Levítico 27:10 Referencias del Talmud: Jerusalem Talmud Makkot, Jerusalem Talmud Yoma, Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin & Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

MISHNAH: The following are flogged¹As a matter of principle, all transgressions of biblical prohibitions are punishable by flogging unless specifically exempted. The rules are spelled out by Maimonides in his Commentary to this Mishnah. It is under stood that a sentence of flogging can be passed only after a trial based on the testimony of two witnesses both to the fact of the crime and the necessary warning given to the perpetrator.
A crime punishable by the death penalty can never lead to a sentence of flogging, even if the death penalty cannot be imposed because of a material or technical obstacle. Crimes punishable by extirpation or Death by the Hand of Heaven are subject to flogging, since in this case the earthly punishment guarantees the sinner his part in the World to Come (Mishnah 17).
A crime punishable by a fine cannot lead to punishment by flogging. Crimes done by speech without accompanying action are not punishable by flogging, except swearing falsely, substituting sacrifices (Lev. 27:10), and cursing using the Name which is a potential capital crime.
A crime connected to a positive commandment cannot lead to punishment by flogging as long as the positive commandment still can be executed (Mishnah 4).
The infraction of a positive commandment cannot be punished. For example, the High Priest is commanded to marry a virgin. He is prohibited of marrying a widow, divorcee, or desecrated woman (Lev. 21:13–14). If he marries a woman who is not forbidden but not a virgin, he cannot be punished.
A prohibition understood by inference, not written explicitly, cannot be punished.: He who copulates with his sister²Lev. 20:17. The list starts with sexual transgressions punishable by Heaven., or his father’s sister, or his mother’s sister³Lev. 20:19., or his wife’s sister⁴Lev. 18:18. This is a simple prohibition., or his brother’s wife⁵Lev. 20:21., or his father’s brother’s wife⁶Lev. 20:20., or a menstruating woman⁷Lev. 20:18.. A widow for the High Priest⁸Lev. 21:14, a simple prohibition., or a divorcee⁹Lev. 21:7. The clause about halîṣah, the freeing of the widow of a childless man from levirate marriage, is in dispute; the majority holds that the prohibition of the widow after halîsah is rabbinic. or one having received ḥalîṣah for a common priest. For a widow and divorcee one is liable because of two categories¹⁰If the High Priest marries a widow who had been a divorcee.. For a divorcee having received ḥalîṣah one is only liable for one category¹¹Since halîṣah is forbidden only as a kind of divorce..

HALAKHAH: “They brought him the cup,” etc. But was it not already stated⁹Mishnah 4:3. The same expression מַתְתָּה is used in Mishnah 4:3 and in 5:1. But if the High Priest already used the מַתְתָּה before, it cannot be brought to him now from a storage facility., “he took a fire-pan and ascended to the top of the altar”? So is the Mishnah: The cup and the bowl. What is a כַּף? A tureen¹⁰From a rabbinic Hebrew root מגיס “to stir, to mix dough” which may have been induced by Greek μαγίς “dough”.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that it is a profane vessel. If you would say, a sanctified vessel, may something sanctified in a vessel be redeemed¹¹This would contradict Lev. 27:10 stating that anything dedicated and fit for Divine service may not be redeemed.?

¹²The incense used in the Temple. As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy¹⁴There is no such verse; similar verses about incense would be Ex. 30:36, most holy it shall be for you, Ex. 30:37, holy it shall be for you. Babli Keritut 6a., that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary¹⁵It seems that the correct text is in Šeqalim: That its existence shall be in the holy space. The Babli text there adds: “and it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury,” i. e., from the Temple tax.. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury¹⁶In the Babli text: “that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary” which in our text is the Yoma version of R. Yose ben Ḥanina. In the Babli Šeqalim text it makes sense; the preparation may be in profane terrain, only the use must be in the Sanctuary.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan , as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings¹⁷Mishnah Šeqalim 4:6..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages.¹⁸Addition of the corrector from Šeqalim. As explained in Šeqalim, incense of each year has to bought by the proceeds of the Temple tax of that year. In order to avoid that any leftovers at the end of the year became disqualified, the leftovers are given to the workers and artisans working for the Temple as their wages. The Temple can then buy back the incense from the workers with money of the next year and the incense remains qualified. (Private use of incense compounded by the Temple’s formula is a deadly sin, Ex. 30:38.) R. Joḥanan ’s argument that the Mishnah can only be interpreted as referring to incense is given in the Babli, Keritut 6a.] And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rebbi Ḥuna¹⁹Read with Šeqalim: Rav Ḥuna. said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service²⁰Here one has to read with the Babli Šeqalim: did not make. The incense always is prepared in a profane vessel; it becomes dedicated by being used on the dedicated fire-pan or the interior altar.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed²¹Answering his question in the negative. R. Yose holds that practice does not follow Samuel.. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers²²Animals and supplies bought with Temple tax monies but not used by the end of a fiscal year, which cannot be used for the next year.. As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished²³It is impossible to redeem animals qualified to be sacrifices, Lev. 27:10. Samuel proposes to treat the surplus animals similar to how surplus incense was treated: The animals are redeemed with the past year’s excess money, which then is used for repair or improvement of the Temple building as explained in Šeqalim Chapter 4. Then the animals are bought again with money of the new fiscal year and become newly qualified.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta²⁴He requires that the excess sheep be let grazing until either they develop a defect or become disqualified by age; then they may be redeemed like any other disqualified animal. A different tradition Babli Ševuot11b.. Leftover he-goats²⁵Bought for public purification sacrifices on holidays and days of the New Moon., in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan ’s opinion? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall graze²⁶Same procedure as for sheep, Note 24.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar²⁷To be used as elevation offerings in periods where the altar otherwise would be empty. These sacrifices not being obligatory cannot be bought with money from the Temple tax; one uses dedicated animals which are not being used for their original purpose. The statement is erroneously missing in the Babli Šeqalim.. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter²⁸If they never had been dedicated as purification sacrifices, the rules of the latter do not apply. Accepted as opinion both by Samuel and R. Joḥanan in Babli Ševuot 12b.. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion²⁹With the Šeqalim texts delete the last two words; the tradent is a late Amora not the early Tanna.. said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices³⁰Since the stipulation preceded the acquisition of the animals by the Temple, R. Yose’s answer is unnecessary..