Temurah 7:2 - 7:3

חל על הכל (apply to anything) – and even to an impure animal and to stones.

ומועלין בגידוליהן (laws of sacrilege apply to that produced by them/what has grown from them)– see Tractate Meilah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 5) – an individual who sanctifies an animal for Temple maintenance commits sacrilege through its milk, and if he dedicated a chicken, he commits sacrilege through use of its eggs, which is not the case regarding that which is sanctified to the Temple, for the milk of sanctified things and the eggs of turtle-doves one does not not derive benefit nor does not commit sacrilege.

ואין בהם הנאה לכהנים – but the Holy Things of the Altar they (i.e., the priests) have of them, as the meat is eaten by the Kohanim and there are those of them who benefit from the hide [of the animal, except for the tithe of cattle and the Passover offering].

אין משנין אותן מקדושה לקדושה – the Holy Things of the Altar one should not make peace-offerings into burnt-offerings nor burnt-offerings into peace-offerings, and similarly, something sanctified for the maintenance of the hall containing the golden altar should not change them to the maintenance of the altar, and everything in a similar manner.

ומקדישין אותן – it refers to things dedicated to the altar.

הקדש עילוי (consecration of value to be applied to the repair/maintenance of the Temple) (see Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 8, Mishnah - they sanctify – in the case of of animals sanctified for the altar – their estimate value as a sanctified thing – see Talmud Temurah 32a) – as for example, if he said regarding a burnt-offering, lo, this is for the maintenance of the Temple, they offer it up on the altar in funds, according to what he has in it and gives it to the Treasurer as it is taught in [Tractate] Arakhin [Chapter 8, Mishnah 7]: “A person declares HEREM/renounces things he has declared holy [whether they are in the status of the Most Holy Things or Lesser Holy Things], if it is a vow, he gives its value; if it is a freewill offering, he gives what it is wroth to him,” meaning to say, if this animal was a vow, as, for example, that he said: “This will be a burnt-offering upon me,” and he separated this for his vow, since if it died or was stolen, he is liable for its surety (i.e., property which may be resorted to in the event of non-payment), if its found, all of it is his, and he gives all of its monetary value to proerty set apart for the Temple or the priest to the Kohen. And the same law applies also if he designated it to the upkeep of the Temple. If he made a freewill donation, that he said, “this will be a burnt-offering,” that if it died, he is not liable for its surety, it is found that he had no portion in it other than the benefit of discretion that he is permitted to take a small thing in order that he would give this burnt-offering to the Kohen who is the son of his daughter, and that benefit of discretion he gives to the maintenance of the Temple.hHHh

ומחרימין אותן – if he renounced (i.e., put into HEREM) the Holy Things of the Altar, he gives to the Kohen the , he gives to the Kohen the valuation as has been explained (see Tractate Temurah 32a). But the Holy Things for the maintenance of the Temple that he designated whether for the Holy Things of the Altar or those renounced things of the priests, he didn’t do anything, for they are not his, for a person does not sanctify/dedicate something that is not his. This is what Maimonides wrote.

ואם מתו – the animals that are the Holy Things of the Altar, even after they suffered a blemish, but still had not been redeemed.

יקברו – and he is not able to redeem them and/or to feed them to the dogs. And een the one wo holds that we redeem the Holy Things to feed them to dogs, these words apply when it was torn, for it is possible for it (i.e., the animal) to be placed (before the priest) and evaluated (see Leviticus 27:11-12), but when it died where it is impossible to fulfill with them placing them (before the priest) and his evaluating them, we don’t redeem them.

ר' שמעון אומר קדשי בדק הבית אם מתו יפדו – for Rabbi Shimon holds that it doesn’t say “he placed before the priest and evaluated” (see Leviticus 27:11-12 –“the animal shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall assess it”) other than Holy Things of the Altar, but not Holy Things for the maintenance of the Temple. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.