Commentary for Bava Metzia 108:11
אמר ליה רב אשי לרבינא בהמה טמאה בתחילת הקדש איתא
they involve no trespass offering. But what is 'original dedication' intended to exclude? [Do you mean that] only original <i>hekdesh</i> involves a trespass offering, but not final <i>hekdesh</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the term 'final hekdesh' v. n. 5. Surely 'final hekdesh' too involves trespass! ');"><sup>31</sup></span> perhaps you said it in reference to the fifth, and in agreement with R. Joshua b. Levi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By 'trespass', not the trespass offering for making use of hekdesh is meant, but the fifth which must be added on redemption, the fifth being called 'trespass' because there too (sc. when hekdesh is secularly used) a fifth must be added, as stated above, Lev. XXII, 14; thus he asked the Tanna whether he meant that no fifth was to be added in redeeming substitute hekdesh. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> — Even so, he replied, that is what I meant. R. Ashi said to Rabina: Is an unclean animal capable only of original <i>hekdesh</i>,
Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 108:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.