Mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 200:14

איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ובעל מום איקרי טמא טמא נמי כבעל מום דמי ואף על גב דקדוש קדושת הגוף כי נפיל ביה מום מיפריק הני נמי ליפרוק קמשמע לן דלאו כי האי טמא קרייה רחמנא לבעל מום

yet [our Mishnah] states: [THE BAKING] OVERRIDES NEITHER THE SABBATH NOR THE FESTIVAL. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF MEAL-OFFERINGS AND DRINK-OFFERINGS BECAME UNCLEAN BEFORE THEY WERE HALLOWED IN A VESSEL [OF MINISTRY]. THEY MAY BE REDEEMED;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For an offering so long as it has not been hallowed in a vessel of ministry is holy only for its value, and may be redeemed; ;udv ,ause once it has been hallowed in a vessel of ministry it becomes holy in itself, and may not be redeemed.');">¹⁷</span> IF [THEY BECAME UNCLEAN] AFTER THEY WERE HALLOWED IN A VESSEL, THEY MAY NOT BE REDEEMED. BIRD-OFFERINGS, THE WOOD, THE FRANKINCENSE, AND THE VESSELS OF MINISTRY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So all MS.S. Cur. edd. add: After they have become unclean.');">¹⁸</span> MAY NOT BE REDEEMED, FOR THE RULE OF REDEMPTION APPLIES ONLY TO [OFFERINGS OF] CATTLE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Samuel said, Even though they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. meal-offerings and drink-offerings.');">¹⁹</span> are clean they may be redeemed, for so long as they have not been hallowed in a vessel of ministry they are holy only as to their value, and whatsoever is holy as to its value may be redeemed. But have we not learnt [in our Mishnah] BECAME UNCLEAN? - The rule is the same even though they were not unclean, but because the Tanna wished to state the next clause, AFTER THEY WERE HALLOWED IN A VESSEL THEY MAY NOT BE REDEEMED, in which case even though they were unclean they still may not be redeemed, he therefore stated in the first clause, BECAME UNCLEAN. IF [THEY BECAME UNCLEAN] AFTER THEY WERE HALLOWED IN A VESSEL, THEY MAY NOT BE REDEEMED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So according to MS.M., Sh. Mek. and Z.K. This is a new passage introduced by a separate Mishnah heading.');">²⁰</span> But this is obvious, for they are holy in themselves! - It was necessary to be stated, for I might have argued that since what is blemished is described as unclean, then surely what is unclean should be like that which is blemished; and therefore as that which has become blemished may be redeemed even though it was holy in itself, so this too may be redeemed; we are therefore taught that the Divine Law did not describe what is blemished as unclean in that sense,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., unclean after having been hallowed in a vessel of ministry.');">²¹</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 200:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.