The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei said: I established Rabbi Eliezer's opinion as being in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ze'eira: Anything that cannot be sacrificed on the altar, neither itself nor its monetary value, as it cannot be redeemed, is consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in its monetary value. And therefore, you, Rabbi Eliezer, said correctly: You are not able to sacrifice this bird on the altar, as it is written: "Of the cattle," and not birds. You are not able to redeem the bird were it to have inherent sanctity, as there is no concept of redemption for birds. Therefore, you must say that it is consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in its value.

§ In the baraita cited above, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon that if one consecrates a female animal for a burnt-offering, a Paschal lamb, or a guilt-offering, it is endowed only with sanctity that inheres in the animal's value, since a female animal is invalid for these offerings. Consequently, a substitute cannot be made from it. The group of students said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rabbi Ayyevu bar Nagri said in the presence of Rabbi Ila, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The source for the opinion of this tanna, Rabbi Shimon, is the verse in the passage about substitution: "And if it be any unclean animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord" (Leviticus 27:11), which indicates that an unclean animal that was consecrated cannot make a substitution. What is the meaning when the verse states "unclean," as it certainly is not referring to an animal of an unclean species of animal, i.e., a non-kosher animal, since they are already disqualified by a different verse? Rather, it is referring even to an animal of a clean, kosher species that is only unclean, i.e., unsuitable, for that particular category of offering. The Gemara notes: It is difficult to justify this source as the basis for Rabbi Shimon's opinion because, with regard to this, it is written in the continuation of the verse: "Then he shall stand the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it" (Leviticus 27:11-12), indicating that before being redeemed, the animal must be stood before the priest for valuation. However, Rabbi Shimon himself holds that this process is necessary only for animals that have inherent sanctity. Perforce, this verse and the previous one are referring to cases where the animal has inherent sanctity. If so, these verses cannot be used as the basis for Rabbi Shimon's opinion in the baraita. Rabbi Ze'eira, in the name of Rabbi Elazar, did not say that this verse is the basis of Rabbi Shimon's opinion. Rather, he explained it as the basis for the opposing opinion: "And if it be any unclean animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord." The superfluous word "offering" indicates that any animal that is not suitable to be sacrificed, neither here, for the type of offering for which it was consecrated, nor anywhere else, as any other type of offering, is never endowed with inherent sanctity. Therefore, a substitute cannot be made from it. This principle excludes the case of a female animal that was consecrated for a burnt-offering. Although it is not suitable to be sacrificed here, as an animal burnt-offering, it is suitable to be sacrificed in another place, such as a bird burnt-offering. This verse therefore serves as a source for the opinion of the first tanna in that baraita, who holds that a female animal consecrated for a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, or a Paschal lamb is endowed with inherent sanctity, and therefore a substitute can be made from it. The Gemara challenges this principle: Rabbi Avun and Rabbi Bun asked in the presence of Rabbi Ze'eira: But there is the case of an animal that sodomizes a person or an animal that is sodomized, which are not suitable to be sacrificed, neither here, for the kind of offering for which it was consecrated, nor anywhere else as any other kind of offering, and yet a substitute can be made from it. The Gemara answers: He said to them: Even I said this principle only with regard to an animal that is actually unclean, i.e., from a non-kosher species. But it does not apply to an animal of a kosher species that is disqualified for some other reason. The Gemara notes: But it is difficult to claim that "unclean" is referring to an animal of an unclean, non-kosher species, because with regard to this, it is written in the subsequent verses: "Then he shall stand the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it" (Leviticus 27:11-12), indicating the procedure for redeeming the animal. This certainly cannot refer to an animal of a non-kosher species, since a verse later on (Leviticus 27:27) addresses that case. Rabbi Ze'eira's derivation is therefore problematic.

Halakha 5 · MISHNA Once every thirty days, the prices at which the Temple supplies such as wine, flour, or oil will be purchased are set for the Temple chamber. This set price is implemented in the following way: Any merchant who undertakes to provide fine flour after the chamber set a price of four se'a per sela, even if the general market price rose and stood at three se'a per sela, he must provide fine flour based on the set price of four se'a per sela. However, if the chamber's set price was three se'a per sela, and the general market price fell to four se'a per sela, he must now provide fine flour based on the new market price of four se'a per sela. This is in order that the Temple treasury of consecrated property always has the upper hand. If the fine flour became wormy, it became wormy for the merchant, i.e., he bears the loss of the ruined fine flour and must provide new fine flour in its place. Similarly, if the wine turned to vinegar, it turned to vinegar for the merchant. This is because the merchant only receives, i.e., earns, his money once the altar is satisfied, i.e., the transaction is only realized once the items have been sacrificed on the altar.

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Shimon: The merchants would immediately receive their money. And there was no concern that the items would spoil, because priests are vigilant and ensure that no item has a chance to spoil.

Halakha 1 · MISHNA These are the officials who served in specific positions in the Temple: Yoḥanan ben Pineḥas was responsible for the seals. One who paid for a specific type of sacrificial item received a seal, which he presented to the Temple official in exchange for that item. Aḥiyya was responsible for the libations, i.e., the wine, oil, and flour prepared with the level of ritual purity necessary for the libation offerings and the meal-offerings, which accompanied many animal offerings. Aḥiyya supplied the libations to those who presented the appropriate seal. Matya ben Shmuel was responsible for the lotteries, which were used to select priests for the various Temple services each day. Petaḥya was responsible for the pairs of birds, i.e., the turtledoves or pigeons, brought by a zav, a zava, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. They placed the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner. Incidentally, the Gemara mentions: Petaḥya is Mordecai from the book of Esther. And why was he called Petaḥya, which resembles the word for opening [petaḥ]? The reason is that he would open, i.e., elucidate, difficult topics and interpret them to the people, and because he knew all seventy languages known at the time. The mishna resumes the list of officials. Ben Aḥiyya was responsible for the care of the priests who suffered from intestinal disease. Neḥunya was the well digger for pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the Festivals. Gevini was the Temple crier who would awaken the priests and the Levites for their Temple duties. Ben Gever was responsible for locking the Temple gates in the evening and for unlocking them in the morning. Ben Bevai was appointed over the shreds of garments, which were formed into wicks for the Temple candelabra. He also supervised the twisting of those wicks into the appropriate thickness for the various nights during the different seasons of the year. Ben Arza was responsible for the cymbal, which was rung as a signal that the Levites should commence their song. Hugras ben Levi was responsible for the song. He taught and conducted the singers in the Temple. The house of Garmu was responsible for the preparation of the shewbread; the house of Avtinas was responsible for the preparation of the incense; and Elazar was responsible for weaving the Temple curtains; and Pineḥas was the valet, who assisted the priests in fitting their clothes and dressing themselves for their Temple service.

GEMARA: The mishna lists fifteen names of officials who filled specific positions in the Temple, despite the fact that during the many years of the Temple there must have been far more than fifteen officials who served those functions. Rabbi Ḥizkiyah said that Rabbi Simon and the Rabbis disagreed as to why the mishna mentions only these fifteen names. One of them said: The mishna comes to enumerate those who were the most fit of all the officials who served in each position, from whatever generation they were from. And the other said: The tanna who was in that generation enumerated those functionaries who served in his generation. Several of these officials are also mentioned in the mishna in Yoma, some for praise (37a), and others for censure (38a). The Gemara notes that this issue is related to the aforementioned dispute. The one who said that the mishna comes to enumerate the most fit of those who served from whatever generation claims that when the mishna in Yoma says: "The memory of a righteous person shall be for a blessing" (Proverbs 10:7) it is in reference to all of them. According to this opinion, the tanna in Yoma maintains that the reason these officials did not teach their specialties to others was because they wanted to prevent their knowledge from being used for idol worship. The only officials censured are those like ben Kamtzar, who refused to divulge their secrets for unworthy reasons, but these people are not mentioned in the mishna. Conversely, the one who said that the tanna who was in that generation enumerated those officials who served in his generation, he claims that the mishna in Yoma says: "But the name of the wicked shall rot" (Proverbs 10:7) in reference to all of them. And with regard to whom is the tanna in Yoma speaking when he cites the verse: "The memory of a righteous person shall be for a blessing"? He is referring only to ben Katin, who improved the basin for the priests in the Temple, and his colleagues.