Le Lévitique 27:1 Références du Talmud : Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim, Jerusalem Talmud Nazir, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin & Sanhedrin

Now estimates²⁶A person who offers to pay to the Temple the monetary value of his person, Lev. 27:1–8, which in general is a fixed sum but becomes an estimate for poor persons., bans, exchanges²⁷Exchanging a dedicated animal for another, Lev. 27:9–10., and dedications²⁸Giving non-sacrificial animals or any other valuables to the Temple to cover its expenses, Lev. 27:11–25. were in the same paragraph²⁹Lev. 27, where bans are treated in v. 28. Why should bans be treated differently from all other categories of gifts?, but we did not state ‘substitute names of estimates, substitute names of exchanges and dedications.’ But if these were stated, what would we state³⁰Recognized substitutes for vows, bans, nazir vows, and oaths are listed in Mishnah 2. The other dedications do not have recognized substitute names. The hypothetical names quoted in the sequel are built on the linguistic pattern of the accepted ones but either they make no sense or they have a sense very far from the intended one. Since they are not part of the current vocabulary as substitute names, they cannot be used.? ‘Araphin, ‘araṣin, ‘araqin³¹“Disappearances”.? Temupha, temuna³²“Picture”., temuqa? Hegder, hegzer, hegres³³The substitution of גּ for ק in this series shows that the pronunciation of q was close to that of Arabic ق.. It is understandable following him who says, unspecified bans are for the support of the Temple³⁴If bans are gifts to the Temple they are gifts to God and, as stated in Note 2, they become absolute the moment the intention to give is declared. Therefore, substitute names which are in common use are as effective as the explicit mention of the word “ban”. But if an unspecified ban is intended for Cohanim (the majority opinion in Mishnah ‘Arakhin 8:6), the collection of the gift is a money transaction between Cohanim and the giver, subject to the rule that “the proof is on the claimant” (Sanhedrin 3:9, 21b 1. 70; Babli Baba qama 46b). The Cohanim would have to prove that the putative giver in his use of the substitute words really did intend to refer to bans. This proof seems almost impossible. Therefore, substitute bans could not be like bans and the Mishnah here must be interpreted as supporting the opinion that unspecified bans are for the Temple.. But according to him who says, unspecified bans are for the priests? Why did we not state ‘substitute names for heave’? But if it were stated, what would we state³⁰Recognized substitutes for vows, bans, nazir vows, and oaths are listed in Mishnah 2. The other dedications do not have recognized substitute names. The hypothetical names quoted in the sequel are built on the linguistic pattern of the accepted ones but either they make no sense or they have a sense very far from the intended one. Since they are not part of the current vocabulary as substitute names, they cannot be used.? Terupha³⁵“Medicine”., teruṣa, teruqa?

Any expressions can be used for valuation³⁰“Valuation” is the sum fixed for vows in which a person promises to pay his or another person’s valuation to the Temple (Lev. 27:1–8). The valuation depends on age and gender; it is fixed by the Biblical text (assuming a known ratio of the Biblical šeqel to the local currency.) “Money’s worth” of a person is the value he would fetch if sold as a slave. This worth can be promised by a vow, but not by a valuation. except the expression “money’s worth”. Any expressions can be used for money’s worth except the expression “valuation.” If he said about a human, “I shall pay his cost, I shall pay his settlement, I shall pay his estimate, I shall pay his valuation,” he has to pay his valuation³¹If an expression is ambiguous but “paying the valuation” is one of the meanings, in the absence of a definite indication to the contrary that is the legal meaning.. “I shall pay his money’s worth,” he has to pay his money’s worth. “Estimate” is used as an expression both for valuation and money’s worth. A human has both valuation and money’s worth. If he said about a human, “I shall pay his estimate,” if he was good looking, he pays his money’s worth; if he was ugly, he pays his valuation³²In every case, he pays the larger sum..

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s method: If somebody dedicated unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple, he violates a positive commandment⁵³Lev. 27:9.. Why also a prohibition? The verse says: “The Eternal spoke to Moses לאמר”⁵⁴Lev. 27:1. It is assumed that this heading applies also to the paragraph Lev. 27:9–34 since v. 9 starts with a connecting ו.: a prohibition was pronounced⁵⁵“He said ‘no’ ”. The underlying pronunciation of לאמר cannot be recovered from the indications given here., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi was sitting and studying the rule that “a firstling cannot be substituted” when Bar Pedaiah’s father was passing by. Rebbi saw him, and said, do I know what I should say here, “the Eternal spoke to Moses לאמר,” could one explain the words of Rebbi Jehudah? Is it written thus? ⁵⁶Soṭah 5:1 (ס), explained there in Notes 8–10, Horaiot 1:3 (ה). It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word⁵⁷In the application here, the word is split by duplication of a letter, לאמר as אמר לא.. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring.