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