Mishnah Temurah 7:2-3

In the intricate tapestry of hilchot kodshim, few distinctions are as foundational and far-reaching as those between Kodshei Mizbeach (consecrations for the Altar) and Kodshei Bedek HaBayit (consecrations for Temple maintenance). Our sugya in Temurah 7:2-3 meticulously delineates these categories, not merely listing differences but revealing the very telos – the ultimate purpose – that shapes their halachic trajectory. This Mishna serves as a pivotal lens through which to understand the ontological status of consecrated objects, from their initial hakdasha to their eventual disposition.

Sugya Map

• Issue: Distinguishing the halachic characteristics and implications of Kodshei Mizbeach versus Kodshei Bedek HaBayit, followed by halachot common to both, and finally, detailed classifications for disposal (nikbarin vs. nissarfin).
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Temurah: Only Kodshei Mizbeach generate a temurah (substitute).
  • Karet Liability: Piggul, notar, tumei apply to Kodshei Mizbeach. Shechutei Chutz applies to Kodshei Mizbeach.
  • Gidulim: Offspring and milk of Kodshei Mizbeach are forbidden even after redemption; Kodshei Bedek HaBayit gidulim are subject to me'ilah.
  • Kohanim's Portion: Kodshei Mizbeach may provide hana'ah to kohanim; Kodshei Bedek HaBayit do not.
  • Scope of Consecration: Kodshei Bedek HaBayit apply to all items (chal al hakol); Kodshei Mizbeach apply only to those fit for the altar.
  • Me'ilah: Applies to gidulim of Kodshei Bedek HaBayit.
  • Disposal: Specific rules for nikbarin (burial) vs. nissarfin (burning) for various consecrated and forbidden items, with a key dispute on modifying these methods.
  • Redemption: Metim (dead consecrated animals) of Kodshei Bedek HaBayit can be redeemed (R' Shimon vs. Chachamim).
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Temurah 7:2-3; Mishnah Me'ilah 3:5-6; Mishnah Shekalim 4:7.

Text Snapshot

Mishnah Temurah 7:2-3:

יש בקדשי מזבח מה שאין בקדשי בדק הבית, ויש בקדשי בדק הבית מה שאין בקדשי מזבח. יש בקדשי מזבח שממירין, וקדשי בדק הבית אין ממירין. חייבין עליהם משום פיגול נותר וטמא, וגידוליהן וחלבן אסורין לאחר פדיונן, והשוחט אותן בחוץ חייב, ואין גזברין נותנין אומנין מהן. ואין כן בקדשי בדק הבית. יש בקדשי בדק הבית, שסתם הקדשות לבדק הבית, והקדש בדק הבית חל על הכל, ומועלין בגידוליהן, ואין בהם הנייה לכהנים. אלו ואלו אין משנין אותן מקדושה לקדושה. אבל מקדישין אותן בקדש דמים, ומקדישין אותן לכהנים. מתו, יקברו. רבי שמעון אומר: מתו קדשי בדק הבית, יפדו. ואלו הן הנקברים: עובר הקרבן, יקבר. שליא, תקבר. ושור הנסקל, ועגלה ערופה, וציפורי מצורע, ושער נזיר שנטמא, ופטר חמור, ובשר בחלב, וחולין שנשחטו בעזרה. רבי שמעון אומר: חולין שנשחטו בעזרה ישרפו, וכן חיה שנשחטה בעזרה, ישרפו. ואלו הן הנשרפים: חמץ בפסח ישרף, ותרומה טמאה, וערלה, וכלאי הכרם - אלו שהדרך לשורפן, ישרפו; ואלו שהדרך לקבור אותן, יקברו. ומדליקין בפת ובשמן של תרומה טמאה. וכל הקדשים שנשחטו חוץ לזמנן וחוץ למקומן, ישרפו. אשם תלוי, ישרף. רבי יהודה אומר: יקבר. חטאת העוף הבאה על הספק, תשרף. רבי יהודה אומר: ישליך לבירא. כל הנקברים לא ישרפו, וכל הנשרפים לא יקברו. רבי יהודה אומר: אם רצה להחמיר על עצמו לשרוף את הנקברים, הרשות בידו. אמרו לו: אין רשאי לשנות, שאין לך דבר שריפתו מותרת, וקבורתו אסורה; וקבורתו מותרת, וריפתו אסורה.

The Mishna opens with a chiastic structure: יש בקדשי מזבח מה שאין בקדשי בדק הבית, ויש בקדשי בדק הבית מה שאין בקדשי מזבח ("There are elements that apply to animals consecrated for the altar that do not apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and there are elements that apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance that do not apply to animals consecrated for the altar"). This immediately signals a fundamental duality. The phrase אין כן בקדשי בדק הבית following the list for Kodshei Mizbeach is a succinct way to state the converse without repeating the entire list. The subsequent lists of נקברים and נשרפים are precise classifications of disposal, culminating in a critical machloket between R' Yehuda and the Rabbis regarding adherence to prescribed methods. The repeated use of יקבר/תקבר and ישרף/תשרף underscores the imperative nature of these disposal methods.

Readings

Rambam: Defining the Scope of Hakdasha

Rambam, in his commentary to Mishnah Temurah 7:2:1, elucidates the specific nuances of Kodshei Bedek HaBayit:

מה שאמר חל על הכל לפי שהוא חל על מומין ובהמה טמאה מה שאין כן בקדשי מזבח ומועלין בגדוליהן לפי שהמקדיש בהמה לבדק הבית מועלין בחלבה והמקדיש תרנגולת מועלין בביצתה ואין כן קדשי המזבח לפי שהחלב מוקדשין וביצת תורים לא נהנין ולא מועלין כמו שיתבאר בשלישי ממעילה ואין בהם הנייה לכהנים ואינו כן בקדשי מזבח לפי שקדשי מזבח יש מהם נאכלים לכהנים בשרם ויש מהם שנהנים בעורם כמו שהקדמנו ביאורו. What it said, "applies to all," is because it applies to blemished animals and impure animals, which is not the case for Kodshei Mizbeach. And one is liable for misuse (me'ilah) of their by-products (giduleihen), because if one consecrates an animal for Bedek HaBayit, one is liable for misuse of its milk, and if one consecrates a chicken, one is liable for misuse of its egg. This is not so with Kodshei Mizbeach, because their milk is consecrated, and the egg of doves is neither beneficial nor subject to misuse, as will be explained in the third chapter of Me'ilah. And there is no benefit from them for the Kohanim, which is not the case for Kodshei Mizbeach, because some Kodshei Mizbeach are eaten by Kohanim, and some provide benefit through their hides, as we have explained previously.

The Rambam highlights two central chiddushim:

1. Chal al Hakol (Applies to all): Kodshei Bedek HaBayit can be applied to any item of monetary value, even if it is inherently unfit for the altar (e.g., ba'alei mumin, behema teme'ah). This contrasts sharply with Kodshei Mizbeach, whose sanctity is limited to items appropriate for sacrifice. This reflects the fundamental distinction: Kodshei Mizbeach sanctifies the cheftza (the object itself) for a specific mitzvah on the altar, while Kodshei Bedek HaBayit sanctifies the shaveh (value) for general Temple needs.
2. Me'ilah b'Giduleihen (Misuse of by-products): Rambam clarifies that me'ilah applies to the gidulim (by-products) of Kodshei Bedek HaBayit, such as milk or eggs. He contrasts this with Kodshei Mizbeach, where cheilev (fat) is inherently sacred and beitzat torim (dove eggs) are neither beneficial nor subject to me'ilah (as detailed in Me'ilah 3:5). This distinction is crucial: since Kodshei Bedek HaBayit consecrates the value, any growth or by-product deriving from that consecrated value partakes in its kedusha and is subject to me'ilah. For Kodshei Mizbeach, the gidulim are often chulin or have a different halachic status related to the cheftza's specific sacrificial purpose.

Tosafot Yom Tov: Tracing the Roots of Hakdasha Principles

Tosafot Yom Tov, in his comment on שסתם הקדשות לב"ה (Mishnah Temurah 7:2:1), delves into the source of the Mishna's assertion:

מתני' דלא כר' יהושע דמתני' ז' פ"ד דשקלים. גמ'. והתם אפסיק הלכתא כר"א. ובירושלמי דהתם אמר רבי יוחנן טעמא דר"א ואיש כי יקדיש את ביתו קדש לה' (שם כ"ז) מה אנן קיימין אם בבית דירה כבר כתיב (ויקרא כ״ז:ט״ו) ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו אלא כן אנן קיימין במקדיש נכסיו. מיכן שסתם הקדשות לבדק הבית. Our Mishna is not like Rabbi Yehoshua in Mishna 7 of Chapter 4 of Shekalim. The Gemara there rules the Halakha like Rabbi Eliezer. And in the Yerushalmi there, Rabbi Yochanan stated Rabbi Eliezer's reason: "And if a man sanctifies his house as holy to the Lord" (Leviticus 27:27) – concerning what are we dealing? If it is a dwelling house, it is already written (Leviticus 27:15) "And if he who consecrated it wishes to redeem his house." Rather, we are dealing with one who consecrates his possessions. From here, it is derived that unspecified consecrations are for Bedek HaBayit.

Tosafot Yom Tov's chiddush reveals the Mishna's underlying machloket and its resolution. The principle that סתם הקדשות לבדק הבית (unspecified consecrations are for Temple maintenance) is not universally accepted but rather reflects the view of R' Eliezer, which is the halacha. The Yerushalmi derives this from the redundancy in Vayikra 27:27, indicating that the verse refers to a general consecration of property, not merely a house for living, thereby establishing Bedek HaBayit as the default. This is a critical principle for defining the intent and legal status of hakdasha when its purpose is not explicitly stated.

Tosafot Yom Tov: The Nuance of Chal al Hakol

On חל על הכל (Mishnah Temurah 7:2:2), Tosafot Yom Tov delves deeper into the types of items subject to Kodshei Bedek HaBayit:

לשון הר"ב אפי' בבהמה טמאה ובאבנים ואין דרך לחבר אלו ביחד. ולשון הרמב"ם על בעלי מומין ובהמה טמאה. ולשון רש"י אפי' על האבנים ועל העצים. וקשיא לי דעצים בקדשי מזבח נינהו למערכה. ועיין במשנה ו' פ"ג דמעילה. ובגמרא חל על הכל לאתויי שפויי (וניבא) [ונבייה]. ופי' התוס' דמיירי במקדיש את החרש [פי' יער] דאי בגזברים שלקחו עצים אמרי' במעילה ס"פ ולד חטאת. דאין [מועלין] בשפויי ולא בנבייה והשתא צ"ל [פי'] מאי משא"כ בקדשי מזבח היכי שייך שפוי ונבייה בקדשי מזבח. וי"ל כגון מקדיש שני גזרי עצים למערכה ע"כ. The language of the Rav (Ovadiah Bartenura) is "even on impure animals and on stones," and it is not customary to link these together. The language of the Rambam is "on blemished animals and impure animals." And the language of Rashi is "even on stones and on wood." And it is difficult for me, for wood is Kodshei Mizbeach for the altar fire. And see Mishna 6 of Chapter 3 of Me'ilah. And in the Gemara, "chal al hakol" comes to include shavings (shefu'ei) and chips (nivya). And Tosafot explained that this refers to one who consecrates a forest, for if it is about treasurers who bought wood, it is stated in Me'ilah, end of chapter "Veiled Chatat," that one is not liable for me'ilah on shavings or chips. Now, it must be explained: how does "this is not so with Kodshei Mizbeach" (regarding shavings and chips) apply, as how are shavings and chips relevant to Kodshei Mizbeach? And it can be said, for example, one who consecrates two logs for the altar fire. End.

Tosafot Yom Tov's chiddush here is a masterclass in precise dikduk and lomdus. He notes the slight variations in Rishonim regarding the scope of chal al hakol (Rambam focuses on living creatures, Rashi and Bartenura include inanimate objects like wood and stones). His kushya regarding eitzim (wood) for Kodshei Mizbeach—they are for the ma'aracha (altar fire)—is incisive. The Gemara's inclusion of shefu'ei (shavings) and nivya (chips) under chal al hakol for Bedek HaBayit is puzzling when considering Kodshei Mizbeach. Tosafot resolve this by positing a case where wood is consecrated as Kodshei Mizbeach, e.g., "מקדיש שני גזרי עצים למערכה" (one consecrates two logs for the altar fire). This allows for a comparison: while the gidulim (shavings/chips) of Bedek HaBayit wood are subject to me'ilah, Kodshei Mizbeach wood, even if producing shavings, would not have its gidulim subject to me'ilah in the same way, as the cheftza (logs) is for burning, not its by-products.

Mishnat Eretz Yisrael & Yachin: Synthesizing the Principles

Mishnat Eretz Yisrael and Yachin provide a concise summary and further clarification of the Mishna's points, often echoing the Rishonim. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Temurah 7:2:1-2 reiterates:

שסתם הקדשות לבדק הבית – אם לא אמר במפורש שההקדש לקרבן הרי הוא לבדק הבית. הקדש בדק הבית חל על הכל – על כל דבר השווה ממון, גם אם אינו עולה למזבח. קודשי מזבח חלים רק על העולה למזבח (בהמות תמימות, שמן, יין, סולת וכיוצא באלו). ומועלין בגידוליהן – ולד חטאת, למשל, הוא חטאת (פ"ד מ"א), שכן גופו קדוש, ואילו ולד בדק הבית הוא חולין, שלא הוקדש אלא ערכו. ואין בהם הנייה לכהנים – כוהנים מקבלים חלק מהקרבן, כל קרבן לפי כלליו. בהקדשי בדק הבית אין להם חלק. Unspecified consecrations are for Bedek HaBayit – if one did not explicitly state that the consecration is for an offering, then it is for Bedek HaBayit. Kodshei Bedek HaBayit applies to all – to anything that has monetary value, even if it is not brought on the altar. Kodshei Mizbeach applies only to what is brought on the altar (unblemished animals, oil, wine, fine flour, and the like). And one is liable for misuse of their by-products – the offspring of a chatat, for example, is a chatat (Me'ilah 4:1), since its body is holy, whereas the offspring of Bedek HaBayit is non-sacred (chulin), as only its value was consecrated. And there is no benefit from them for the Kohanim – Kohanim receive a portion of the offering, each offering according to its rules. In Kodshei Bedek HaBayit, they have no share.

Yachin adds another dimension to chal al hakol and gidulim:

הקדש בדק הבית חל על הכל אפילו על בעל מום, בהמה טמאה או אבנים. או אפילו על דבר שאינו חשוב, שאין גופן אפשר שיתפס בקדושת המזבח, וכגון שהקדיש קורה לבדק הבית מועלין בשפאין הנושרין מהמעצד כשמחליקין הקורה. וכמו כן בהקדיש אילן לבדק הבית, מועלין גם בעלין שנושרין ממנו. משא"כ בהקדיש קורה או אילן לעצים שלמזבח, אין מעילה בהנך. מיהו בקנה גזבר קורה לבדק הבית, אין מועלין בשפאין. Kodshei Bedek HaBayit applies to all, even to a blemished animal, an impure animal, or stones. Or even to something insignificant, whose body cannot be imbued with the sanctity of the altar, such as one who consecrates a beam for Bedek HaBayit, one is liable for misuse (me'ilah) of the shavings that fall from the adze when smoothing the beam. And similarly, if one consecrates a tree for Bedek HaBayit, one is also liable for misuse of the leaves that fall from it. This is not the case if one consecrates a beam or a tree for wood for the altar, there is no me'ilah in those. However, if the treasurer bought a beam for Bedek HaBayit, there is no me'ilah in the shavings.

Yachin’s contribution deepens the distinction on gidulim by introducing the difference between hakdashat gufo (consecrating the object itself) and hakdashat dmav (consecrating its value). For Kodshei Bedek HaBayit, since the value is consecrated, even minute by-products like shavings or leaves carry kedusha and are subject to me'ilah. This is contrasted with Kodshei Mizbeach (even a beam for the altar fire) where the cheftza itself is consecrated for its specific purpose, not its incidental by-products. The final chiddush from Yachin—that if the gazbar (treasurer) bought the beam, its shavings are not me'ilah—highlights that the kedusha of gidulim applies only when the cheftza itself was consecrated, not merely acquired with hekdesh funds. This further underscores the nuance in what constitutes a "by-product" of hekdesh.

Friction

The most incisive kushya arises from Tosafot Yom Tov's analysis of חל על הכל in Mishnah Temurah 7:2:2, specifically regarding eitzim (wood) and their gidulim (shefu'ei and nivya - shavings and chips). The Kushya: The Mishna states והקדש בדק הבית חל על הכל, ומועלין בגידוליהן (Kodshei Bedek HaBayit applies to all, and one is liable for misuse of their by-products). The Gemara, according to Tosafot Yom Tov, clarifies that חל על הכל includes even shefu'ei and nivya when one consecrates a forest (חרש). The Mishna then contrasts this with Kodshei Mizbeach: אין כן בקדשי מזבח (this is not so with Kodshei Mizbeach). Tosafot Yom Tov asks: היכי שייך שפוי ונבייה בקדשי מזבח? "How are shavings and chips relevant to Kodshei Mizbeach?" After all, Kodshei Mizbeach are generally animals for sacrifice, or oil/wine for libations. If wood is consecrated for the altar, it's for the ma'aracha (altar fire), where the logs themselves are burned, not their shavings. Thus, if wood for Kodshei Mizbeach isn't typically used in a way that generates me'ilah-liable gidulim like shavings, what is the contrast אין כן בקדשי מזבח referring to? It seems like an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The Terutz: Tosafot Yom Tov offers a brilliant resolution: וי"ל כגון מקדיש שני גזרי עצים למערכה ע"כ. "It can be said, for example, one who consecrates two logs for the altar fire." This addresses the core difficulty by positing a scenario where wood is consecrated as Kodshei Mizbeach. Even in such a case, the contrast holds. For Kodshei Bedek HaBayit, if one consecrates a tree, its leaves and shavings are subject to me'ilah because the kedusha is on the value of the tree, which includes all its potential by-products. However, if one consecrates logs for the altar fire (Kodshei Mizbeach), the kedusha is on the cheftza (the logs) for the specific mitzvah of burning on the altar. Any shavings that fall off during preparation, before the logs are actually used for the altar, are generally chulin and not subject to me'ilah. The kedusha of Kodshei Mizbeach is intensely focused on the cheftza and its direct application to the mitzvah, whereas Kodshei Bedek HaBayit casts a wider net of kedusha over the monetary value and all that derives from it. This terutz clarifies that the chiluk is not about whether wood can be Kodshei Mizbeach, but about the nature of the kedusha and its application to gidulim. The Kodshei Mizbeach sanctity on wood is for its guf (body) to be consumed by fire, not for its incidental parts to be protected by me'ilah.

Intertext

1. S'tam Hakdashot L'Bedek HaBayit (Unspecified Consecrations for Temple Maintenance): This foundational principle finds its primary machloket and psak in Masechet Shekalim. Mishnah Shekalim 4:7 states: "רבי יהושע אומר סתם הקדשות לקרבנות, רבי אליעזר אומר סתם הקדשות לבדק הבית" (R' Yehoshua says unspecified consecrations are for offerings; R' Eliezer says unspecified consecrations are for Temple maintenance). Our Mishna in Temurah explicitly follows R' Eliezer's view, which is the established halacha (Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 7:2:1). This principle reflects a tension between prioritizing the direct performance of mitzvot (offerings) and ensuring the infrastructure that supports all mitzvot (Temple maintenance). The psak favors the latter, indicating a broad understanding of hakdasha as fundamentally contributing to the Temple's existence.

2. Me'ilah b'Giduleihen (Misuse of by-products): The specific halachot concerning gidulim and me'ilah are extensively discussed in Masechet Me'ilah. For example, Mishnah Me'ilah 3:5 states: "השוחט את התורים והבני יונה חטאת, ורחמים, ושלמים, ומועלין בהם. ובביציהם לא נהנין ולא מועלין" (One who slaughters doves or pigeon chicks as a sin offering, or a burnt offering, or a peace offering, one is liable for misuse of them. But their eggs are neither beneficial nor subject to misuse). This verse directly informs Rambam's and Tosafot Yom Tov's comments regarding beitzat torim. The distinction articulated in our Mishna – that Kodshei Bedek HaBayit gidulim are subject to me'ilah, unlike certain Kodshei Mizbeach gidulim – underscores that Bedek HaBayit kedusha is a kedushat damim (sanctity of value), encompassing all derivatives, whereas Kodshei Mizbeach kedusha is a kedushat haguf (sanctity of the object itself) for a specific ritual purpose, often leaving its gidulim as chulin or with a distinct halachic status.

Psak/Practice

The distinctions drawn in this Mishna are not merely academic; they form the bedrock of hilchot me'ilah and hakdasha. The core heuristic for understanding the difference between Kodshei Mizbeach and Kodshei Bedek HaBayit is whether the kedusha inheres in the cheftza (object) for a direct altar mitzvah or in its shaveh (value) for general Temple upkeep.

1. Nature of Kedusha: Kodshei Mizbeach involves kedushat haguf, where the physical item is designated for a sacred ritual. This means its temurah is also sacred, and its defilement or misuse is severely punished (karet). Its by-products, like milk or offspring, might have a separate halachic status, often chulin until explicitly consecrated, or they become holy in their own right (e.g., ולד חטאת). Kodshei Bedek HaBayit, conversely, is kedushat damim, where the item's monetary value is consecrated. This allows it to apply to any item, regardless of its suitability for the altar, and means me'ilah applies to its gidulim, as they represent an increase in the consecrated value.

2. Disposal Methods (Nikbarin vs. Nissarfin): The Mishna's detailed lists of items to be buried or burned establish practical halachot for the appropriate disposal of sacred or forbidden objects. The fundamental distinction between burning and burial often hinges on whether hana'ah (benefit) is permitted from the ashes/remains. Items whose kedusha is severe or whose prohibition is absolute (like basar bechalav) and from which hana'ah is forbidden even post-destruction are often buried to ensure no benefit is derived. Items whose kedusha is lesser, or whose prohibition is focused on consumption rather than absolute non-benefit (like chametz), are burned, and often, hana'ah from their ashes is permitted. The machloket between R' Yehuda and the Rabbis at the Mishna's conclusion, where R' Yehuda permits burning nikbarin if one wishes to be stringent, highlights that the Rabbis insist on the precise takanah not just for stringency, but to prevent potential kula (leniency) by ensuring no benefit is derived from ashes of items that require burial. This teaches us that halachic forms of destruction are not arbitrary but are tied to the underlying nature of the prohibition and the scope of permissible hana'ah.

Takeaway

This Mishna is a masterclass in halachic classification, revealing how the telos of consecration dictates the entire halachic profile of an object. The rigorous distinctions between Kodshei Mizbeach and Kodshei Bedek HaBayit, alongside the precise rules for disposal, underscore the profound respect for kedusha and the meticulous care required in handling sacred and forbidden items within the Temple system.

---

Footnotes:

1. Mishnah Temurah 7:2.
2. Mishnah Temurah 7:3.
3. Rambam, Commentary to Mishnah Temurah 7:2:1.
4. Ibid.
5. Tosafot Yom Tov, Commentary to Mishnah Temurah 7:2:1, s.v. שסתם הקדשות לב"ה.
6. Mishnah Shekalim 4:7.
7. Vayikra 27:27.
8. Vayikra 27:15.
9. Tosafot Yom Tov, Commentary to Mishnah Temurah 7:2:2, s.v. חל על הכל.
10. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Commentary to Mishnah Temurah 7:2:1-2, s.v. שסתם הקדשות לבדק הבית.
11. Yachin, Commentary to Mishnah Temurah 7:7:1, s.v. הקדש בדק הבית חל על הכל.
12. Tosafot Yom Tov, Commentary to Mishnah Temurah 7:2:2, s.v. חל על הכל.
13. Ibid.
14. Mishnah Shekalim 4:7.
15. Tosafot Yom Tov, Commentary to Mishnah Temurah 7:2:1, s.v. שסתם הקדשות לב"ה.
16. Mishnah Me'ilah 3:5.