Halakha 4 · MISHNA One who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose, his possessions are consecrated for Temple maintenance. And if among them there are items that are suitable for use as communal offerings, which may not be used for the maintenance of the Temple but only for sacrificial purposes, what is done with those items to remove their consecration for Temple maintenance, in order that they may be reconsecrated for sacrificial use? They are given to Temple artisans as their wages, and thereby they are desacralized; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: This is not the method to be used. Rather, the same method that is used to desacralize the leftover incense, as is described in the previous mishna, should also be used here, i.e., they set aside from the consecrated items the equivalent of the value owed to the artisans for their wages, and they desacralize them by transferring their sanctity onto the money allocated for the artisans' wages, and then they give those items, which are no longer consecrated, to the artisans as their wages. According to both opinions, once the desacralized items are in the possession of the artisans, one of Temple treasurers should repurchase those items using money from that year's new collection of half-shekels, consecrating them for sacrificial use during the coming year. In the case of one who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose, and among them there is an animal that is suitable to be sacrificed on the altar, male or female, what should be done with it? Rabbi Eliezer says: Since he did not specify otherwise, everything is consecrated for Temple maintenance. Therefore, any males should be sold for the needs of burnt-offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. And any females, since they cannot be brought as burnt-offerings, should be sold for the needs of peace-offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. And their monetary value that is received from their sale is allocated with the rest of his property for Temple maintenance. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Although he did not specify for what purpose he consecrated his possessions, it may be assumed that he intended the animals to be consecrated as burnt-offerings. Therefore, any males should themselves be sacrificed as burnt-offerings, and any females, since they cannot be brought as burnt-offerings, should be sold for the needs of peace-offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such, and their monetary value that is received from their sale should be used to purchase and bring burnt-offerings. According to both opinions, the rest of the possessions, which are not suitable for sacrificial use, are allocated for Temple maintenance. Rabbi Akiva said: I see the statement of Rabbi Eliezer as more correct than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, since Rabbi Eliezer applied his method equally to both animals and other possessions in treating both as consecrated for Temple maintenance, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua made a distinction between them. Rabbi Papeyyas said: I heard the statements of both of them applied to different situations: One who consecrates all his possessions and explicitly states that his animals are to be included, clearly intends to equate his animals with the rest of his possessions, that both should be consecrated for the same purpose, i.e., for Temple maintenance. Therefore, he should act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. However, with regard to one who consecrates all his possessions without explicitly specifying that this includes his animals, since there is no reason to presume that he wishes them all to be consecrated for the same purpose, it is presumed that each item is consecrated for the purpose most suited to it. Therefore, he should act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. In the case of one who consecrates all his possessions, and among them there were items that are suitable to be sacrificed on the altar, such as wines for libations, and oils for meal-offerings, and birds, e.g., turtledoves or young pigeons, Rabbi Eliezer says: They are sold for the needs of that kind of item, i.e., to individuals who will use them as such. And he should bring with their monetary value that is received from their sale burnt-offerings. And the rest of the possessions are allocated for Temple maintenance.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that there is a dispute with regard to the case of one who consecrates all his possessions, and among them there were items that are suitable for use as communal offerings. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mishna is referring to one whose possessions include ingredients used to prepare the incense. Rabbi Hoshaya says: If so, the mishna should be explained as referring specifically to an artisan of the house of Avtinas, who would receive incense as his wages. There is a dispute about whether the incense may be prepared by an individual in a non-sacred vessel and then dedicated to the Temple. Explaining the mishna as referring to an artisan who received the incense from the Temple means that the mishna holds true for both sides of the dispute. § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva holds that incense consecrated for Temple maintenance may be desacralized simply by giving it to the artisans as their wages, but ben Azzai insisted the incense must be desacralized by transferring its sanctity to money. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of ben Azzai? He holds that consecrated property cannot be desacralized upon labor since it is intangible. Rather, it can be desacralized only upon a tangible object, such as money.

The Gemara notes: We learned in a mishna there (Temura 31b): There are certain halakhot that apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance that do not apply to animals consecrated for the altar. They are: That unspecified consecrated items are consecrated for Temple maintenance.
Consecration for Temple maintenance takes effect on all types of objects, even wood, stones, and blemished animals; while consecration for the altar takes effect only on objects that may be brought as offerings upon the altar.
One violates the prohibition against misuse of consecrated objects by deriving benefit from that which grows from items consecrated for Temple maintenance, such as an egg of a chicken or milk of a domesticated animal. One who derives benefit is liable to pay a fifth of the principle amount in addition to sacrificing the relevant guilt-offering.
And unlike with animals consecrated to the altar, there is no benefit from them for the priests. Priests sometimes benefit from animals consecrated to the altar by eating portions of the offerings or receiving their hides. Rabbi Ḥananya said that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose, and there was among them an animal that is suitable to be sacrificed on the altar, whether males or females, Rabbi Eliezer says: Any males should be sold for the needs of burnt-offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such; and any females, since they cannot be brought as burnt-offerings, should be sold for the needs of peace-offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. And their monetary value that is received from their sale is allocated with the rest of his property for Temple maintenance. Unlike Rabbi Yehoshua, who argues with him in the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer assumes that since he did not specify otherwise, all one's possessions, including his animals, are consecrated for Temple maintenance and must therefore be desacralized. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The source for Rabbi Eliezer's opinion is the verse: "And when a man shall consecrate his house to be holy to the Lord" (Leviticus 27:14). To what case are we referring in the verse? If you suggest this verse is referring to a dwelling place, that cannot be correct because it is already written: "And if the one who consecrated it will redeem his house" (Leviticus 27:15). Rather, we are referring to one who, without specifying for what purpose, consecrates all his possessions. From here it is derived that unspecified consecrated property is allocated for Temple maintenance.

The Gemara cites differing opinions concerning which cases Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree and disagree upon: Rabbi Ze'eira said that Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree with regard to one who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose. However, with regard to one who consecrates the animals in his flock without specifying for what purpose, everyone agrees that they are consecrated for the altar. Since the consecration includes only items that are suitable to be sacrificed on the altar, even Rabbi Eliezer concedes that it is assumed that one consecrated them for the altar and not for Temple maintenance. Rabbi Ba said that Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: With regard to what case do they disagree? With regard to one who consecrates the animals in his flock without specifying for what purpose. However, with regard to one who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose, including animals that are unsuitable to be sacrificed on the altar, everyone agrees that they are consecrated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Ze'eira, it works out well. It is understandable that all agree that when one consecrates only animals, his intention is that they be used as offerings on the altar, for why else would he consecrate them? However, there is a difficulty with the opinion of Rabbi Ba, who maintains that even in such a case Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree. Isn't an animal suitable for the altar? Why then would Rabbi Eliezer disagree and say that the animals are consecrated for Temple maintenance? The Gemara answers: Indeed, an animal is suitable for the altar. Why then did this man decide to consecrate his animals without specifying that this was his intent? Apparently, his intention was not for them to be used on the altar; rather, he is like one who says that these animals should be consecrated only for Temple maintenance. There is a third opinion concerning the dispute: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There is no difference between the two cases. Both this case of one who consecrates all his possessions and that case of one who consecrates the animals in his flock are alike. In both cases, the disagreement applies.

It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer holds that animals that were consecrated for Temple maintenance are sold to those who need to bring them as offerings. What is the status of such animals after being sold? Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav that Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Animals that were consecrated for Temple maintenance that were redeemed by being sold, while still unblemished and therefore still suitable to be used as an offering, are nevertheless transferred to non-sacred status. The buyer must then consecrate the animals anew for use as offerings. The Gemara brings a proof. The mishna (Ḥullin 130a) said that as well: If animals are consecrated after already having developed a blemish, only their inherent value is sanctified. Therefore, their offspring and their milk are permitted to be used for mundane purposes after their redemption, since their sanctity is entirely removed upon their redemption. So too, the sanctity of animals that are consecrated for Temple maintenance is entirely removed upon their being redeemed, even if they are unblemished, as their sanctity inheres only in their value.