Commentary for Menachot 201:17

אמר רבי אושעיא שמעתי פיגל במנחה לרבי שמעון אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין דתנן הערלה וכלאי הכרם

became] unclean they may be redeemed, but [if they are] clean they may not be redeemed. And so said R'Oshaia, [If they became] unclean they may be redeemed, [but if they are] clean they may not be redeemed. Some there are who say that R'Oshaia said, Even though [they are] clean they may be redeemed. R'Eleazar says. All [meal-offerings] may be redeemed if [they have become] unclean, and if [they are] clean they may not be redeemed, excepting the tenth part of an ephah of the sinner's meal-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This may be redeemed even though still clean. According to R. Gershom: it may not be redeemed at all even though unclean.');">²²</span> since the Torah has stated [in the one case] from his sin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 6, 10.');">²³</span> and [in the other] for his sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13. For the offences enumerated in Lev. V, 1-4 a rich man must bring for a sin-offering a she-lamb or a she-goat, a poor man two doves, and one in extreme poverty a meal-offering. But it is to be observed that concerning the first two Scripture uses the expression, u,tyj ivfv uhkg rpfu And the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin, whilst concerning the latter Scripture says, u,tyj kg ivfv uhkg rpfu And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin. From these variations of expression the Rabbis derived the law that if a rich man sinned and set apart money for his animal-offering and then became poor, he has only to bring doves or a meal-offering from u,tyjn a part of the money set aside (i.e., from the money set apart for his sin) and the remainder he may retain for himself. And on the other u,tyj kg hand, if a poor man sinned and set apart money for his meal-offering and then became rich, he must add to the money set aside (i.e., for, in addition to, the money set apart for his sin) , and bring the offering prescribed for a rich man, or if he brought a tenth of flour for his meal-offering, he must redeem it and add money to it in order to acquire a bird-offering or an animal-offering. Thus we see that this meal-offering is redeemed even though clean.');">²⁴</span> R'Oshaia said, I have heard that if a meal-offering was made piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., while taking out the handful the priest expressed the intention of burning the handful or of eating the remainder outside the prescribed time.');">²⁵</span> it does not, according to R'Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that whatsoever is forbidden for any kind of use cannot convey food-uncleanness.');">²⁶</span> convey fooduncleanness. For it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M.; cur. edd.: 'We have learnt'. It is not found, however, in the Mishnah, but in Tosef. 'Uk. III and Bek. 9b.');">²⁷</span> 'Orlah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. This and all the others enumerated are forbidden for any kind of use.');">²⁸</span> diverse kinds of the vineyard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXII, 9.');">²⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Menachot 201:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.