Rujukan Talmud untuk Imamat 27:12: Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot & Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim

HALAKHAH: “If a widow’s ketubah was 200,” etc. We understand worth a mina for 200⁷⁸The Babli, 98 ab, does not hold that it is trivial that the widow is not rewarded for getting such a good deal; it concludes that an agent by his office is always required to look for the best possible deal and the widow sells as an agent for the estate. or worth 200 for a mina. In any case, she made the orphans lose a mina⁷⁹That she receives only 100 zuz for her ketubah if she sells real estate too cheaply is not a matter of the laws of ketubah but of torts in general; the person who causes damage has to pay for it.. [If it was worth] a mina [and she sold it] for 200, would the sale not be invalidated as erroneous buy⁸⁰Lev. 25:14: “If you sell a sale to you neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand, do not overcharge one another.” Rabbinic interpretation holds that an overcharge of a sixth, 16²/₃%, entitles the injured party to rescind the transaction.? Explain it that the property increased in value⁸¹And the fair value on the date of transaction can no longer be determined.. Rebbi Abin said, this supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, real estate buys are never under the laws of overcharging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the transaction was excessive, it comes under the law of overcharging. The Mishnah⁸²Baba meṣi‘a 4:9. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The following do not fall under the laws of overcharging: Slaves, securities, real estate, and redemptions⁸³Real estate is excluded in Lev. 25:14 since it is not bought “from his hand”; slaves are excluded since they are traded under the rules of real estate; securities are excluded since what one buys “from the neighbor’s hand” is the paper, but what is intended are the rights given by the paper and these are immaterial. The Temple is excluded in its transactions since it is not “a neighbor” (Babli Baba meṣi‘a56b)..” He explains it, unless it was excessive⁸⁴He holds that any transaction is void in which the profit margin is 100% of the fair value. Tosaphot (s. v. ,אלמנה 98a) find the same opinion expressed by Rav Naḥman in the Babli, Baba meṣi‘a 57a.. If he redeemed⁸⁵He had donated something (other than a sacrificial animal) to the Temple. The redemption rules are based on Lev. 27:11–25. what was worth a mina by 200, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is not redeemed, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is redeemed⁸⁶The standard commentators agree to switch the places of “mina” and “200 zuz”. Since the Yerushalmi never quotes Samuel’s statement in the Babli (Baba meṣi‘a 57a and 7 other instances) that a redemption of dedicated items worth a mina by a peruṭa is valid (i. e., in ratio 19200: 1), there is no reason to assume that there should be any difference in the rulesfor overpaying or underpaying.. A baralta disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If he said, this toga instead of this donkey, the latter becomes profane⁸⁷He substitutes a toga for the dedicated donkey (which is redeemable since it is not a sacrificial animal) and presumably the donkey is worth at least two togas.. And its end disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is necessary to compute the value⁸⁸It is a biblical requirement that dedications can be redeemed only after their value has been determined (Lev. 27:12). The presumption is that the statement means not only that the value has to be determined but also that it has to be paid in full.. Rebbi Yose said, the baraita itself implies that it is necessary to compute the value. Where do they disagree? To bring [a sacrifice to atone for] larceny⁸⁹Unauthorized use of Temple property is sinful and has to be atoned for by a special sacrifice (Lev. 5:14–16). If the redemption of the donkey was valid, no sacrifice is due for using the donkey even if there remains the additional obligation to make up the difference in price between toga and donkey. If the redemption is invalid because the difference in price between the dedicated and the substitute values is too large, a sacrifice is due. The Babli, Baba meṣi‘a57a/b, is not quite sure to whom to attribute which opinion in this dispute.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to bring a sacrifice for larceny; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for larceny.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ayvo bar Nagari said before Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The reason of this Tanna: But if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered¹⁵³Lev. 27:11.. Why does the verse say, impure¹⁵⁴Since no impure animal can be sacrificed, either the mention of “impure” or that of “cannot be sacrificed” seems to be superfluous.? But even impure for this denomination¹⁵⁵If an animal was dedicated in a category for which it was not appropriate, and it never could be sacrificed in that category, it never was dedicated to the altar and therefore can be redeemed.. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise¹⁵⁶Lev. 27:12.? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, but if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered; anything which could be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place does not effect substitution<sup>157</sup>If “impure” really means “unfit”, e. g. cattle or sheep with a broken leg, it is not dedicated to the altar and must be redeemed with the money going for the upkeep of the Temple. However, it cannot be made to stand as required by the verse.. This excludes the female of a bird which even though it cannot be sacrificed here is fit to be sacrificed at another place. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Are there not the animals used for active or passive bestiality, which can be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place, and they effect substitution¹⁵⁸Tosephta Temurah1:12 states that dedicating such an animal, while sinful, is equivalent to dedicating an unblemished animal which after dedication becomes blemished; all rules of me`ilah do apply and it may be redeemed only after it develops a permanent bodily defect.? He said to them, also I did speak only about really impure ones¹⁵⁹B reads: “defective ones.”. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise¹⁵⁶Lev. 27:12.?