, it has to be born that way. Similarly, it becomes a tithe by happening to come out as the tenth, when the owner counts them coming out of a coral. Therefore, when one designates exchanges for them, these exchanges cannot be brought on the Altar. However, they do acquire other qualities of the firstborn and the tithe: they are let to graze, and when they get a blemish, they can be eaten by their owner. In this they are different from regular sacrifices: upon getting a blemish, they need no redemption and can be eaten by the owner, but regular sacrifices remain sanctified and require redemption.

Another difference: the meat of the firstborn and tithe animals cannot be sold in a market, nor weighed out with weights, since this is degrading, and the owner has to take a loss on that. On the other hand, the meat of regular sacrifices that became blemished and were redeemed, can be sold in the market and weighed out in the regular way. This will fetch them a higher price, which is desired, because that money will be used to buy the next sacrifice.

Art: Pieter Aertsen - Market scene (detail)

Temurah 20 – Guilt Offering Can Be Only A Male Animal

Since guilt offering can only be a male, if one consecrates a female animal for this purpose, his consecration is invalid. Nevertheless, the animal's value does become consecrated, and this consecration spreads throughout the body of the animal. It cannot be brought on the Altar, but one has to let it graze until it gets a blemish, then sell it, and bring another, male animal for one's guilt offering. If meanwhile he already brought his guilt offering, this money is put into a collection box in the Temple, to buy sacrifices for the time when the Altar is idle.

Incidentally, we see a principle that monetary sanctification leads to the full sanctification of the body. For example, if one designated a ram for its value, planning to sell it and buy another sacrifice, the ram itself becomes a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with this principle. Therefore, he says that the original guilt offering never became sanctified, and may be sold even without a blemish.

Other cases where an animal is sent to graze nclude the exchange of a guilt-offering – for nothing else can be done with it - and offspring, and the offspring of its offspring, ad infinitum.

Art: Rosa Bonheur - Heads Of Sheep And Rams

Temurah 19 – Descendants Of A Male Burned Offering

A burned offering can be only a male, and therefore there is no question of the law for its descendants. However, its exchange can be considered its descendant, in some sense. Additionally, if one exchanges it for a female animal, that female can in turn have descendants. All of these “descendants,” and their descendants, ad infinitum, are brought as burned offerings, with all their laws.

If one designates a female as a burned offering – which is invalid, as we have just said – it is left to graze until it develops a blemish. It is then redeemed, and the money is used for a valid male burned offering. If it gets a male offspring, it, too, is left to graze until it can be redeemed. Rabbi Eliezer says that the offspring itself can be offered. What is the basis for their disagreement? Some say that by the Torah law Rabbi Eliezer is correct, but according to the Sages, there is an additional enactment and a burden on him, since one should not sanctify a female animal as a burned offering. Others say, that since the original offering was “pushed off” from the Altar, its direct descendants cannot be brought either, and the argument is about the effect of “pushing off.”

Art: James Ward - A Dartmoor Ram, Ewe And Wether

Temurah 18 – Dissenting Opinions On Offspring Of Peace Offerings

Previously our teacher emphatically disagreed with someone, by stating that the offspring of a peace offering is itself a peace offering, until “the end of time.” That someone was Rabbi Eliezer, and here is his dissenting opinion: Rabbi Eliezer says that the offspring of a peaces offering may not be offered. Why not? Really by the Torah law it can, but the Sages enacted a decree against it, to prevent him growing whole flocks of peace offerings.

Rabbi Shimon says that they disagreed only about one generation. Does Rabbi Shimon mean to say that a child is an offering but a grandchild is not? Indeed, Rabbah says that it would be a logical understanding. However, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that the opposite is true, a child is not brought, but a grandchild is. Why? Because a grandchild of an offering would be a rare situation, and the Sages do not establish decrees for rare situations.

The law of thanksgiving offering is unanimous: its offspring and its exchange are both brought as thanksgiving offerings, except that they do not require the usual forty loaves of bread.

Art: Petrus Paulus Schiedges - A Shepherd With His Flock

Temurah 17 – Sometimes Exchanges Are More Stringent Than Sacrifices, And Sometimes Less

Sacrifices are more stringent than their exchanges: a sacrifice can be used to create an exchange, but an exchange cannot be used to create another exchange; partners can consecrate an animal to be a sacrifice, but not to make an exchange; fetuses and limbs can be consecrated, as part of a live animal, but one cannot make an exchange of them.

On the other hand, although it is completely impossible to consecrate a blemished animal, one can exchange a blemished animal for a sacrifice, and this exchange will work. In that way, one can create a blemished sacrifice, and in this exchanges are more stringent than regular sacrifices.

And in this sacrifices and exchanges are the same: the offspring of a peace offering and its exchange are peace offerings; so are their offspring, and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of time, with all the accompanying details. That is because peace offerings can be females, unlike, for example, burned offerings. Why did “end of time” have to be mentioned? – To disprove Rabbi Eliezer, who says on the next page that an offspring of a peace offering cannot be brought on the Altar.

Art: Bela Pallik - Ewes grazing

Temurah 16 – Generation Descent

When Moses was departing from this world to enter the Garden of Eden, he said to Joshua, “Ask me about any uncertainties in the Law that you have.” However, Joshua replied, “Master! Did I ever leave you for a moment? Have you not written about me in the Torah, 'And Joshua his servant would never left his tent'!” Moses was pained by this answer, and as a result, three hundred law were forgotten by Joshua and seven hundred uncertainties arose in his mind. All of Israel wanted to kill Joshua, but God said to him, “I cannot tell you these laws anymore after the passing of Moses, following the principle that the Torah is not in Heaven, however, go and occupy Israel with war,” and that is the meaning of the verse “And it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of God, that God said to Joshua... cross over Jordan.”

Nevertheless, this time Otniel ben Kenaz restored them through logic. That is the meaning of the phrase, “Otniel ben Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, conquered Kiryat Sefer (City of the Book), so Caleb gave him Achsah, Caleb's daughter, as a wife.” Why was she called Achsah (anger)? – Because she was so beautiful (and some say, so modest) that everyone who looked at her immediately became angered at his wife who lacked in comparison. Being married to a Torah scholar who spent all his time in studies, Achsah had nothing in her house. She went to her father, saying, “You have given me an arid land,” that is, devoid of all worldly goods. He gave her upper and lower springs. That means that he said, “One to whom belong all the mysteries of the world, the upper and lower, need not ask me for sustenance.” Rather, to him applies the verse from the Proverbs, “She (the Torah) is like a merchant's ships, from afar she brings her sustenance.”

Art: Claude Oscar Monet - Ships In Harbor

Temurah 15 – Sin Offerings That Are Not Needed

Continuing with differences between personal and communal offerings, there are personal sin offerings that, unfortunately, are left to die. However, this never happens with communal offerings.

What are these personal sin-offerings? There are five types: offspring of a sin-offering, exchange of another sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owners died and are thus no longer in need of atonement, one whose owners used another sin-offering for their atonement (which can happen when the first offering is temporarily lost), and one that became older than a year. This law is known as one that, instead of logic, is based on a teaching passed from Moses through successive generations. However, Rabbi Yehudah argues and says that he possesses a more authentic version of the rule, according to which even communal offering in the same situation also has to die.

Rabbi Shimon is known to give reasons for the rules of the Torah. He says that communal offerings need not die, and it can be proven by logic: for example, the sin-offering whose owners died, is not needed and therefore cannot be used. However, this is not applicable to the Community of Israel, which does not die.

Art: Aleksander Kotsis - Mother Died