MISHNAH: If somebody gives his property to the Temple¹⁰⁴The Temple is supposed to sell the property and to use the proceeds for its needs. As Temple property, the proceeds are under the laws of me`ilah. and in it there were items usable for public sacrifices<sup>105</sup>Which cannot be redeemed, cf. Note 100., they shall be given to the artisans as their wages, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not they way<sup>106</sup>Since Temple property cannot be given for wages, Tosephta Me`ilah1:23, Note 95. One has to apply the rules of Mishnah 5 in their entirety., but from it one sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems it on the artisan’s money; one gives it to the artisans as their wages and then buys it back from them from the new disbursement⁸³Since the expenses of the Temple service each year have to be paid by the sheqalim of that year, one cannot simply take the leftover as incense for the next year. On the other hand, since profane use of incense prepared in the proportions prescribed for Temple service is a deadly sin (Ex. 30:38), the incense cannot be used outside of the Temple. One takes money from the sheqalim to pay the artisans who prepare the next year’s batch of incense, then uses this money in order to redeem the incense and make it profane, a possible object of trade. Then one pays the artisans in kind with the incense, and since they could do nothing with it one buys the incense back from them with the money earmarked to this effect. Then the artisans are paid at the same time the incense for the new year is paid with money from the new Temple year starting at Nisan 1..
If somebody gives his property to the Temple¹⁰⁴The Temple is supposed to sell the property and to use the proceeds for its needs. As Temple property, the proceeds are under the laws of me`ilah. and in it there was an animal fit for the altar<sup>107</sup>An unblemished bovine, sheep, or goat, which may not be redeemed, Lev. 27:10. Since they were given to the Temple to be sold, the easiest way to satisfy the will of the donor and the rules is to sell the animals as sacrifices to those who have vowed a sacrifice., males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering<sup>108</sup>Who in contrast to well-being offerings must be male (Lev. 1:3,10)., and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple.
Rebbi Joshua says, the males themselves should be brought as elevation sacrifices, and the females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the remaining property be used for upkeep of the Temple.
Rebbi Aqiba says, I agree with the words of Rebbi Eliezer against the words of Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Eliezer is uniform in his rules but Rebbi Joshua splits<sup>142</sup>According to R. Eliezer the entire property is for the upkeep of the Temple; R. Joshua excludes male unblemished animals. Also R. Eliezer treats male and female animals by the same rules.. Rebbi Pappaeus said, I heard according to the words of both of them. If somebody dedicates explicitly<sup>143</sup>He says, the animals are to be sacrifices., following the words of Rebbi Eliezer; if the dedication is unspecified<sup>144</sup>He simply hands over his property to the Temple., following the words of Rebbi Joshua.
If somebody gives his property to the Temple<sup>104</sup>The Temple is supposed to sell the property and to use the proceeds for its needs. As Temple property, the proceeds are under the laws of me`ilah. and in it there were things fit for the altar, wines, oils, or birds. Rebbi Eleazar says, they shall be sold to people needing these kinds and from the proceeds one shall bring elevation sacrifices¹⁴⁶Four-legged animals. Even though birds (pigeons and turtle doves) are valid elevation sacrifices (Lev. 1:14–17), only four-legged animals can be brought “to adorn the altar.”; but the remainder of the property shall be used for the upkeep of the Temple.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for any public sacrifices.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. What is Ben Azzai’s reason? For Temple property cannot be redeemed by work, only by coins.

There we have stated¹⁰⁹Mishnah Temurah7:2.: “There is about gifts for the upkeep of the Temple that unspecified gifts to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple. Sanctification for the upkeep of the Temple falls on everything¹¹⁰Anything of value can be donated to the Temple., and me`ilah applies to what grows from it<sup>111</sup>Not only growth from seeds donated but all income from the principal are protected by me`ilah laws as is the original donation., and priests have no usufruct from it.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple¹¹²Since the Mishnah starts “if somebody gives his property,” this means it is unspecified, given to the Temple to use it as it sees fit, and R. Eliezer says that all proceeds go to the upkeep of the Temple..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer : If a man dedicate his house holy to the Eternal¹¹³Lev. 27:14.. How do we hold? If for a dwelling, it already is written, if the dedicator redeem his house¹¹⁴Lev. 27:15.. Therefore we hold that he dedicates his property. From here that unspecified dedications to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple¹¹⁵Verse 14 states that if a person dedicates his house, a priest has to determine its value. V. 15 the notes that if the donor wants to regain his house, he has to pay 125% of the value. Since it is assumed that a dwelling is always needed, the donation of a house could have been described in one sentence, combining valuation and redemption. Since the verses are split, it is understood that also property not used as dwelling is included and is given to produce money for the Temple, not the priests (in contrast to agricultural property, vv.21..

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: They disagree<sup>116</sup>R. Eliezer in Mishnah 7 and R. Joshua in Mishnah 8. about one who gives his property to the Temple. But if he gives his flock to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the altar<sup>117</sup>The animals should not be sold for the benefit of the Temple to people who need sacrificial animals but be directly used as elevation offerings of the Temple in times of need. The only animals to be sold are the blemished ones.. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Where do they disagree? About one who gives his flock to the Temple, but if he gave his property to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the upkeep of the Temple<sup>118</sup>As explained in the preceding paragraph.. The opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira can be understood¹¹⁹Since an animal becomes a sacrifice only by a dedication, the animals given to the Temple in a will, while becoming subject to the laws of me`ilah as Temple property, are not sacrifices and Lev.27:9–10 does not apply to them. The disagreement between RR. Eliezer and Joshua is purely about rabbinic rules and these apply equally to both cases.. It is difficult for Rebbi Abba. Is an animal not for the altar? An animal is for the altar. But why did this man not specify? It is as if he said, it only should be for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference. The disagreement is both about one who gives his property to the Temple as about one who gives his flock to the Temple<sup>119</sup>Since an animal becomes a sacrifice only by a dedication, the animals given to the Temple in a will, while becoming subject to the laws of me`ilah as Temple property, are not sacrifices and Lev.27:9–10 does not apply to them. The disagreement between RR. Eliezer and Joshua is purely about rabbinic rules and these apply equally to both cases..

Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane¹²⁰While dedicated unblemished animals cannot be redeemed and cannot revert to profane status, animals willed to the Temple are not in this category as explained in the preceding Note. While selling the animals to be used as sacrifice is the prescribed proceeding, if the rules are not followed and they are sold for profane use the sale is valid on condition that the Temple receive its money.. A Mishnah says so¹²¹Mishnah Ḥulin10:2. The Mishnah states that blemished animals which were dedicated as sacrifices never become intrinsically holy; if they are redeemed they are fully profane, their offspring and their milk is profane (first quote). If they were validly dedicated and later developed a blemish, they have to be redeemed and used as profane food, but cannot totally lose their sacred status; they cannot be used for work nor are their offspring and their milk permitted (second quote, also Temurah7:1.), “their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it if they were redeemed unblemished and then became defective. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Does the Mishnah say so¹²¹Mishnah Ḥulin10:2. The Mishnah states that blemished animals which were dedicated as sacrifices never become intrinsically holy; if they are redeemed they are fully profane, their offspring and their milk is profane (first quote). If they were validly dedicated and later developed a blemish, they have to be redeemed and used as profane food, but cannot totally lose their sacred status; they cannot be used for work nor are their offspring and their milk permitted (second quote, also Temurah7:1.)? “Their offspring and their milk are forbidden after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Yose: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane. If you are saying they did not become profane, how could the sanctity of the altar fall on sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple¹²³Since what is dedicated for one category of sancta cannot be changed to another, both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua must agree that the sale of the animal by the Temple makes it profane; the dedication of the buyer is the valid dedication of a profane animal.?

The sanctity of the altar falls on defective animals. In which respect? For shearing and work¹²⁵It is sinful to dedicate a defective animal to the altar. The question is whether such a dedication is effective at all. The statement here shows that the animal has to be treated according to the rules of an animal dedicated unblemished which later developed a defect (Note 121). B correctly adds prohibition of its offspring or its milk.. “¹²⁶Tosephta Pesaḥim9:19, Temurah2:5; Babli Temurah19b/20a. The text of B in the anonymous statement, “does not effect substitution”, is a scribal error as shown by the later text in B.
The reference is to Lev. 27:10, that it is forbidden to make a substitution for a dedicated animal, but if such a substitution was made, both the original animal and its substitute are sancta. Therefore “to effect substitution” implies “the original dedication is valid.” Everybody agrees that even if the dedication is void as dedication for the altar, it is valid as a gift of the animal or its value for the upkeep of the Temple. If somebody dedicated a female for his elevation offering, or his Pesaḥ, or his reparation offering, it effects substitution. Rebbi Simeon says, for his elevation offering it effects substitution; for his Pesaḥ or his reparation offering it does not effect substitution.” “¹²⁷This is known only as a quote in the Babli, Temurah20b. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, neither for his elevation offering, nor his Pesaḥ, nor his reparation offering, does it effect substitution.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird¹²⁸Male animals are prescribed for four-legged elevation sacrifices, Lev. 1:3,10, but not for birds, 1:14 (Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata6(2,5). Argument missing in B.. [And]¹²⁹Corrector’s addition, unwarranted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon¹²⁰While dedicated unblemished animals cannot be redeemed and cannot revert to profane status, animals willed to the Temple are not in this category as explained in the preceding Note. While selling the animals to be used as sacrifice is the prescribed proceeding, if the rules are not followed and they are sold for profane use the sale is valid on condition that the Temple receive its money. is, if there are differences in its own kind, so much more if it is not its own kind. What are differences in its own kind? As it was stated¹²¹Mishnah Ḥulin10:2. The Mishnah states that blemished animals which were dedicated as sacrifices never become intrinsically holy; if they are redeemed they are fully profane, their offspring and their milk is profane (first quote). If they were validly dedicated and later developed a blemish, they have to be redeemed and used as profane food, but cannot totally lose their sacred status; they cannot be used for work nor are their offspring and their milk permitted (second quote, also Temurah7:1.), “a yearling as reparation offering, and he brought one of two years, he satisfied his obligation; a two-year old as reparation offering, and he brought one of three years, he did not satisfy his obligation”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua said the same. As Rebbi Joshua said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth¹²²If willing one’s property to the Temple were a genuine dedication, the animal which was unblemished at the time of donation but later developed a defect never could regain full profane status. Therefore the rule only is possible if the position of R. Joḥanan (Note 119) is adopted., so Rebbi Simeon¹²³Since what is dedicated for one category of sancta cannot be changed to another, both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua must agree that the sale of the animal by the Temple makes it profane; the dedication of the buyer is the valid dedication of a profane animal. said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth. If you would say that they are sancta as to their body, they should graze¹²⁴This sentence added to the truncated text of B repeats the prior argument. Animals which are leftovers are animals bought with sheqel money but not used at the end of the tax year. Since these animals become dedicated only at the moment they are used (end of the text for Note 100), their status as far as dedication goes is identical to that of animals willed to the Temple.. “Rebbi said, I agree with Rebbi Simeon about the Pesah; could the Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering? But I do not agree with the words of Rebbi Simeon for reparation offerings; could a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering?¹²⁵It is sinful to dedicate a defective animal to the altar. The question is whether such a dedication is effective at all. The statement here shows that the animal has to be treated according to the rules of an animal dedicated unblemished which later developed a defect (Note 121). B correctly adds prohibition of its offspring or its milk.” Rebbi Abbin said, in case a Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering, its body is brought as well-being offering; in case a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering, its body cannot be brought as elevation offering. What about it? In one case one says, it is sanctified for its money’s worth; in one case one says, it is sanctified in its body¹²⁶Tosephta Pesaḥim9:19, Temurah2:5; Babli Temurah19b/20a. The text of B in the anonymous statement, “does not effect substitution”, is a scribal error as shown by the later text in B.
The reference is to Lev. 27:10, that it is forbidden to make a substitution for a dedicated animal, but if such a substitution was made, both the original animal and its substitute are sancta. Therefore “to effect substitution” implies “the original dedication is valid.” Everybody agrees that even if the dedication is void as dedication for the altar, it is valid as a gift of the animal or its value for the upkeep of the Temple..

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Joshua<sup>137</sup>Since R. Joshua requires that the male animals be used as elevation offerings, why does he not require that the females be used directly as well-being offerings, but sold and the proceeds used for elevation offerings?: <sup>138</sup>Lev. 22:18–19.Speak to Aaron, and his sons, and to all Children of Israel, and say to them: each single man from Israel, etc. who willoffer an elevation sacrifice to the Eternal, anything could be elevation sacrifice, voluntarily from you, unblemished, male. From where even females? The verse says, in cattle, to include females<sup>139</sup>In contrast to Lev. 1:3, whereמִן הַבָּקָר clearly is partitive, only the select from the cattle, here בַּבָּקָר, “in the herd”, is inclusive. While females cannot be elevation sacrifices, they can be dedicated that their proceeds be used for elevation sacrifices.. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar<sup>140</sup>B adds, probably correctly, “asked”.: It says male, and you are saying in cattle, to include females. Then similarly it is written unblemished, and you are saying in cattle, to include the blemished<sup>141</sup>Since Mishnah 7 starts “if there was an animal fit for the altar,” clearly excluding defective animals also according to R. Joshua, the argument is invalid and so is the prior statement of R. Ze`ira.?

What is between them? The stick of a weaver’s shuttle is between them¹⁴⁵There is very little between them since R. Aqiba only says that R. Eliezer is more logically consistent; he does not decide that practice has to follow R. Eliezer. The weaver’s shuttle is Greek κερκίς, -ίδος. The reading of B, “the statement of Bar Pada” does not seem to make any sense; probably it is a misreading of the version of M, “a matter of invention”, i. e., of formulation..

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Eleazar: ¹³⁸Lev. 22:18–19.Speak to Aaron and to his sons, etc., who would sacrifice to the Eternal as elevation sacrifice; everything may be brought as elevation sacrifice, by your volition, unblemished, male. I could think that this includes birds. The verse says, in cattle, not birds¹⁴⁸Since the verse restricts elevation offerings from four-legged animals to unblemished males, it is inferred that the restriction does not apply to birds [Sifra Emor Parashah7(20), Wayyiqra I Parshata6(3)]. In addition, since Lev. 1:14–17 is addressed to the individual, but Lev. 22:18–19 to the public, it is inferred that birds as elevation offerings are possible only to the individual; the public is restricted to four-legged animals. Since a gift to the Temple is a gift to the public, birds given to the Temple as part of an estate may not be sacrificed.. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying, there said Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird¹²⁸Male animals are prescribed for four-legged elevation sacrifices, Lev. 1:3,10, but not for birds, 1:14 (Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata6(2,5). Argument missing in B.. And here, he¹⁴⁹Even though the statement is transmitted in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish, we do not hear that R. Joḥanan disagrees; the statement is coming from R. Joḥanan’s Academy. says so? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it following what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Anything which could be sacrificed neither itself nor its money’s worth is sanctified only as money’s worth¹⁵⁰If an animal is not dedicated as sacrifice and if sold, the money cannot be used to buy an animal which can validly be dedicated (Note 119), the animal is given for the upkeep of the Temple, not to the gift account.. And you are saying, this is correct. You cannot sacrifice it, for it is written in cattle¹⁵¹And the public to whom the bird was given may not dedicate it as sacrifice.. You cannot redeem it since birds cannot be redeemed.¹⁵²Mishnah Menaḥot12:1. Not only birds, but also dedicated wine and flour cannot be redeemed since the rules of redemption in Lev. 27 are formulated referring to four-legged animals only.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ayvo bar Nagari said before Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The reason of this Tanna: But if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered¹⁵³Lev. 27:11.. Why does the verse say, impure¹⁵⁴Since no impure animal can be sacrificed, either the mention of “impure” or that of “cannot be sacrificed” seems to be superfluous.? But even impure for this denomination¹⁵⁵If an animal was dedicated in a category for which it was not appropriate, and it never could be sacrificed in that category, it never was dedicated to the altar and therefore can be redeemed.. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise¹⁵⁶Lev. 27:12.? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, but if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered; anything which could be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place does not effect substitution<sup>157</sup>If “impure” really means “unfit”, e. g. cattle or sheep with a broken leg, it is not dedicated to the altar and must be redeemed with the money going for the upkeep of the Temple. However, it cannot be made to stand as required by the verse.. This excludes the female of a bird which even though it cannot be sacrificed here is fit to be sacrificed at another place. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Are there not the animals used for active or passive bestiality, which can be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place, and they effect substitution¹⁵⁸Tosephta Temurah1:12 states that dedicating such an animal, while sinful, is equivalent to dedicating an unblemished animal which after dedication becomes blemished; all rules of me`ilah do apply and it may be redeemed only after it develops a permanent bodily defect.? He said to them, also I did speak only about really impure ones¹⁵⁹B reads: “defective ones.”. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise¹⁵⁶Lev. 27:12.?