Talmud - Temurah 33a תמורה ל״ג א׳

But if the halakha of standing and valuation is already mentioned with regard to a non-kosher animal, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And if it be any non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it.” The verse is referring to blemished animals, which are unfit for sacrifice just like non-kosher animals, and it teaches that they can be redeemed.

The baraita continues: One might have thought that any blemished animal can be redeemed, even for a temporary blemish. Therefore, the verse states: “Non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering,” which indicates that only a blemished animal that may not be sacrificed at all, i.e., one with a permanent blemish, is redeemed. This animal with a temporary blemish is thereby excluded, as it may not be sacrificed today, but it may be sacrificed tomorrow.

The Gemara concludes its reasoning: And the Merciful One states that one should perform standing and valuation for a blemished animal, in accordance with the verse “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it.” Since the verse requires that the animal have a permanent blemish to be redeemed, it must be referring to an animal consecrated for the altar, as all animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed, even unblemished ones. Furthermore, as this is an unattributed baraita that appears in the Sifra, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the disputant of Rabbi Shimon, and therefore it follows the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna. It may therefore be concluded from the baraita that the Rabbis hold that one redeems an animal consecrated for the altar with standing and valuation, as maintained by Rabbi Yoḥanan.

§ The Gemara analyzes the opinion of Reish Lakish. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reasoning of Reish Lakish, who said that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, whereas animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation? The reasoning is that the verse states: “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad” (Leviticus 27:12).

Rav explained: What is an item for which the halakha is not divided between good and bad, i.e., where there is no difference between unblemished and blemished animals? You must say that this is an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which has the same sanctity whether blemished or unblemished. And the verse states: “And the priest shall value it.” The restrictive term “it” serves to exclude animals consecrated for the altar from the halakha of standing and valuation.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar are also included in the obligation of standing and valuation, the term “it” serves to exclude what? The Gemara responds: It serves to exclude from the halakha of standing and valuation an animal that was blemished from the outset and was consecrated for the altar.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this is problematic according to the tanna of the school of Levi, who said that even an animal that was blemished from the outset is included in the halakha of standing and valuation. As Levi taught: Everything was included in the halakha of standing and valuation, even an animal blemished from the outset. And Levi taught likewise in his baraita: Even an undomesticated animal, and even birds that are not brought as offerings, e.g., geese, are included in the halakha of standing and valuation. But isn’t it written “it,” which must serve to exclude some animal from the obligation of standing and valuation? If so, how can Levi teach that everything is included? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this poses a difficulty.

The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, who said that animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and therefore if they died without redemption they are buried, but animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in this halakha? As the verse states: “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad” (Leviticus 27:11–12). What is an item for which the halakha is divided between good and bad, i.e., between an unblemished and blemished animal? You must say that this is an animal consecrated for the altar, and the verse states: “And the priest shall value it,” which serves to exclude animals consecrated for Temple maintenance from the halakha of standing and valuation.

The Gemara asks: If so, that the verse is referring to a consecration for which there is a distinction between good and bad, then it should have stated: And the priest shall value it between good and bad, to indicate that this distinction is made. The term “whether it be good or bad” indicates that the two types have the same halakha, as claimed by the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: This poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

§ The Gemara raises an objection to the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish from a baraita: With regard to consecrated animals that died, if they were unblemished they are not redeemed and shall be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to animals consecrated for the altar. But with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, both unblemished and blemished animals shall be buried. This is the statement of the Rabbis.

Rabbi Shimon says: Both in a case where the animals that died were consecrated for the altar and in a case where they were consecrated for Temple maintenance, if they were unblemished they can be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the first clause of the baraita, as Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that according to the Rabbis, both animals consecrated for the altar and those consecrated for Temple maintenance are included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are buried if they died.

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an animal that was blemished from the outset. In such a case, the Rabbis rule that the animal was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and is therefore redeemed if it dies. But a consecrated animal that subsequently developed a blemish and died must be buried.

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that the baraita is discussing animals blemished from the outset, as, if you say that it is referring to animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes, then Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the Rabbis on this point and maintain that such blemished animals consecrated for the altar should be buried, not redeemed. After all, Rabbi Shimon holds that animals consecrated for the altar are included in the halakha of standing and valuation. Rather, must one not conclude from this that the baraita is dealing with an animal that is blemished from the outset?

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if the baraita is referring to animals blemished from the outset, and for this reason the Rabbis hold that the animal is redeemed, then it may be inferred that the Rabbis maintain that if the animal developed a blemish after its consecration and died, it must be buried. If so, let us say that the baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, who maintains that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are redeemed if they died.

The Gemara responds: Reish Lakish interprets the baraita as referring to animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes. Consequently, the statement of the Rabbis is in accordance with his opinion that animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are therefore redeemed if they died. The Gemara asks: If so, then the earlier question recurs, as Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the statement of the Rabbis and say that such blemished animals consecrated for the altar are buried.

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish reverses the text of that baraita, i.e., he maintains that in that baraita, Rabbi Shimon explicitly states that animals consecrated for the altar are buried, whether they are unblemished or blemished. And he raises his objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from another baraita, like this: With regard to consecrated animals that died, whether they were unblemished or blemished, they shall be buried. With regard to what case is this ruling stated? It is stated with regard to animals consecrated for the altar, but in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, they can be redeemed. This is the statement of the Rabbis.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that died, if they were unblemished they shall be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the latter clause of the statement of the Rabbis in this baraita. According to the baraita, the Rabbis rule that animals consecrated for the altar are redeemed, whereas according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Rabbis maintain that animals consecrated for the altar are buried.

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an animal that was blemished from the outset. The Gemara notes: So, too, it is reasonable that the baraita is referring to animals blemished from the outset, as, if you say that it is dealing with animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes, and the Rabbis hold that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are buried whereas those consecrated for the altar are redeemed, then Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the statement of the Rabbis on both accounts, rather than disagreeing merely in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance.

The Gemara asks: But if so, let us say that the baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the Rabbis in the case of animals consecrated for the altar. The Gemara answers that Reish Lakish could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes. The Gemara reiterates: But in that case, Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the Rabbis. The Gemara responds: Reish Lakish could say to you: Indeed, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis even with regard to animals consecrated for the altar. The baraita mentions Rabbi Shimon’s opinion only with regard to consecrations for Temple maintenance, but he also disagrees with regard to consecrations for the altar.

§ The Gemara further discusses the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: According to Reish Lakish, who says that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and it is taught with regard to animals consecrated for the altar

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Temura 33a examines redeeming permanently blemished animals via priestly valuation, distinguishing them from temporary blemishes and debating consecration for the altar.