Kommentar zu Wajikra 27:27

ואם בבהמה טמאה AND IF IT BE OF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL — This verse does not refer to the firstborn mentioned above (when the translation would be: and if it — the firstborn just mentioned — be בבהמה טמאה, in the category of unclean animals), because one cannot state about the firstborn of an unclean animal: ופדה בערכך “it shall be redeemed by valuation”, since of all unclean animals it is only the firstborn of the ass that has to be redeemed (see Exodus 13:13 and Rashi thereon); and an ass this firstborn spoken of here cannot be, because, you see, the redemption price of the firstborn of an ass is a lamb only, whilst here the animal in question has to be redeemed כערכך, according to a certain valuation; and besides, it (the lamb) is a gift to the priest and is not given to the Sanctuary. But the verse refers to something dedicated to the Temple treasury, being a continuation of v. 11, for that verso above spoke about the redemption of a clean animal which became blemished, and here it speaks about one who dedicates an unclean animal, the proceeds to be used for the Temple repair (Menachot 101a).

AND IF IT BE AN ANIMAL FORBIDDEN TO BE EATEN [dedicated to the Temple], THEN HE SHALL RANSOM IT ACCORDING TO THY VALUATION. “This verse does not refer to the firstling [mentioned in the preceding verse], because one cannot state about the firstling of a forbidden animal, then he shall ransom it according to thy valuation [since among all forbidden animals, only the firstborn of an ass has to be redeemed]. It cannot refer to [the firstling of] an ass, since the [animal given in] redemption of an ass is only a lamb¹⁹⁶Exodus 13:13. [while here the animal is to be redeemed according to thy valuation, i.e., as you wish], and [moreover the lamb given in redemption of a firstling ass is a] gift to the priest, and is not given to the Temple treasury [as is stated here]. Rather, the verse refers to something dedicated to the Temple treasury [and is a continuation of Verse 11], for above [in Verse 11] He spoke about redeeming a [dedicated] animal which is fit to be eaten and which became blemished [thus disqualifying it as an offering], and here [in the verse before us] He speaks of a case where one dedicated for Temple repairs an animal which is not permitted to be eaten, [or offered up].” Thus far the language of Rashi.
It is possible that we answer [Rashi’s argument as to why this verse cannot be referring to the redemption of this firstling of an ass, and that we do interpret it as referring to such a case, by saying] that because He stated [in the preceding verse], Only the firstborn of the beasts, which is born as a firstling to the Eternal, no man shall sanctify it, therefore He reverted [to this subject] and stated [in the verse before us] that if the firstling that he sanctified be of an animal that is forbidden to be eaten, then he shall ransom it according to thy valuation, explaining that [the law of] the firstling does not apply to forbidden animals, except for the firstling of an ass, the law of which has already been explained.¹⁹⁶Exodus 13:13. Thus He taught [here] that even if a person did dedicate it, its sanctity is not like that of the law of a [permitted] firstling [which can never be redeemed], but it is like anything else which is dedicated to the Temple treasury, and it may be redeemed. Therefore He stated [here] that he who dedicated it redeems it by adding one-fifth [to its actual value], whereas another person may redeem it according to thy valuation [without the additional one-fifth]. And the verse above [11] stating, And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering, refers, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, to an animal that may not be eaten [not to the firstling of an ass, which has been dedicated to the Temple treasury]. According to the interpretation of our Rabbis,¹⁹⁷Temurah 32 b. there is a redundant expression in that verse [11 above], since He repeated an unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering to the Eternal [it being self-understood that an offering may not be brought from an animal that may not be eaten]. Therefore the Rabbis interpreted it as follows: “and if it be any unclean beast, or [if it be] of which they may not bring an offering unto the Eternal,” thus including [permitted] animals which have become permanently blemished, of which offerings may not be brought [and thus if they were dedicated to the Temple treasury, the law stated in the verse is to be applied].

ואם בבהמה הטמאה, a truly ritually unclean species of animal, [such as pig, for instance, Ed.] which had been declared as holy; such an animal is subject to the redemption legislation. Our sages stipulate, however, that the unfit animal under discussion which is unblemished is treated the same as if it had been blemished. (Temurah 32/33)

ואם בבהמה הטמאה ופדה בערכך , “and if among the ritually unclean animals, (he had mistakenly consecrated such a firstling), etc.” Rashi claims that this verse is not relevant to the legislation involving firstlings at all, but refers to someone consecrating a ritually unclean beast as an offering to the Temple treasury. [Consecrating it as an offering for the altar would be without legal value, as it is a non-starter. Ed.] Nachmanides, attempting to circumvent the need to explain the verse as referring to a subject that was discussed in a different context, tries to paint a scenario in which our verse would be relevant to the sequence in which it appears. He writes that it is possible that seeing that another kind of ritually unclean beast, namely the donkey, is exempt from what appears to be stated here, the Torah repeats that any other ritually unclean beast cannot legally be consecrated even if one had in mind to redeem it, as in the case of the donkey. (Compare Exodus 34,20) Such an animal which had been “consecrated” through ignorance of its owner may be redeemed without financial premium by anyone other than the owner who had “consecrated” it, seeing that it had never attained the holy status of a firstling.

This verse does not refer to ... Rather, the verse refers to... Gur Aryeh asks: Why does it interrupt between them, writing the parshah of dedication of a house and inherited field between them? Why does it not juxtapose [the exchanging of an] animal to [the exchanging of an] animal? The answer is that it is juxtaposed to the firstling as they are similar. There are things whose sanctity cannot be transferred such as the firstling of a clean animal, which cannot be sanctified for something else because it was born with the sanctity [of a firstling], and likewise, there are things born without the ability of attaining sanctity, such as an unclean animal, which is in itself unclean and cannot attain sanctity [i.e., it cannot be sanctified].

If it is of an unclean animal he shall redeem it. This is speaking about one who consecrates a first-born ritually unclean animal, which is not a first-born donkey, because their custom was to consecrate the firstling to Heaven so they would have success with the future offspring. As a matter of course we learn that the same law applies for someone who consecrates a ritually unclean animal that is not a first-born. It needs to be understood why the verse uses the language ופדה (he shall redeem) and not וגאל like the rest of the parshah, and in this very verse it says, “If it is not redeemed (יגאל).” It seems that the answer is because the implication of ופדה is for its worth, and וגאל connotes any amount.

ופדה בערכך THEN HE SHALL REDEEM IT ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION — i. e. according as the priest will estimate its value.

“He shall redeem it based on the valuation.” [Furthermore,] this [cannot] be a donkey. Because no unclean animals, except for the donkey, have a firstling law.

ואם לא יגאל OR IF IT BE NOT REDEEMED by the owners,

ונמכר בערכך THEN IT SHALL BE SOLD ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION to others (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 12 2).