Commentary for Temurah 4:42

המקדיש מוסיף חומש ומתכפר עושה תמורה והתורם משלו

Nor are [these] subject to the law of piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sacrifice rejected in consequence of improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest, to eat it beyond the prescribed time limit, v. Glos.');">²⁹</span> nothar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Portions of the sacrifice left over beyond the legal time, v. Glos.');">³⁰</span> and uncleanness. [Gentiles] cannot effect an exchange, nor can they bring drink-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They cannot offer drink-offerings for the altar without bringing a sacrifice at the same time, unlike an Israelite.');">³¹</span> but the animal offering [of a gentile] requires [the accompaniment of] drink-offerings. These are the words of R'Simeon, R'Jose said: In all [these things]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Relating to sacrilege, piggul, etc.');">³²</span> I favour the strict view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That sacrifices of gentiles are subject to the respective laws, the only exception being drink-offerings, which they cannot bring.');">³³</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The teaching of the first Tanna in the above Baraitha that says: Dedications of gentiles are not subject to the law of sacrilege.');">³⁴</span> applies only to things dedicated for the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an animal sacrificed.');">³⁵</span> but with things dedicated [for their value] to be used for Temple needs, the law of sacrilege applies. At all events [the Baraitha] says: [Gentiles] cannot effect an exchange.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which solves the above query of Rami b. Mama regarding a gentile.');">³⁶</span> And what does Rami B'Hama [say to this]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does he inquire, since it is explicitly mentioned in the Baraitha.');">³⁷</span> - My inquiry does not refer to a case where a gentile dedicates [an animal] for his own atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'so that a gentile may be atoned for'. There is no doubt that in such a case the gentile cannot effect an exchange, since he does not come into the category of being punishable.');">³⁸</span> My inquiry has reference to a case where a gentile dedicated an animal so that an Israelite may be atoned for [by its sacrifice]. Do we go by the person who consecrates<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the consecrator being a gentile cannot effect an exchange.');">³⁹</span> or by the person for whom atonement is made?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is an Israelite and punishable and therefore an unconsecrated animal can be substituted for it, both animals thus becoming sacred.');">⁴⁰</span> But why not solve this question from what R'Abbuha said? For R'Abbuha reported in the name of R'Johanan: [Only] he who dedicates must add a fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a man dedicates his house or field, the owner, if he is desirous of redeeming it, must add a fifth. But if a stranger redeems it, Scripture does not make it incumbent upon the redeemer to add a fifth, v. Lev. XXVII, 15.');">⁴¹</span> and he who is to procure atonement can effect an exchange,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the animal was consecrated for his benefit we regard it as his offering, because we go by the person for whom atonement is made.');">⁴²</span> and if one separates [the priestly due] from his own [grain]

Explore commentary for Temurah 4:42. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.