Temurah, Chapter 7, Mishnah 1 - the final chapter of the tractate. In this mishnah we compare certain stringencies that apply to items consecrated for the altar but do not apply to items consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple. Since items consecrated for the altar can generate a temurah while items consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple cannot, the comparison is taught here, and five stringencies of items consecrated for the altar are listed.
Two forms of sanctity:
Inherent sanctity (kedushas haguf): the object itself is sanctified.
Monetary sanctity (kedushas damim): the object itself is not sanctified; rather, it is a reservoir of value with which something sanctified is acquired, and the sanctity transfers from the original object to the item purchased.
Items consecrated for the altar and items consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple:
The mishnah adopts a different division, and although it overlaps with the previous division in most cases, the two divisions are not identical. The question here is where the one consecrating is directing his sanctity, and what the destination of the consecrated item will be: if he consecrated it for the altar, his intent is that the sanctity will conclude on the altar as an offering; and if he consecrated it for the upkeep of the Temple, his intent is that its value will be used for maintaining the Temple.
As a rule, items consecrated for the altar carry inherent sanctity, while items consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple carry only monetary sanctity. Still, one can raise simple cases that blur these lines. Our mishnah deals with items consecrated for the altar - a cow, goat or sheep consecrated to be brought on the altar as a peace offering or a burnt offering, as well as wine, oil or flour for a meal offering - and it establishes that they carry stringencies that do not apply to items consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple, meaning items consecrated for the use of the Temple or to be sold so that their value will pay for goods and services needed for the upkeep of the Temple, whether to purchase the Temple's needs or to repair the roof.
And so the mishnah says: "Yesh b'kodshei mizbei'ach mah she'ein b'kodshei bedek habayis" - there are stringencies that apply to items consecrated to be brought on the altar and do not apply to items consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple. "V'yesh b'kodshei bedek habayis mah she'ein b'kodshei hamizbei'ach" - and there are stringencies, which we will see in the next mishnah, that apply to items consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple and do not apply to those brought on the altar. Our mishnah lists five stringencies in which items consecrated for the altar are more stringent than items consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple.
1. "Shekodshei mizbei'ach osin temurah":
Only items designated for the altar are subject to temurah. If someone consecrates a cow as a burnt offering and then brings another animal and declares that it should be its temurah, the second animal becomes sanctified as well, as we learned in the earlier mishnayos. But if someone consecrates money or an animal for the upkeep of the Temple, and afterward brings another animal of equal value and declares that it should be its temurah, he has accomplished nothing. Temurah is unique to items consecrated for the altar alone.
It is worth noting here an important aside: we learned that temurah takes effect only with animals - cattle, goats and sheep. It follows that there are items that carry the sanctity of items consecrated for the altar and nevertheless do not generate a temurah, such as birds, flour, oil and a meal offering. So too, there are cattle, goats and sheep that carry the sanctity of the altar and nevertheless do not generate a temurah, and we have already learned two of them in the tractate:
The temurah itself: if he consecrated animal A as a burnt offering, then brought animal B and declared that it should be its temurah, both are sanctified and stand designated as an offering, but while animal A can generate a further temurah, animal B cannot generate a temurah.
The offspring: a female peace offering that gave birth - the offspring does not generate a temurah, even though its mother did generate a temurah.
2. "V'chayavin aleihem mishum pigul nosar v'tamei":
What these three share is that one who eats sacrificial meat that has taken on any of these statuses is punished with kareis:
Piggul: an intention of "outside its time." If the kohen performing the service had in mind, during any of the four indispensable services - the shechitah, the kabbalah (receiving the blood), the holachah (carrying the blood to the altar) and the zerikah (applying the blood) - even for a moment, that he would apply the blood outside its designated time, or burn the sacrificial parts on the altar outside its time, or eat the meat of the offering outside its time, that thought alone disqualifies the entire animal and renders it piggul, and one who eats from it is liable to kareis.
Nosar: from the word for leftovers. Every offering has a set time frame within which it may be eaten. Once the final deadline has passed - this is called linah - the remaining meat takes on the status of nosar, and one who eats it is liable to kareis.
Tamei: a person in a state of tumah who eats sacrificial meat is liable to kareis. For example, someone tamei who ate from the meat of his shelamim or from his Pesach offering is punished with kareis. This is not so with items dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple: if a person dedicated a chicken for the upkeep of the Temple and forgot and ate it, even though there is a violation of me'ilah here and other issues, there is no punishment of kareis.
3. "Velad'an vechalvan asurin le'achar pidyonan" - their offspring and their milk are forbidden even after they are redeemed:
An animal that was properly consecrated and then developed a permanent blemish must be redeemed, and with the money received a replacement offering is purchased. Even so, a trace of sanctity remains in an offering that has gone out to non-sacred status. As we saw at the end of the previous chapter, a tereifah is not redeemed, since it is fit only to be fed to dogs; the reason is that the only permitted use of a redeemed offering is eating it. Therefore, if the animal was pregnant at the time it went out to non-sacred status, it is forbidden to derive benefit from its offspring, and it may not be milked either; the only thing permitted is to slaughter it. We see that even though it was redeemed, the trace of sanctity forbids its offspring and its milk.
By contrast, one who dedicates an animal with the sanctity of Temple upkeep and then redeems it - the animal goes out to non-sacred status completely in every respect: its milk is permitted, one may work with it and shear it, and one may also derive benefit from its offspring. Another important footnote: if a blemished animal of altar sanctity became pregnant after it was redeemed, the offspring are permitted both for eating and for benefit.
4. "Vehashochtan bachutz chayav" - one who slaughters them outside is liable:
One who slaughters offerings of altar sanctity outside the Temple compound is liable to kareis. This prohibition is stated explicitly in a verse: there is an obligation to bring offerings that are brought on the altar and to slaughter them in the Azarah, and one who slaughters outside this place is punished with kareis. This stringency does not apply to items dedicated for Temple upkeep: if a person dedicated his chicken for Temple upkeep and forgot and slaughtered it in his courtyard, even though there is a violation of me'ilah here, there is no punishment of kareis for slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Azarah.
5. "Ve'ein nosnin mehem le'umanin bischaran" - and one may not give from them to craftsmen as their wages:
Offerings of altar sanctity may not be used to pay wages to workers, which is not the case with items dedicated for Temple upkeep, with which one may pay workers. At first glance one could wonder what the novelty here is, since it is obvious that one does not hand over an animal destined for the altar as a wage. But the great novelty lies on the other side: when craftsmen come to repair the roof of the Temple, and a person has dedicated an object in his possession for Temple upkeep, the usual procedure would be to sell the object at public auction for its market value, and with the money received to pay the craftsmen repairing the roof.
In practice, however, this intermediate step is unnecessary. One may take that very consecrated object, approach the craftsman and say to him: repair the roof, and you will be paid with this object. If such a deal was made, it is valid, and the object goes out to non-sacred status the moment the craftsman receives it. The point is that one may use the consecrated item as it is to pay for services performed for the maintenance of the Temple.
In summary: in this mishnah we examined the distinction between sanctity of the body and sanctity of value, and between offerings of altar sanctity and items dedicated for Temple upkeep, and we listed five stringencies that apply to offerings of altar sanctity: that they effect temurah; that one is liable for them on account of piggul, nosar and tumah; that their offspring and their milk are forbidden even after redemption; that one who slaughters them outside is liable; and that one may not give from them to craftsmen as their wages.
In the next mishnah we will deal with the other side of the comparison - the stringencies that apply to items dedicated for Temple upkeep and not to offerings of altar sanctity.