Menachot 201

דמכלי שרת לא אשכחן דמיפריק

for we do not find any case in which what has been hallowed in a vessel of ministry may be redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even an animal-offering, once it has been hallowed by a vessel of ministry, i.e., slaughtered, can in no wise be redeemed.');">¹</span> Where do we find what is blemished described as unclean? - It has been taught: And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 11.');">²</span>

ובעל מום היכא איקרי טמא דתניא (ויקרא כז, יא) ואם כל בהמה טמאה אשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן לה' בבעלי מומין שנפדין הכתוב מדבר

this verse speaks of blemished animals, that they shall be redeemed. You say it speaks of blemished animals, that they shall be redeemed; perhaps it is not so, but actually it speaks of an unclean beast.

אתה אומר בבעלי מומין שנפדו או אינו אלא בבהמה טמאה ממש כשהוא אומר (ויקרא כז, כז) ואם בבהמה הטמאה ופדה בערכך הרי בהמה טמאה אמורה הא מה אני מקיים ואם כל בהמה טמאה בבעלי מומין שנפדו הכתוב מדבר

When the verse says, And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thy valuation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 27.');">³</span> the unclean beast is already spoken of; what then am I to make of the verse, 'And if it be any unclean beast'?

יכול יפדו על מום עובר תלמוד לאמר אשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן לה' מי שאינה קריבה לה' כל עיקר יצתה זו שאינה קריבה היום וקריבה למחר

The verse clearly speaks of blemished animals, that they shall be redeemed. I might suppose that they may be redeemed even though they have but a passing blemish; the text therefore states, 'Of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord', [referring clearly to] such animals as may at no time be brought as an offering unto the Lord, but one must exclude from this verse animals which may not be brought to-day but which may be brought to-morrow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the blemish will have passed away.');">⁴</span>

מותיב רב הונא בר מנוח העופות והעצים והלבונה וכלי שרת שנטמאו אין להן פדיון שלא נאמר פדיון אלא בבהמה בשלמא עופות קדושת הגוף נינהו ולא נאמר אלא בבהמה

R'Huna B'Manoah raised an objection: BIRD-OFFERINGS, THE WOOD, THE FRANKINCENSE, AND THE VESSELS OF MINISTRY MAY NOT BE REDEEMED, FOR THE RULE OF REDEMPTION APPLIES ONLY TO [OFFERINGS OF] CATTLE. Now this is quite right with regard to bird-offerings, for they are holy in themselves, and the rule [of redemption] applies only to [offerings of] cattle; but why may not the wood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which became unclean before it was hallowed in a vessel of ministry.');">⁵</span>

אלא עצים ולבונה וכלי שרת ליפרקו אלא לאו משום דטהורין בעלמא אין נפדין

the frankincense<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which became unclean before it was hallowed in a vessel of ministry.');">⁵</span> and the vessels of ministry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which became unclean.');">⁶</span>

והני נמי אף על גב דנטמאו כטהורים דמו דעצים ולבונה לאו בני אשויי אוכלא נינהו אלא חיבת הקודש משוה להו אוכלא

be redeemed? It must be because the others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meal-offerings and drink-offerings.');">⁷</span>

דעצים כמה דלא משפי להו לגזירין לא מיתכשרי לבונה נמי כמה דלא קידשה בכלי שרת לא מיתכשרה כלי שרת נמי הואיל ואית להו טהרה במקוה

if still clean may not be redeemed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus in conflict with Samuel's statement supra p. 617.');">⁸</span> and these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wood, frankincense and vessels of ministry.');">⁹</span>

לא לעולם אימא לך טהורין בעלמא נפדין והני משום דלא שכיחי הוא

even though unclean are regarded as clean. For<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This sentence is omitted in MS.M. and other MSS., and is also deleted by Sh. Mek.');">¹⁰</span>

בשלמא לבונה וכלי שרת לא שכיחי אלא עצים מישכח שכיחי עצים נמי כיון דאמר מר כל עץ שנמצא בו תולעת פסול לגבי מזבח הילכך לא שכיחי

wood and frankincense are no foodstuffs but are placed in the category of foodstuffs only by reason of sacred esteem.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The honour in which sacred things are held makes them fit to contract uncleanness even though according to ordinary standards they cannot contract uncleanness. V. Pes. 35a; Hul. 36b.');">¹¹</span> Accordingly wood, so long as it has not been cut up into chips.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so fit to be used on the altar.');">¹²</span>

אמר רב פפא אי שמיעא ליה לשמואל הא דתניא המתפיס תמימים לבדק הבית אין פודין אותן אלא למזבח שכל הראוי למזבח אינו יוצא מידי מזבח לעולם ואף על גב דקדושת דמים נינהו אין נפדין הואיל וטהורים הם הוה הדר ביה

is not predisposed [to uncleanness]; and frankincense, so long as it has not been hallowed in a vessel of ministry, is similarly not predisposed [to uncleanness]; and as regards vessels of ministry, since they can be made clean by immersion in a mikweh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹³</span> [they are not regarded as unclean]! - No, I still maintain that the others even though clean may be redeemed, but these [may not be redeemed even when unclean] because they are scarce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if they could be redeemed there might not be left sufficient for the Temple requirements.');">¹⁴</span>

ולא היא שמיעא ליה ולא הדר ביה לאו אמרת התם כיון דלא שכיחי לא מיפרקי

I grant you that frankincense and vessels of ministry are scarce, but surely wood is not scarce! - Even wood is scarce, in view of a Master's ruling that wood in which a worm is found is unfit for the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 85b.');">¹⁵</span> R'Papa said, Had Samuel heard of the following [Baraitha] which was taught: 'If a man consecrated unblemished animals for the Temple treasury, they may be redeemed only for the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they are to be sold for an offering.');">¹⁶</span>

הכא נמי כיון דשכיחי מומין דפסלי בבהמה דאפילו בדוקין שבעין נמי פסלי הילכך לא שכיחי

since what is fit for the altar can never be released from the altar',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. add here: 'For though they are consecrated for their value only they may not be redeemed, since they are clean'. This is an obvious gloss, and is not found in MS.M. nor in other MSS. and is deleted by Sh. Mek.');">¹⁷</span> he would have retracted [his statement].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That meal-offerings and drink-offerings may be redeemed even though they are still clean; v. supra p. 617.');">¹⁸</span>

רב כהנא אמר טמאין נפדין טהורין אין נפדין וכן אמר ר' אושעיא טמאין נפדין טהורין אין נפדין איכא דאמרי אמר ר' אושעיא אפילו טהורין נפדין

But it is not so; [in fact] he had heard of [that Baraitha] and yet did not retract his statement. For did you not say above that because they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wood fit for the altar, frankincense, and vessels of ministry.');">¹⁹</span>

רבי אלעזר אומר כולן טמאין נפדין טהורין אין נפדין חוץ מעשירית האיפה של מנחת חוטא

were scarce they may not be redeemed? Then in this case too, since blemishes which disqualify cattle are of frequent occurrence, for even a skin over the eye disqualifies, they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Animals free from all blemishes and so fit for the altar.');">²⁰</span>

שהרי אמרה תורה מחטאתו על חטאתו

are undoubtedly scarce. R'Kahana said, [If they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meal-offerings and drink-offerings.');">²¹</span>

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>