Mishnah Temurah 7:4-5

Sugya Map

• Issue: The Mishnah delineates distinct categories of sanctity – קדשי מזבח (animals consecrated for the altar) versus קדשי בדק הבית (items consecrated for Temple maintenance) – outlining their unique halachot. It then pivots to a broader discussion of items requiring specific disposal, either burial (נקברים) or burning (נשרפים), and the underlying principles governing these methods, particularly issur hana'ah (prohibition of benefit).
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The practical disposal of various forbidden items (e.g., piggul, notar, orla, kilayim, patar chamor, she'ar nazir).
  • The question of deriving benefit from these items, even from their ashes or by-products after disposal.
  • The authority to alter methods of destruction (burning vs. burial) and the sevara (reasoning) behind the prohibition against doing so.
  • The precise status and disposal of specific items, such as the hair of a Nazirite in different states of purity.
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Temurah 7:4-5; Bamidbar 6:18; Mishnah Nazir 6:10; Mishnah Orlah 3:2; Gemara Nazir 45a; Gemara Chullin 85b; Gemara Kiddushin 58a; Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Temurah 7:4.

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah opens by contrasting two fundamental categories of hekdesh: "אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים בִּקְדֻשַּׁת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְאֵין בִּקְדֻשַּׁת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת..." (Mishnah Temurah 7:4) This section enumerates thirteen halachot exclusive to kodesh Mizbe'ach and four exclusive to bedek haBayit, establishing a clear conceptual bifurcation. The term "דברים" (things/elements) underscores the broad range of halachot under discussion, from temurah to karet liabilities.

The Mishnah then transitions, stating commonalities: "אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ, אֵין מְשַׁנִּין אוֹתָן מִקְּדֻשָּׁה לִקְדֻשָּׁה... וְאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ, אִם מֵתוּ, יִקָּבְרוּ." (Mishnah Temurah 7:5) The phrase "אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ" (these and these) serves as an inclusio, connecting back to both types of hekdesh for the halacha of burial upon death. This leads directly into the core discussion of disposal methods:

"וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּקְבָּרִים: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁהִפִּילוּ, יִקָּבְרוּ... שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה... וְהָעוֹפוֹת שֶׁל מְצֹרָע, וּשְׂעַר נָזִיר... וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר... בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב... וְחֻלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָעֲזָרָה." (Mishnah Temurah 7:5) The Mishnah then lists items for burning (נשרפים), including chametz on Pesach, terumah tme'ah, orlah, kilayim, and disqualified korbanot. A key dikduk nuance lies in the shift from the specific halachot of hekdesh to a broader catalogue of forbidden items, many of which are not hekdesh at all (e.g., basar b'chalav, chametz). The underlying commonality, however, is the issur hana'ah and the need for prescribed destruction. The Mishnah concludes with a principled dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis regarding altering disposal methods: "כָּל הַנִּקְבָּרִין, אֵין נִשְׂרָפִין. וְכָל הַנִּשְׂרָפִין, אֵין נִקְבָּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ וְלִשְׂרֹף אֶת הַנִּקְבָּרִין, הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵין מְשַׁנִּין מִמְּלָכָה לִמְלָכָה." (Mishnah Temurah 7:5) The phrase "מִמְּלָכָה לִמְלָכָה" (from one mode/work to another mode/work) implies a fundamental, perhaps even ontological, distinction in the prescribed destruction that cannot be arbitrarily overridden.

Readings

Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Temurah 7:4

The Rambam, commenting on "ואלו הן הנקברים קדשים שהפילו יקברו כו'", establishes a foundational principle: "כל אלו אסורים בהנאה וכבר בארנו הראיה על איסור כל אחד מהם בשני מקדושין והקבלה בידינו לקבור אותה."¹ His chiddush here is the explicit statement that all items listed as nikbarim share the common denominator of issur hana'ah (prohibition of benefit), and that burial is the received tradition for their disposal. He clarifies the case of she'ar nazir, stating: "ושער נזיר הנזכר כאן הוא שער נזיר טמא אבל שער נזיר טהור רוצה לומר כשיתגלח תגלחת טהרה דינו שישרף כמו שבארנו בששי מנזירות ואין הלכה כרבי שמעון."² This distinguishes between the hair of an impure Nazirite (buried) and a pure Nazirite (burned), referencing his explanation in Hilchot Nezirut 6:10, which cites Bamidbar 6:18 as the source for burning the pure Nazirite's hair. This precision is crucial, as the Mishnah simply states "ושער נזיר" without qualification. He also explicitly rules against Rabbi Shimon's lenient view that kodshei bedek haBayit can be redeemed if they die, asserting the halacha follows the Rabbis that they must be buried.

Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 7:4

The Tosafot Yom Tov (TYT) delves into several points, often clarifying Rashi or addressing ambiguities.

• On "יקברו": TYT clarifies that "הנפלים" (miscarried fetuses of kadashim) is the subject of burial, as explained by Rashi.³
• On "שור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה": TYT refers the reader to M. Kiddushin 2:9, where the prohibition of benefit for these items is detailed.⁴ This cross-reference underscores the pervasive nature of issur hana'ah for items requiring destruction.
• On "ושער נזיר": TYT notes: "לא אתפרש מנלן דנקבר וצ"ע. תוס' במשנה וגמרא דנזיר פ"ו דף מ"ה."⁵ He highlights the lack of an explicit biblical source for burying she'ar nazir tamei, prompting a need for further inquiry, and directs to Tosafot in Nazir 6:45a. He then explains the burning of she'ar nazir tahor from Bamidbar 6:18 ("ונתנתה על האש אשר תחת זבח השלמים") and addresses the apparent contradiction with M. Orlah 3:2, which states that if Nazirite hair is woven into a sack, the sack is burned. This is resolved by the Gemara in Nazir 45a, which distinguishes between the hair itself and an item made from it, and often between tamei and tahor hair.
• On "ופטר חמור": TYT again brings the contradiction from M. Orlah 3:2 regarding weaving patar chamor hair into a sack, which is burned. He quotes Rashi's resolution: "כאן בשק כאן בשער. ופירש"י בשק אי אמרת יקבר אתי אינש ומתהני מיניה הואיל ואינו כלה עד לאחר זמן. ומתני' בשער עצמו שלא נארג ואידי ואידי בטהור או טמא."⁶ Rashi distinguishes between the durable sack, which if buried might be retrieved for benefit, and the hair itself. TYT also notes the Yerushalmi's view via Rabbi Shmuel, and the Rambam's rejection of a specific Gemara resolution ("ציפרתא").
• On "וכן חיה כו'": TYT quotes Rav Ovadia Bartenura's statement that even though there's no gezeira (rabbinic decree) for a wild animal slaughtered in the courtyard to be burned, it is burned nonetheless, and calls it "מלתא בלא טעמא" (a statement without reason).⁷ This highlights a perceived lacuna in the halachic reasoning.

Rashash, Temurah 7:4

The Rashash, ever the astute textual critic, engages with the TYT's comments.

• On TYT's commentary regarding "ופטר חמור": The Rashash corrects TYT's quoting of Rashi's phrase "ואידי ואידי בטהור או טמא" as applying to patar chamor. He notes: "פשוט דזה לא קאי רק אשער נזיר דבפטר חמור מאי שיייטא דטומאה וטהרה גבי'."⁸ He correctly identifies that purity/impurity is irrelevant to a patar chamor, and thus this phrase must refer exclusively to she'ar nazir. He further suggests that the phrase "או טמא" should be amended to "בטמא לבד," meaning the Orlah Mishnah is referring specifically to she'ar nazir tamei when it speaks of burning the sack. This sharpens the distinction and provides a more consistent reading.
• On TYT's "מלתא בלא טעמא": The Rashash challenges TYT's assertion regarding chaya she'nischata ba'Azarah: "ונראה דאישתמיטתיה גמרא חולין (פ"ה ב') קדושין (נ"ח) ופרש"י ותוספות ע"ש."⁹ He points out that the Gemara in Chullin 85b and Kiddushin 58a, along with Rashi and Tosafot there, do provide a reason for burning such an animal, implying that TYT missed these sources. This highlights the importance of comprehensive Gemara review for understanding Mishnah.

Friction

The Knotty Question of She'ar Nazir and Patar Chamor: Burial vs. Burning

The most potent kushya arising from our Mishnah, amplified by the Rishonim, concerns the disposal of she'ar nazir (Nazirite hair) and patar chamor (firstborn donkey). M. Temurah 7:5 unequivocally lists both among the nikbarim (items to be buried). Yet, M. Orlah 3:2 states, "האורג מלא הסיט משער נזיר בשק ידלק השק. וכן פטר חמור..."¹⁰ – if these materials are woven into a sack, the sack is to be burned. This presents a stark contradiction: why the divergent disposal method for what appears to be the same underlying prohibited substance? Furthermore, what is the sevara that dictates burial for one form and burning for another? The TYT, as seen, explicitly grapples with this.

Unraveling the Contradiction: A Multi-faceted Terutz

The Gemara in Nazir 45a, as explained by Rashi and Tosafot Yom Tov, provides the primary terutzim, which can be broken down into several layers:

1. Distinction by Purity Status for She'ar Nazir: The Rambam¹¹ and TYT¹² (citing the Gemara) clarify that the Mishnah in Temurah refers to she'ar nazir tamei (hair of an impure Nazirite), which is indeed buried. The hair of a nazir tahor (pure Nazirite), however, is burned, as derived from the verse "ונתנתה על האש אשר תחת זבח השלמים" (Bamidbar 6:18). This resolves the biblical mandate for burning with the Mishnah's instruction for burying.

2. Distinction by Context: Substance vs. Durable Article: For both she'ar nazir (whether tamei or tahor in the case of the Orlah Mishnah's sack) and patar chamor, the Gemara (Nazir 45a) offers a crucial distinction, elucidated by Rashi and TYT. The Mishnah in Temurah refers to the hair or donkey itself (or its hair) as a raw, unprocessed item, which is buried. The Mishnah in Orlah, however, speaks of these materials when they are woven into a sack ("בשק"). Rashi explains the sevara: "בשק אי אמרת יקבר אתי אינש ומתהני מיניה הואיל ואינו כלה עד לאחר זמן."¹³ A sack, being a durable and useful item, if merely buried, might be retrieved by someone and used, thereby deriving benefit (hana'ah) from a prohibited object. Burning, on the other hand, ensures complete destruction and renders the item utterly unusable, thereby preventing any hana'ah. This terutz highlights that the disposal method is not merely about removal but about preventing hana'ah.

3. Rashash's Refinement of Rashi: The Rashash, addressing the TYT's quote of Rashi, further refines the understanding. He notes that Rashi's phrase "ואידי ואידי בטהור או טמא" (both in a state of purity or impurity) can only apply to she'ar nazir, as purity is irrelevant for patar chamor. He then suggests that the Orlah Mishnah (when referring to the sack) might specifically be discussing she'ar nazir tamei being burned when woven, indicating an additional stringency when a tamei item is processed into a usable article. This means that while she'ar nazir tamei is generally buried, if it takes on a durable form that could yield hana'ah, it might be subject to burning. This nuance further solidifies the principle of preventing hana'ah as the driving force behind the choice of destruction method.

In sum, the terutz is that the Mishnah in Temurah speaks of the raw, undurable form of the item, whose issur hana'ah is sufficiently enforced by burial. The Mishnah in Orlah speaks of these items when they are transformed into durable, usable articles (like a sack), where burial would not guarantee the prevention of hana'ah, thus necessitating the more absolute destruction of burning. Furthermore, for Nazirite hair, the purity status adds another layer of distinction.

Intertext

Bamidbar 6:18: The Divine Mandate for Burning Nazirite Hair

The verse, "וְלָקַח הַנָּזִיר אֶת רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ בְּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְלָקַח אֶת שְׂעַר רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ וְנָתַן עַל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּחַת זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים."¹⁴ (And the Nazirite shall take the hair of his Nazirite vow at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall take the hair of his Nazirite vow and place it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.) This verse is the foundational mekor (source) for the halacha that the hair of a Nazir tahor (pure Nazirite) is to be burned. The Rambam in his commentary to our Mishnah¹⁵ and in Hilchot Nezirut 6:10¹⁶ explicitly links this verse to the burning of she'ar nazir tahor, contrasting it with the burial of she'ar nazir tamei mentioned in our Mishnah. This highlights how the Mishnah, though often laconic, assumes a vast backdrop of biblical and oral tradition. The specific instruction to place it "על האש אשר תחת זבח השלמים" further connects the hair's burning to the sanctity of the sacrificial process, perhaps indicating a form of "elevation" or completion of the Nazirite's vow through fire.

Chullin 85b and Kiddushin 58a: The Sevara for Burning Chaya She'nischata ba'Azarah

Our Mishnah lists "וְחֻלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָעֲזָרָה" (non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard) as items that are buried, with Rabbi Shimon contending they should be burned, and the Rabbis agreeing regarding a wild animal ("חיה") slaughtered there. The Tosafot Yom Tov, as noted, initially calls the burning of the wild animal "מלתא בלא טעמא."¹⁷ However, the Rashash vigorously challenges this, directing us to Gemara Chullin 85b and Kiddushin 58a, which provide the sevara. In Chullin 85b, the Gemara discusses the halacha of chullin she'nischatu ba'Azarah. While initially the Gemara suggests they are buried, it then introduces the baraita of Rabbi Shimon regarding chaya and of (bird) slaughtered in the Azarah that they are burned. The underlying reasoning often revolves around gezeirah (rabbinic decree) due to machashat hekdesh (suspicion of consecrated status) or zilzul kodesh (disrespect for consecrated items). If non-sacred animals were merely buried after being slaughtered in the Azarah, it might lead people to treat actual kodshim with less reverence or to confuse them. Burning, a more definitive act of destruction typically reserved for disqualified korbanot, serves as a stronger deterrent and clearer demarcation. The Rashash's insistence on these Gemara sources underscores that even seemingly unsupported statements in the Mishnah often have deep roots in wider Talmudic discourse, which elucidates their rationale.¹⁸

Psak/Practice

The halachot derived from Mishnah Temurah 7:4-5 are foundational to Jewish law, particularly concerning the disposal of forbidden items and the principle of issur hana'ah.

1. Categorization of Sanctity and Disposal: The initial distinction between kodshei Mizbe'ach and kodshei Bedek haBayit underscores the hierarchical nature of sanctity in Halacha. The subsequent detailed lists of nikbarim (buried) and nisrafim (burned) are largely codified. For example, chametz on Pesach is burned (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 445:1). Orla and kilayim are disposed of according to their nature, either burned or buried (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 294:7 for orla; Yoreh De'ah 297:1 for kilayim).

2. The Principle of Issur Hana'ah: The Rambam's explicit statement that all nikbarim are assur b'hana'ah¹⁹ is a cornerstone. The choice between burial and burning is not arbitrary; it is meticulously designed to prevent any benefit from the prohibited item, even from its remnants. Burial for less durable items or those less likely to be retrieved, and burning for durable items or those that must be definitively obliterated to prevent hana'ah (like a sack woven from prohibited material, as discussed by Rashi²⁰) or to avoid zilzul kodesh (as for chullin she'nischatu ba'Azarah).

3. Inviolability of Destruction Method: The final ruling of the Rabbis, "אֵין מְשַׁנִּין מִמְּלָכָה לִמְלָכָה"²¹ (one may not change the method of destruction), is normative. This means one cannot choose to burn an item designated for burial, or vice-versa. The underlying sevara is that changing the method could inadvertently lead to a leniency or a misunderstanding of the issur hana'ah. For instance, burning an item meant for burial might suggest that its ashes are permitted for benefit, which they are not (Rambam, Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:12). This principle highlights a meta-psak heuristic: halachic procedures, even those seemingly pragmatic, often carry deeper symbolic or preventative significance that prohibits deviation.

4. Specific Cases: The distinction between she'ar nazir tamei (buried) and tahor (burned) is accepted halacha (Rambam, Hilchot Nezirut 6:10). The position of the Rabbis against Rabbi Shimon regarding kodshei bedek haBayit that die (they are buried, not redeemed) is also normative.

Takeaway

This Mishnah meticulously illustrates the intricate halachic taxonomy of consecrated items and prohibited substances, emphasizing that the prescribed method of destruction (burial or burning) is not merely practical, but an unalterable reflection of the item's inherent issur hana'ah and its unique halachic status. It's a testament to the granular precision with which Chazal approached even seemingly mundane acts of disposal.

---

¹ Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Temurah 7:4. ² Ibid. ³ Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 7:4 s.v. יקברו. ⁴ Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 7:4 s.v. שור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה. ⁵ Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 7:4 s.v. ושער נזיר. ⁶ Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 7:4 s.v. ופטר חמור. ⁷ Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 7:4 s.v. וכן חיה כו'. ⁸ Rashash, Temurah 7:4 s.v. בתוי"ט ד"ה ופטר חמור. ⁹ Rashash, Temurah 7:4 s.v. שם ד"ה וכן חיה כו'. ¹⁰ Mishnah Orlah 3:2. ¹¹ Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Temurah 7:4; Rambam, Hilchot Nezirut 6:10. ¹² Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 7:4 s.v. ושער נזיר. ¹³ Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 7:4 s.v. ופטר חמור (citing Rashi). ¹⁴ Bamidbar 6:18. ¹⁵ Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Temurah 7:4. ¹⁶ Rambam, Hilchot Nezirut 6:10. ¹⁷ Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 7:4 s.v. וכן חיה כו'. ¹⁸ Gemara Chullin 85b; Gemara Kiddushin 58a. ¹⁹ Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Temurah 7:4. ²⁰ Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 7:4 s.v. ופטר חמור (citing Rashi). ²¹ Mishnah Temurah 7:5.