Talmud su Levitico 27:10

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”²¹Animals dedicated for use on the altar acquire what is called קְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף “bodily sanctity.” An animal used for the altar must be without blemish. Such an animal cannot be redeemed. It also should not be exchanged for another unblemished animal (Lev. 27:10). While any attempt to redeem the animal while unblemished, i. e., to subtract it to profane status, is simply impossible, the substitution of one unblemished animal for another, while sinful, nevertheless is possible and results in both animals being dedicated to the altar. If an altar animal develops a blemish, its bodily sanctity is reduced to קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים “holiness of monetary value.” The animal must be redeemed, i. e., its sanctity transferred to the money paid for it, and the money then used to buy a replacement animal. In this case, a substitution is impossible; there is no shortcut to avoid the redemption process.
Anything donated to the Temple treasury has only קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים from the start; it can be redeemed but not substituted.. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange²²Sinful but valid.. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange²³If an unblemished animal was offered as exchange for an unblemished altar animal but the language of redemption was used, the transaction is void; the animal offered remains profane.. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged²⁴The object originally given to the Temple has been redeemed by the object offered as redemption (provided that the monetary value of the thing given in redemption was stated; Mishnah Temurah 5:5).. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything²⁵Since תְּמוּרָה is impossible for anything but unblemished animals dedicated as sacrifices.. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple²⁶This text is impossible since objects dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple are not subject to exchange but only to redemption. Unblemished animals may not be offered for the upkeep of the Temple; they automatically would be offered to the altar. Therefore, a “dedication for the upkeep of the Temple whose dedication preceded its defect” is an altar animal which developed a blemish and, therefore, has the reduced status of קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים and can be redeemed. Blemished animals cannot be dedicated to the altar; any such dedication is invalid. who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange²⁷If an animal originally destined for the altar but later disqualified was redeemed not by money but by the offering of an unblemished animal and use of a term which can be interpreted to mean either redemption or substitution, the original animal is redeemed but the other animal is both a substitute and a redemption. It cannot be sacrificed since it is a redemption; one cannot wait until it develops a blemish with age because it is a substitution. It must be redeemed to eliminate the “holiness of monetary value” and then be sacrificed on the altar.: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy²⁸Lev. 27:10..” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange²⁹He objects to the construction of a case in which an expression was used that might mean both redemption and substitution. Since redemption is required but substitution is sinful, it is obvious that only redemption was intended..

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple¹¹⁵The entire paragraph deals with the minor who is able to give heave but has not yet grown two pubic hairs, for R. Yose if he is able to make vows and for R. Jehudah even if he is younger.. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate¹¹⁶The statement regarding heave is in the Mishnah. The statement about sacrifices must have been in a baraita not otherwise transmitted. Since a voluntary sacrifice must be dedicated by a vow, even R. Jehudah must agree that a minor who may not make a vow cannot dedicate a sacrifice.. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate¹¹⁷In contrast to heave, where the exclusion of minors is based on a verse mentioning “every man” (cf. Note 3), sacrifices are attributed to “a human” (Lev. 1:2), including a minor.. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings¹¹⁸These are voluntary offerings that also may be brought by Gentiles. Therefore, persons not under the obligations of biblical commandments may dedicate these sacrifices. {The use of the translation “well-being offering” for שלמים does not imply that this is the correct meaning of the word.}. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood¹¹⁹Since a minor is not obligated under the law, he cannot sin and, therefore, can never bring a sin offering. It is forbidden to eat the blood of any animal (Lev. 17:10–14); transgression of the prohibition is a sin which heaven will punish with extermination if intentional but which, if committed unintentionally, may be atoned for by a sin sacrifice (or, even if intentional, by repentance and the Day of Atonement). “Sacrifice for blood” is a catchword for “sacrifice to atone for a sin punishable by extermination.” It is also forbidden to eat those lumps of fat of cattle, sheep, or goats which would be burned on the altar if the animal were a sacrifice (Lev. 7:23). Punishment for this offense, if documented by two witnesses, is whipping. Therefore, “sacrifice for fat” is a catchword for “sacrifice to atone for an unintentional simple sin.”. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease¹²⁰These are obligatory sacrifices of purification when the condition is healed, Lev. 15:14–15, 14:1–32. Without these sacrifices, the afflicted person cannot touch any dedicated food.? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it¹²¹A minor cannot be obligated for anything. Since the courtyard of the Temple is reserved for sacrifices, it is forbidden to bring profane animals into it. Therefore, the priests should be required to refuse entry to such a sacrifice when brought by a minor., or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it¹²²If he has parents, the parents will bring the sacrifice for him to make sure the entire family can partake of the family offerings. Here we speak about a minor who is an orphan.? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these¹²³To present somebody else’s sacrifice for the purification of that person.? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law¹²⁴If the orphan minor owns agricultural land, the harvest before taking heave will become ṭevel (cf. Peah, Chapter 1, Note 303) and be forbidden for consumption. The prohibition is removed by giving heave. R. Meїr, quoted above, will prevent the minor from putting his own ṭevel in order himself.! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things¹²⁵First Fruits are an obligation of the farmer (Deut. 26:1–11). In Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1 it is stated that First Fruits must be eaten by Cohanim under the rules of heave. In Mishnah 3:10, R. Jehudah states that after presentation in the Temple, First Fruits may be given to any Cohen but the rabbis require that they be eaten by the priests serving in the Temple at the moment of presentation. This means that for R. Jehudah, the status of First Fruits is that of heave which may be eaten in the entire territory of the Holy Land (called “territorial consecrated things”) but for the rabbis they are consecrated to the Temple.? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage¹²⁶A pilgrimage to the Temple at one of the festivals of pilgrimage carries with it the obligation of two sacrifices, the sacrifice of appearance, (ראיון, Deut. 16:16) which is a holocaust, and a family sacrifice, (חגיגה, Deut. 16:11,14; 12:18) which is a well-being offering.? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering¹²⁷If somebody selected an animal as Passover sacrifice but then it disappeared before the holiday and another animal was dedicated, if the originally dedicated animal reappears it is brought as a well-being offering any time after the holiday (Babli Pesaḥim 70b)., may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals¹²⁸Lev. 27:32–33. Every tenth newborn in a herd of cattle or flock of sheep and goats has to be offered as a sacrifice. Tithes of produce are mentioned there in verses 30,31.? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together¹²⁹In Sifry Deut. 105, this is derived from another verse as anonymous statement., then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions¹³⁰In Lev. 27:10, it is stated that one may not substitute a different animal for an unblemished animal already designated as sacrifice. The act of substitution is not invalid but sinful and causes both animals to become sacrifices. Since a minor cannot sin, it is questionable whether his act of substitution is valid.? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions¹³¹The prohibition of substitution is repeated in Lev. 27:33, speaking of the tithe of animals. Since the tithe of animals is dedicated as sacrifice, the mention of the prohibition seems to be superfluous; it is taken to indicate that the rules of validity of tithes determine the rules of validity of substitutions.. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple¹³²It is sinful to sacrifice an animal outside of the Temple (Deut. 12:23). If the minor’s dedication of an animal as sacrifice is valid in biblical law, it is sinful to slaughter the animal outside the Temple. But if the dedication is valid only by rabbinic practice, the animal becomes dedicated only by its acceptance by the priests in the Temple and slaughter outside the Temple is not sinful.? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty¹³³The disagreement is quoted, in slightly changed form, in Babli Niddah 46b. In contrast to the Yerushalmi, the Babli states that RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish declare the slaughterer guilty only by rabbinic practice.. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law¹³⁴Since ṭevel comes into being by agricultural activity, not by the minor’s choice, if R. Jehudah permits the minor to give heave, he lets him remove a biblical prohibition and, therefore, gives the minor’s actions validity in biblical law.. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily¹³⁵R. Eleazar in Ševi‘it 6:1 (Note 11). Since R. Eleazar is mentioned only if R. Joḥanan disagrees, R. Joḥanan here holds that heave today is a biblical commandment, following R. Yose ben Ḥanina [loc. cit. Note 8; Seder Olam Chapter 30, cf. in the author’s edition (Northvale, N.J., 1998), pp. 257–259, x–xi.].

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan asked, is it the same for the substitute of a reparation offering, that the substitute of a reparation offering is sacrificed and the substitute of a reparation offering is not sacrificed⁸³Lev. 27:10 prescribes that the status of an (illegal) substitute of a sacrifice is that of the sacrifice for which it is substituted. But this condition cannot be fulfilled for a reparation sacrifice since for one obligation only one sacrifice is possible. Therefore it is decreed (Mishnsh Temurah 3:3) that in all cases the substitute of a reparation sacrifice (in contrast to substitutes of purification sacrifices) should be sent to graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and for the money one shall buy elevation sacrifices. The question is why, if the animal was lost and only found after the original had been sacrificed, it cannot be used directly as elevation sacrifice. No answer is given. As S. Liebermann points out, in the opinion of Tosaphot (73a, s.v.אשם), by biblical standards any substitute of a reparation sacrifice could be brought as elevation offering and the circuitous route via grazing is purely rabbinic; since the original rule does not mention exceptions, the question should not have been asked.? ⁸⁴This sentence is copied from Chapter 4:1, Note 27. However, only the first part is relevant here. It defines “the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ” mentioned in the Mishnah: this is the afternoon of the Fourteenth of Nisan. Therefore, in the following, “Thirteenth” really means “Thirteenth and morning of Fourteenth”, and “Fourteenth” means “Afternoon of the Fourteenth”. Rebbi Yose said, a Pesaḥ which one sacrificed [in the morning] is no Pesaḥ; an elevation offering which one sacrificed in the morning is an elevation offering.