the treasurers alone preventing the offering from being sacrificed. In other words, the owner of an offering must stand over the animal when it is sacrificed, and in the case of a burnt offering that was associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance, the Temple treasurer is the owner. Evidently, Ulla maintains that the offering does not require an appraisal for a consecration of its value before it may be sacrificed, despite the fact that it was associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance.

The Gemara responds: Actually, this halakha, that one who associates an animal consecrated for the altar with a consecration for Temple maintenance must give the value of the animal for Temple maintenance, was instituted by the Sages; by Torah law, there is only the delay attributed to the treasurers. This is also the opinion of Ulla. And as for the verse that Ulla cites as a source for the halakha that an animal consecrated for the altar can be associated with dedications to priests (Leviticus 27:28), it is mere support for this rabbinic law. The verse actually comes to teach that one is subject to the halakhot of misuse in the case of dedications to priests.

The Gemara asks: If the term in the verse ''every dedicated item'' serves to teach only that one is subject to the halakhot of misuse in the case of dedications to priests, why does one need this verse at all? After all, an expression of most holy is written in the verse, as it states: ''Is most holy unto the Lord,'' and the halakhot of misuse apply to all sanctified items.

The Gemara rejects this claim: And according to your reasoning, that liability for misuse in the case of dedications to priests is derived from the term ''is most holy,'' then consider that which Rabbi Yannai said: The halakhot of misuse are written explicitly in the Torah only in the case of one who misuses a burnt offering, as it is stated with regard to the guilt offering brought for misuse: ''If anyone commit a trespass, and sin through error, in the holy items of the Lord'' (Leviticus 5:15). The verse indicates only that one is liable for misuse of burnt offerings, which are exclusively for the Lord. But the fact that the halakhot of misuse apply to a sin offering or a guilt offering, from which the priests or owners partake, is derived only from that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught.

This is as it is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states at the conclusion of the passage discussing the sacrifice of a peace offering: ''And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar…all the fat is the Lord’s'' (Leviticus 3:16). The word ''all'' serves to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the halakhot of misuse; all the more so is it the case that offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., a sin offering or guilt offering, are included.

The Gemara concludes its reasoning: Why, then, do I need a verse to include these offerings? After all, an expression of ''most holy,'' is written with regard to a sin offering and guilt offering. Rather, it must be that even though ''most holy'' is written with regard to them, nevertheless, a verse is required to include them in the halakhot of misuse. With regard to dedications as well, even though ''most holy'' is written with regard to them, a verse is required to include them in the halakhot of misuse.

§ The Gemara earlier cited a statement of Ulla with regard to one who associates a burnt offering with a consecration for Temple maintenance. The Gemara discusses the matter itself: One who consecrates a burnt offering for Temple maintenance has only the delay attributed to the treasurers alone preventing the offering from being sacrificed. The Gemara raises an objection to this opinion from a baraita: In the case of one who consecrates a burnt offering for Temple maintenance, it is prohibited to slaughter it until it is redeemed.

The Gemara explains that this baraita is referring to the halakha by rabbinic law; by Torah law, a burnt offering cannot be consecrated by means of a consecration of value, and only the presence of the treasurers is required for it to be sacrificed. The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita teaches: If he transgressed and slaughtered it before redeeming it what he did is done and he is not required to redeem it. But if the burnt offering must be redeemed by Torah law, how can the baraita state that what he did is done? Evidently, the burnt offering is redeemed by rabbinic law.

The Gemara asks: Rather, what will you say? Will you say that the baraita is referring to the halakha by rabbinic law? If so, say the last clause of the baraita: And anyone who derives benefit from this burnt offering misuses consecrated property on two counts of misuse, one for deriving benefit from an animal consecrated for the altar and one for deriving benefit from an item consecrated for Temple maintenance. But if the burnt offering is consecrated with a consecration of value by rabbinic law, why does one who derives benefit from this burnt offering misuse consecrated property on two counts of misuse? The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: And if the consecration of value of this burnt offering was by Torah law, it is fit to be liable for misuse on two counts of misuse.

§ The mishna cites a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis with regard to animals consecrated for the altar and animals consecrated for Temple maintenance. The Rabbis hold that if they died and were not redeemed, they cannot be redeemed and they must be buried, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that this is the halakha only with regard to animals consecrated for the altar; animals consecrated for Temple maintenance can be redeemed.

With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to the Rabbis, both animals consecrated for the altar and animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, as it states in the Torah with regard to the redemption of consecrated animals: ''And if it be any unclean animal, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad; as you the priest values it, so shall it be'' (Leviticus 27:11–12). Any consecrated animal that cannot be stood before the priest, e.g., one that died, is not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and must be buried.

And Reish Lakish says: According to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, as that verse is discussing animals consecrated for Temple maintenance. Accordingly, if an animal consecrated for Temple maintenance died and was not redeemed, it must be buried without redemption. But animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, as the verse is not referring to such animals. Accordingly, if they died they are redeemed.

The Gemara adds: And both this one and that one, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, agree that according to Rabbi Shimon, animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and therefore if they died they are redeemed; and animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and if they died they are not redeemed. And according to both Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, everyone agrees, both the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, that if one consecrated for the altar an animal that was blemished from the outset, the animal was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and it may be redeemed if it died.

The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of Reish Lakish: We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that died can be redeemed. The Gemara analyzes this statement of Rabbi Shimon: Granted, according to the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that according to the Rabbis, both this and that, i.e., animals consecrated for the altar and for Temple maintenance, were included in the halakha of standing and valuation and if they died they are not redeemed; this is why it was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to explain that specifically in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that died, they can be redeemed. This serves to emphasize that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis only with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, not those consecrated for the altar.

But according to the explanation of Reish Lakish, that the Rabbis hold that only animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may not be redeemed if they died, why must Rabbi Shimon explain that he is referring to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance? Let him say simply: If they died they can be redeemed, and it would be obvious that he is speaking of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, for if he were referring to animals consecrated for the altar, even the Rabbis agree that they may be redeemed.

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you that Rabbi Shimon did not know what the first tanna said, i.e., he was unsure whether the statement of the first tanna, the Rabbis, that the animal must be buried without redemption, is referring to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance or to animals consecrated for the altar. And therefore, this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying to the first tanna: If your statement is referring to animals consecrated for the altar, that they are included in the halakha of standing and valuation and must be buried if they died without redemption, then I concede to you. By contrast, if your statement is referring to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, then I disagree with you and rule that if they died they can be redeemed.

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The verse states: ''And if it be any non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it'' (Leviticus 27:11–12). The Sages teach that the verse is speaking of blemished animals, that they can be redeemed. The verse indicates that one redeems a blemished animal by means of standing and valuation.

The baraita continues: Do you say that the verse is speaking of blemished animals; or perhaps it is referring only to a non-kosher animal, and it is teaching that a non-kosher animal that was consecrated for Temple maintenance is redeemed through standing and valuation. The baraita answers: When it says later in that passage: ''And if it be of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation'' (Leviticus 27:27), a non-kosher animal is thereby stated as subject to redemption.