Komentarz do Temura 1:7

הכל ממירין – All persons can cause the seizure of the substitute in holiness together with the original by exchanging a consecrated animal, that seizes the holiness of the exchange of an unconsecrated animal, if he said, “this is place of that one of something consecrated,” whether by the mouth of men or by the mouth of women, as for example, if woman exchanged/substituted it, it seizes the sanctity of exchange by her mouth. And the word "והכל" /”All” that is taught here includes someone who inherits that if he substituted/exchanged a sacrifice that someone bequeathed to him during his lifetime, his substitution is a substitution.

Introduction The first mishnah of Temurah explains who has the ability to substitute a non-sacred animal for an already dedicated one. Remember: when one does this, both animals become sacred. The substitution in essence fails to remove the holiness from the original animal but succeeds in making the substituted animal holy. So throughout this tractate whenever the mishnah says “can substitute” what it means is that the substituted animal is sacred. It does not mean that the original animal becomes non-sacred.

לא שאדם רשאי להמיר – because it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “[One may not exchange] or substitute another for it.”

All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. The owner of a sacrifice has the ability to substitute one animal for another. The mishnah immediately notes that what this means is that when one tries to make such a substitution the substituted animal becomes holy. It is not permitted to try to make such a substitution, and one who does try to do so is punished, for transgressing the negative commandment of “do not make a substitute” (Leviticus 27:10).

מומר – holiness was seized upon it and both of them (i.e., the formerly designated animal that was consecrated and the formerly unconsecrated animal that has just been substituted) are holy.

Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal]. People can substitute only sacrifices that they actually own. Israelites can substitute sacrifices that they bring and priests can substitute sacrifices that they bring on their own behalf, but not sacrifices that other people bring to them to offer.

וסופג את הארבעים – he is flogged [for transgressing] the negative commandment (Leviticus 27:10): “or substitute another for it,” and even though it is a negative commandment/prohibition that does not involve an action/לאו שאין בו מעשה. For we hold that any negative commandment/prohibition that does not involve an action we don’t flog that person except for false conspiring witnesses and [someone who] substitutes an animal for another or someone who curses another (or himself) using the name of God. But if you should say that this is a prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment [לאו הניתק לעשה](unless there is no possibility of fulfilling this positive commandment), as it is written (Leviticus 27:33): “[If he does make substitution for it,’ then it and its substitute shall both be holy,” but we don’t flog a person or a prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment. One can say, that it is different here, as the negative commandment includes more than the positive commandment within it, for everyone who says the word/speaks is whipped, but not every person who says the word does a substitution, for partners and the community do not do substitutions, for since the positive commandment is not equivalent to the negative commandment, it is not called a prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment.

Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10). Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners. When it comes to an asham (guilt offering) or a hatat (sin offering) brought to a priest by an Israelite all agree that priests cannot affect substitutes for them. Even though the priest does get to eat the meat of the asham and hatat, they are still not his when they are alive, and therefore he cannot substitute for them. The argument is over the first-born. Rabbi Akiva says that the first-born is like the asham and the hatat and the priest cannot substitute for them. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri responds that there is a difference. The priest receives the meat of the asham and hatat only once the animals have been sacrificed. He has no share in them when they are alive, and therefore he cannot substitute for them, because substitution must be done with a live animal. But when it comes to a first-born, the animal is given to the priests when it is alive, and therefore, if a priest substitutes for it, the substitution is effective. Rabbi Akiva responds with a midrash. The Torah compares the sanctity of the substitute with the sanctity of the original animal. Since the sanctity of the original animal has to occur with the original owners, so too the sanctity of the substitute must occur with the original owners.

הכהנים ממרימין את שלן – sacrifices that the Kohen set aside to offer for himself, but if he Kohen substituted for it, it causes the seizure of the substitute/exchange of the animal [to be holy].

לא בחטאת ולא באשם – that the Israelite gave him that he sacrifice/offer for him, but if the Kohen substituted another, he doesn’t do that substitution on his own, for he has no portion in it, but rather from the time of the offering of those sacrifices on the altar and onwards, he (i.e., the Kohen) is worthy of the flesh [of the animal], but a person does not cause the seizure of something which is not his (Tractate Temurah 9a).

ולא בבכור – that an Israelite gave him.

וכי מפני מה אין הכהנין ממירים בבכור – for doesn’t all of it belong to the Kohen and while it is alive, we give it to him, and the Israelite cannot gain atonement through it.

מה חטאת ואשם אין ממירין – because it is clearly obvious to us that he Kohanim do not take possession of them other than from offering up of the portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar and beyond.

מה לי אינו ממיר בחטאת ואשם – that is to say, it is the law that the Kohanim do not make a substitution with the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, etc.

והיה הוא ותמורתו – there is an analogy between substitution to something consecrated itself.

היכן קדושה חלה – on that which is dedicated to the Temple, in the house of the owners.

אף תמורה – does not take effect other than in the house of the owners, but in the home of the Kohen it does not take effect completely, therefore, a Kohen cannot substitute for a firstling. But an Israelites, if he made a substitution for it, it is seized in holiness, for it was in domain that sanctification occurs with the firstling. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

ממירין מן הבקר על הצאן וכו'- as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “if one does substitute one animal one for another, [the thing vowed and its substitute shall both be holy],” but sheep and male and female cattle are all called בהמה/animals.

One can substitute Herd animals for flock animals and flock animals for herd animals; Sheep for goats and goats for sheep; Males for females and females for males; Unblemished animals for blemished animals and blemished animals for unblemished animals, since Scripture says: “One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10). What is meant by “good for bad”? (1) Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish. One can substitute any type of animal for any other type of animal. The reason this works is that the substitution is not effective, so it doesn’t really matter if there is a match between the original and the substitute. One can even substitute a blemished (bad) animal for an unblemished (good) sacrifice. The mishnah clarifies that if the original sacrifice was blemished, the blemish must have occurred after it was sanctified. When one sanctifies a blemished animal, he is really sanctifying its value because the animal itself cannot be sacrificed, and when one sanctifies the value of an animal, it cannot be substituted for.

טוב ברע – [that which is] good of unconsecrated [animals], shall not be substituted for [that which is] bad of holy/sanctified [animals], [as it is written (Leviticus 27:10)]: “if one does substitute [one animal for another],”so we see that those animals with a blemish (i.e., unfit for the altar) can serve as substitutes. And on anything with a blemish can effectuate substitution, as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “either good for bad or bad for good,” that implies that an unconsecrated animal with a blemish with a pure sanctified animal.

One can substitute one [hullin animal] for two [consecrated animals], and two [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; One [hullin animal] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and a hundred [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; Rabbi Shimon says: one can only substitute one for one, as it says, “Then it and its substitute” (, just as “it” [the consecrated animal] is only one, so [its substitute] must also be only one. According to the first opinion, it doesn’t matter how many animals are substituted or substituted for. Since the substitution is ineffective, all of the original animals remain holy, and all of the substitute animals become holy. Rabbi Shimon derives from the verse that one can only do a one for one substitute. The Torah uses singular language to designate that both the original animal and the substitute animal must be singular. So if one tries to substitute many hullin animals for a sacred animal, the hullin animals do not become sacred.

ואיזהו טוב ברע – that is to say, what is something bad that is consecrated that effectuates substitution? All that its sanctification preceded its blemish. But if the blemish preceded its sanctification, that sanctification does not take effect upon it, substitution is not made, for it could have been written [in the Torah "לא ימיר טוב ברע" /he will not exchange good for bad or "רע [בו]"/that has something bad in it, and it would imply [או רע] /[or something bad], he should not exchange not with something good and not with something bad, the final, טוב/good that the All-Merciful wrote (Leviticus 27:10), why do I need it? To tell you that it should be good from its outset, that at the time that it is sanctified, it was pure and again a blemish befell it, one can do a substitution; if it was bad from the outset, that a blemish befell it prior to its being sanctified, one doesn’t do a substitution.

מרימין אחד – of an unconsecrated animal with two sanctified [animals], as for example, that he said, “this one is in place of those.”

ושנים – [and two] unconsecrated [animals for one that is sanctified, as for example, these will be in place of this one.

מה הוא מיוחד – as it is written (Leviticus 27:10]: “the thing [vowed and its substitute shall both be holy].”

אברים בעוברים – limbs of unconsecrated [animals] with consecrated fetuses. For if he said: “may the foot of this animal be substituted/in exchange for the sanctified fetus that is in the womb of that animal,” the sanctity does not apply upon the limb.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who tries to substitute either parts of an animal or embryos for a whole dedicated animal, or vice versa.

ולא עוברים באברים – for if he said: “this fetus that is inside of this unconsecrated animal will be substituted for the foot of this sanctified animal, the fetus is not holy.

One cannot substitute limbs [of hullin] for [dedicated] embryos; Or embryos [of hullin] for [dedicated] limbs; Or embryos and limbs [of hullin] for whole [dedicated animals]; Or whole [animals of hullin] for them. According to the first opinion, one can substitute only whole animals for other whole animals. One cannot substitute parts or embryos for whole animals, or whole animals for parts or embryos that have been dedicated to the Temple.

ולא עוברים ואברים – of unsanctified [animals] with sanctified peace-offerings.

Rabbi Yose says: limbs [of hullin] can be substituted for whole [dedicated animals], but whole [animals of hullin] cannot be substitute for them. According to Rabbi Yose if a person says, “This limb is in place of this dedicated animal,” the limb does become holy as a substitute. Once the limb is holy its holiness “spreads” over the entire animal and the entire animal is holy.

ולא שלמים – [peace-offerings] of unsanctified [animals] [substituted for] fetuses and/or limbs of a holy [animal].

Rabbi Yose said: When it comes to dedicating animals, is it not true that if one says: “This foot shall be an olah (a burnt,” the whole [animal] becomes an olah? Similarly, if one says, “This foot shall be in place of this [whole dedicated animal],” the whole [animal] should become a substitute in its place! Rabbi Yose explains his opinion by analogizing it to a case where a person dedicates the limb of an animal. In such a case the entire animal becomes an olah (assuming that is what he said it would be). So too, when one tries to substitute a limb for an entire animal, the entire substitute animal becomes holy.

ממירין אברים בשלימים – he said, “may the foot of this unconsecrated animal be in substitution/exchange for this holy animal,” the exchange takes effect on the limb and it spreads throughout the animal, it is totally exchanged/substituted and offered.

ולא שלימים בהן – for there is no power/strength in one limb of a holy animal to perform an exchange/substitution.

והלא במוקדשין – at the beginning of the sanctification when he says, “the foot of this [animal]is a burnt offering.”

כולה עולה – as we derive from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 27:9): “any such that may be given to the LORD shall be holy,” when he says, “that it shall be holy,” to include all of it. But the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher.

אין המדומע מדמע אלא לפי חשבון (that which became subject to the law of Terumah through an admixture, can affect a second mixture only in proportion (i.e., according to the quantity of real Terumah/heave-offering contained therein) – a SEAH of Terumah that fell in less than one-hundred of unconsecrated produce and it became דמע/subject to the law of Terumah, and it fell from this mixture to an other place, we require one-hundred from the unconsecrated produce according to what there is of Terumah in this SEAH of this mixture, but we don’t require one-hundred SEAH corresponding to of all of that SEAH of the mixture of [consecrated] Terumah and unconsecrated produce, for it is not considered all Terumah to prohibit the secondary unconsecrated produce.

Introduction Today’s mishnah has nothing to do with temurah. It is here because it is similar to tomorrow’s mishnah, which does have some connection to our tractate.

ואין המחומץ מחמץ אלא לפי חשבון (that which contains leaven does not impart the status of leaven [to something else] only by due measure) – unconsecrated started dough that became leavened in leaven of heave-offering, it is entirely forbidden to foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim). But if there fell from that started dough into another unconsecrated started dough and it became leavened, it does not forbid it other than according to the due measure [in the prescribed proportion] of the leavened heave-offering that it became combined with, and it does not forbid the last [batch] other than if there fell in from the first [batch] such a large measure that there is in the leaven of the Terumah combined in it enough I order to leaven the last [batch] without the combination/mixture of the unconsecrated produce that was combined with heave-offering.

[Anything which has become subject to the law of terumah through] a mixture can affect a [second] mixture only in proportion. If terumah and hullin (non-sacred things) become mixed up with, for instance, terumah wine and hullin wine, and there are 100 parts hullin for every part terumah, one can simply remove one part terumah, and the remainder becomes hullin. However, if there is less than a 100 to 1 ratio, the mixture, called “meduma” has to be treated with the stringency of terumah. It can only be eaten or drunk by priests. If this “meduma” mixture becomes mixed in with other hullin, it only affects the hullin according to the amount of terumah that is in the meduma. As long as there are 100 parts hullin for every part terumah in the “meduma” mixture, the entire mixture can be treated as hullin. We should note that it is forbidden to intentionally mix meduma with more hullin in order to nullify the presence of the terumah. Our mishnah refers to a case where this occurs accidentally.

ואין המים שאובים פוסלים את המקוה אלא לפי חשבון – a Mikveh/ritual bath which has in it twenty-one SEAH of rain water, we fill up on the shoulder nineteen SEAH (i.e., a SEAH is equal to 144 egg bulks) and we conduct the water to the Mikveh though a channel (see Talmud Temurah 12b) and they are ritually pure. Bug even though three LOG (i.e., a LOG is equal to six egg bulks) of drawn water disqualify the Mikveh/ritual bath, the drawing of the water is kosher when it is done when conducting the water through a channel and there was there at first most of the measurement of the Mikveh which is twenty-one SEAH of rain water, and that is according to the due measure, for the drawn waters do not disqualify the Mikveh when they are accomplished by conducting the water through a channel, unless they are twenty SEAH of drawn water, as there isn’t a majority from rain water in the Mikveh. Such appears to be the explanation of this Mishnah, and so I have explained in the Tractate Terumah (Chapter 5, Mishnah 6), in the chapter, “a SEAH of Terumah,” but in the Gemara (Tractate Temurah 12b) this is its explanation, according to the measurement of the utensils, for three LOGS of drawn water do not disqualify the Mikveh until they fell from three utensils or less into the Mikveh, but if there fell from four utensil, or more, they do not disqualify, and this is what it means when it says that drawn water does not disqualify the Mikveh other than according to the due measure, for they calculate the utensils from which fell the LOGIM of water into the Mikveh and they count them, if they are three utensils or less, they invalidate the Mikveh. But if from three utensils and higher, they do not disqualify it. And our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Yosi ben Honi, for he holds that they LOGIM that fell from more than three utensils do not disqualify [the Mikveh], but it is not the Halakh.

[Dough] leavened [through terumah] can affect [other dough] only in proportion. If hullin dough is leavened by terumah sour dough, the hullin dough must be treated as terumah. However, if some of this dough falls into more hullin dough, it causes the new dough take on the status of terumah only if there was enough terumah in it to leaven the new dough. This is basically the same principle we saw in section one, just in reference to dough.

Drawn water can disqualify a mikweh only in proportion. If a mikveh has less than 40 seahs of water, and three logs of drawn water fall into it, the mikveh is disqualified. If, however, these three logs of drawn water became mixed in with water that was not drawn, water that can be used for a mikveh, then they disqualify the mikveh only according to amount of drawn water that is in the mixture. To summarize: in all of these cases, there is a mixture of problematic substances (terumah or drawn water) and non-problematic substances. If this mixture is mixed in with something else that is not problematic (hullin or a mikveh) we only consider the problematic parts of the mixture when determining the status of what it fell into.

אין מי חטאת נעשים מי חטאת אלא עם מתן אפר – at the time when one places in it the ashes [of the red heifer] it becomes the purification waters, therefore, we require that there will be first water in a utensil and afterwards the ashes. But if he placed the ashes first and afterwards the water, it is disqualified, for there was no water there at the time of the placing of the ashes that it would become purification water, and furthermore, it does not become purification water. And there is Scripture as it is written (Numbers 19:17): “and fresh water shall be added to them in a vessel,” that implies that the water is placed in the utensil and not to the ashes, but rather, “ונתן עליו “/shall be added to them – to warn that after he puts in [the ashes] on the water, he should combine them well with his finger and return the water that is underneath it upon it.

Hatat water does not become hatat water except with the putting of ashes [in the water]. “Hatat water” is the water mixed in the ashes of the red heifer that is used in the purification ritual. The water does not become hatat water until the ashes are put into them. This also can mean that if there is some water that already has the ashes mixed in, and then more water falls in, they must again put more ashes in so that the new water can become “hatat water.”

אין בית הפרס עושה בית הפרס (an area in which there uncertainty concerning the location of a grave or a corpse does not make [another field into] a grave area) – a field that was plowed as a grave, if he returned and plowed a grave area and fields that are around it, we don’t presume that are the rest of the fields is like a grave area and to state that the plough drags the bones to the fields that surround it, that one grave is not made into a grave area, but rather, all that entire field that lost the grave and it is not known where it is, with the turn of the fullness of the plough to here and another turn of the fullness of the plough to there in the same manner that it the people of the value are accustomed to plough their fields, if to the east or west or north or south, for perhaps one of its two heads was the grave and from there the bone rolled into one of the fields that is from this side or that, but the Sages estimated that with the turn of the fullness of the plough it is appropriate for the bones to roll by the plough, more not. And how much is the turn of the fullness of the plough? One-hundred cubits.

A doubtful graveyard cannot make another doubtful graveyard. A field in which there was a grave and then was plowed becomes a “doubtful graveyard.” This status extends for 100 cubits from where the grave was. However, if the “doubtful graveyard” is then plowed again, it does not make another doubtful graveyard.

ואין תרומה אחר תרומה – partners who separated Terumah one after the other, the first Terumah/heave-offering is not Terumah, for since the second [person] went back and separated Terumah, he releaved his intention that the first Terumah was not satisfactory to him, and it was for him that the first [person] separated Terumah without the knowledge of his fellow [partner], and similarly, the second. But our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Akiva, and it is not the Halakha. But rather, if the first [person] separated Terumah according to the [appropriate] measure which is one from fifty, the heave-offering of the second [person] is not Terumah. But if the first [person] only separated in a selfish/illiberal manner, as for example, that he separated at one out of sixty, the second person’s heave-offering is Terumah.

Nor can terumah be made after terumah. If one separates terumah from his produce, and then separates terumah a second time, the second batch of terumah is not terumah.

ואין תרומה עושה תמורה – as Scripture (Leviticus 27:33) stated: “then it and its substitute shall both be holy: [it cannot be redeemed],” and not the heave-offering of his heave-offering.

A substitute cannot make another substitute. If one has an animal that is holy because he attempted to substitute it for another animal, and then he tries to substitute another animal for the substitute, the second substitute is not holy. That is what the mishnah means when it says, “A substitute [that has already been made holy] does not make another substitute.

ולא הולד עושה תמורה – as Scripture stated (Leviticus 27:33): “then it,” it and not the offspring.

The offspring of a dedicated animal cannot make a substitute. Rabbi Judah says: the offspring of a dedicated animal can make a substitute. They said to him: a dedicated animal can make a substitute, but neither the offspring of a dedicated animal nor a substitute can make a substitute. The sages debate whether when one substitutes an animal for the offspring of a dedicated animal, the substitute is holy. The sages say that it is not, for they hold that only the originally dedicated animal can make another animal into a substitute. Rabbi Judah expands the laws of substitutes and holds that even the offspring can make a substitute.

רבי יהודה אומר הולד עושה תמורה (an offspring [of a consecrated animal] does produce a substitute) – as Scripture stated (Leviticus 27:33): "ותרומתו יהיה-קדש" “[and its substitute] shall [both] be [holy],” to include the offspring. But the Rabbis hold "יהיה"/”shall be” – to include something done inadvertently as something done willfully, for if he thought [to substitute] black [and he substituted] the white, that regarding Holy Things, he did not sanctity, because it was consecration by error, but regarding substitution, he sanctified it. And the Halakha is according to the Sages. But however, even though substitutions [for a substitute] do not produce a substitute, we hold that we substitute and we go back and substituted with one animal, and even several animals for one sanctified animal, whether at one time or one after the other, all of them are substitutions.

שלא נאמר אלא בבהמה – but if he exchanged, he should exchange/substitute an animal/בהמה for an animal/בהמה.

Introduction This mishnah provides some limits to the applicability of the law of substitutes.

קדשי בדק הבית אין עושין תמורה – for concerning exchange/substitution, it is written (Leviticus 27:9): “(If [the vow concerns] any animal that may be brought) as an offering [to the LORD],” and the Holy Things for the repair of the Temple house are not called an offering/קרבן .

Birds and menahot do not make a substitute, since it only says “a beast” (Leviticus 27:10). The laws of substitutes apply only to beasts, cows, goats and sheep. They do not apply to bird offerings or meal offering (menahot).

אמר ר' שמעון והלא המעשר בכלל היה – Rabbi Shimon holds that the Holy Things for the repair of the Temple are called קרבן/an offering, therefore, we don’t derive it that it produces a substitute other than from here.

A congregation or partners cannot make a substitute, since it says: “He shall not substitute for it” an individual can make a substitute but a congregation or partners cannot make substitute. The laws of substitutes apply only to sacrifices brought by individuals and not to those brought by the congregation or to those brought by partners. This is derived from the singular language used by the Torah.

But isn’t the tithe part of this category, in the category of all the Holy Things that produce a substitute/exchange?

One cannot make a substitute with [objects] dedicated for Temple repairs. Rabbi Shimon said: Now is not tithe included [in the laws of substitutes]? Then why was it specially mentioned? In order to make a comparison with it: tithe is a private offering, it thus excludes congregational offerings. And tithe is a dedication for the altar, it thus excludes offerings dedicated for Temple repairs. If someone has an animal that is dedicated not to be a sacrifice but to be sold for profit for Temple repairs, that animal cannot make a substitute. Rabi Shimon derives this midrashically from the comparison of the two sets of verses that deal with substitutes in Leviticus 27. The first set deals with regular animals and the second set (vs. 32-33) deals with tithes. Why would the Torah mention tithes, asks Rabbi Shimon, if not to teach us some extra information that we could not have learned from the first group of verses? Rabbi Shimon answers that these verses are there to compare animal tithes with other sacrifices that can make a substitute. Just as tithes are brought in order to offer them as sacrifices, and not to go to Temple repairs, so too only animals brought to be offered can make a substitute. Similarly, just as tithes are brought by individuals, so too only sacrifices brought by individuals can make substitutes, and not those brought by the congregation.

ולמה יצא – as it is written regarding it that it makes a substitution, as it is written regarding a tithe (Leviticus 27:33): “He must not look out for good as against bad, or make substitution for it.”

מה מעשר קרבן יחיד – and one performs an exchange [with an individual sacrifice], even every sacrifice/offering of an individual one can make a substitution.

יצאו קרבנות צבור – and those of partners, but the tithe is not have partnership, as we learned in the last chapter of [Tractate] Bekhorot [56b] (it is listed incorrectly in the commentary of Bartenura itself) (Numbers 18:15): “[The first issue of the womb of every being, man or beast, that is offered to the LORD] shall be yours/יהיה לך “ – but not in partnership.

יצאו קרבנות בדק הבית – and even though they are called an offering/קרבן – as it is written (Numbers 31:50): “So we have brought as an offering to the LORD such articles of gold as each of us came upon,” it is not the offering of the altar like the tithe. But the Sages stated above that the Holy Things for the Repair of the Temple house are not called an offering/קרבן, as they hold, assuming that it they are called the “offering of the LORD/קרבן ה' “(see Numbers 31:50), it is not called a sacrifice to God/קרבן לה' like the rest of the sacrifices of the Altar.