ידאיצטריךYtstrykhסלקאSlkדעתךDtkhאמינאMynהואילHvylובעלVvlמוםMvmאיקריYkryטמאTmטמאTmנמיNmyכבעלKhvlמוםMvmדמיDmyואףVfעלLגבGvדקדושDkdvshקדושתKdvshtהגוףHgvfכיKhyנפילNfylביהVyhמוםMvmמיפריקMyfrykהניHnyנמיNmyליפרוקLyfrvkקמשמעKmshmלןLnדלאוDlvכיKhyהאיHyטמאTmקרייהKryyhרחמנאRkhmnלבעלLvlמוםMvm
14yet [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.');"><sup>17</sup></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.');"><sup>18</sup></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.');"><sup>19</sup></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.');"><sup>20</sup></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.');"><sup>21</sup></span>