Talmud sobre Levítico 27:33

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is written<sup>101</sup>Lev. 27:33. When one counts the calves or lambs born in one tax year, the tenth must be consumed, if unblemished as a sacrifice (of which the altar gets the blood but the Cohanim nothing); if blemished as profane food., do not investigate between good or bad. If he transgressed and investigated, does he transgress<sup>102</sup>If one transgressed the biblical injunction and substituted an unblemished animal for a blemished one, both animals are dedicated (Lev. 27:34). The question now is whether he transgresses the commandment “do not tarry” unless the substituted animal was sacrificed within one year or before three holidays have elapsed.? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? Here the Torah permitted to dedicate deficient animals<sup>103</sup>Since the sanctity of the tithe is conferred on the substituted animal even if it is blemished and the original unblemished.. There, we have stated<sup>104</sup>Mishnah Nega`im14:7; the purification ritual of the healed sufferer from skin disease (Lev. 14:1–32.): “On the eighth day he brings three animals, purification sacrifice, reparation sacrifice, and elevation sacrifice. But the poor man brought birds as reparation and elevation offerings.” Is not the bird¹⁰⁵This word is missing in G and it seems that it should be deleted. It is stated in Lev. 14:10 that the rich sufferer from skin disease brings two undifferentiated male sheep and one female. The female automatically is the purification offering; of the males one will be designated by the Cohen as reparation offering and the other as elevation offering. Therefore the dedication of the purification offering precedes that of the reparation offering. Now Mishnah Zevaḥim10:5 notes that while in general purification offerings precede reparation ones, for the healed sufferer from skin disease this is not so since the ritual described in vv.14–18 is the prerequisite for the other two sacrifices. Therefore the dedication of the purification offering which is not a bird happens at a time when the animal cannot be sacrificed. In the case of the poor man, the birds for purification and elevation offerings are dedicated after the lamb of the reparation offering; the argument is not applicable. as reparation offering deficient in time next to the reparation offering? Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: It is written¹⁰⁶Num. 6:10, sacrifices of the impure nazir., on the eighth he shall bring. If he transgressed and did not bring, does he transgress¹⁰⁷As before, if the impure nazir does not bring his sacrifices on the eighth day, would he transgress “do not tarry” if he waited more than 3 holidays or one year to bring them?? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? As Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time¹⁰⁸As for the healed sufferer from skin disease.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all seven days one does not tell him, bring. Afterwards one tells him, bring¹⁰⁹He disagrees and holds that both the healed sufferer from skin disease and the impure nazir transgress the prohibition “do not tarry” immediately at the end of the eighth day.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Everybody plans and brings his sacrifices on the holiday¹¹⁰It is presumed that anybody making a vow to offer a sacrifice from the start intends to fulfill his vow on a holiday of pilgrimage; the same holds for obligatory sacrifices whose obligations arise in the meantime.. One understands a nazir. Is the sufferer from skin disease not missing atonement¹¹¹The nazir who was impure by the impurity of the dead is purified by sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow and immersion in a miqweh; his sacrifice on the eighth day is the start of his new period of nezirut. He may bring his holiday offering on the holiday itself and later his nazir offering during the holiday week. But for the sufferer from skin disease the reparation offering is required to permit him access to the Temple domain; by necessity this would have to occur before the holiday for him to make a valid pilgrimage.? And did we not state¹¹²Mishnah Sukkah4:1. As explained there in Halakhah 4, if the first day of the holiday is a Sabbath, the festival offering which is the symbol of joy may be brought only on the second day, and there would only be 7 days of joy., Hallel and joy eight? Explain it for a nazir. Rebbi Sachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi asked, the beginning one explains for a nazir and the end for a sufferer from skin disease¹¹³This refers to Mishnah Sukkah4:6. Eight days of joy are possible for the nazir(if the first day of the holiday is not a Sabbath), but the last day also is accessible to the sufferer from skin disease who brings his enabling sacrifice during the holiday week.? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, was this not already objected there? And Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat. Here also, Cohanim and the goat¹¹⁴As explained in Sukkah4:5, Note 82. Eight days of joy (i. e., eating sacrificial meat) always is possible for the Cohanim in the Temple. Since it is not implied that everybody is required to have 8 days of access to sacrificial meat, there is no problem with the healed sufferer from skin disease: he may bring his enabling sacrifice during the holiday week and the holiday is counted for him..

Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁵²In the Babli (Bekhorot 32a) this is quoted in the names of R. Joḥanan and Rav and rejected. For Tannaїtic sources, cf. Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq 13(4), quoted Babli Bekhorot 31b, Temurah 5b, 40a.: It is said here (Lev. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (Lev. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (Num. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal⁵³Num. 18:17 refers only to unblemished animals. No restrictions are put on blemished firstlings other than that they have to be given to a Cohen.. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.