Talmud su Levitico 27:78

[The regulations regarding] a Hebrew slave¹An Israelite, according to the Rabbis, could become a slave either through being sold by the Beth Din to make restitution for a theft or through selling himself for a livelihood. and a slave whose ear is bored [nirẓa‘]²Because he refused to go free after six years’ service (Ex. 21, 5f.; Deut. 15, 16f.). are in force only when the Jubilee [is in force].³This apparently means, so long as the years from one Jubilee to the next are being officially counted, as laid down in Lev. 25, 8.
[The regulations regarding] a field of possession⁴Cf. ibid. XXVII, 16-21. A ‘field of possession’ is one that has been inherited as distinct from a ‘field of purchase’. and a field which had been devoted [to the Temple]⁵Cf. ibid. 28f. are in force only when the Jubilee [is in force]. R. Ishmael said: For that reason it is stated, As a field devoted; the possession thereof shall be the priest’s⁶ibid. 21.—as possession [depends] on the Jubilee, so a field which had been devoted [depends] on the Jubilee.⁷A field of possession which had been dedicated by the owner, then sold by the priests and not redeemed before the Jubilee. Such a field at the Jubilee became the property of the priest. Cf. Rashi on ibid. 16. The Jubilee is on the same footing as the New Year in regard to the blowing [of the shofar],⁸Cf. ibid. XXV, 9. and the benedictions,⁹[Nine blessings have to be said over the shofar as on the New Year; R.H. 26b (Sonc. ed., p. 120, n. 2).] except that [the blowing of] the shofar on the Jubilee overrides the Sabbath.^9a(9a) [The shofar is not blown on the day of the New Year which falls on the Sabbath.] When did the Jubilees cease [to be observed]? From the time when Pul and Tiglath-pileser, kings of Assyria, came up and carried the Reubenites, the Gaddites and half the tribe of Manasseh into captivity.¹⁰Cf. 2 Kings 15, 19, 29.

MISHNAH: There are four New Year’s Days. On the first of Nisan is New Year for kings¹The first year of a king’s reign terminates at the end of Adar, irrespective of when he gained the throne. This is important for the dating of documents by regnal years and represents the practice in Mishnaic times and the early Israelite monarchic period. Mesopotamian practice uses the first of Tishre (“beginning”) for the same purpose. and for holidays²In all biblical holiday lists the sequence is Passover-Pentecost-Tabernacles. Since the holidays always are described in terms of months, the statement is equivalent to saying that Nisan is the first month.. On the first of Elul is New Year for animal tithe³Lev. 27:32–33. For determining animal tithe, all calves born in the same tithing year are counted together, but not those of any other year.; Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon say, on the first of Tishre.

HALAKHAH: “All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written¹²Num. 30:3. “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names of oaths are like oaths. “But any ban,¹³Lev. 27:28.” why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of nazir¹⁴Num. 6:2.”, why does the verse say “to be a nazir”? From here that substitute names of nazir vows are like nazir vows. So far for Rebbi Aqiba who says that these are expressions of additions. ¹⁵Cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 72, Babli Avodah zarah 27a (and another 18 times without attribution). The quotes are from speeches of Laban and Joseph in Gen. which have no legal implications. This proves that the repetitions are a matter of style. For Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the normal style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”, from where? “¹²Num. 30:3. Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,” why does the verse say “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁶The second half of the verse is clearly written for emphasis. It implies (a) that a vow is valid only if pronounced, not if only thought of and (b) that any speech which can be interpreted as a vow is a vow.
The Babli, 3a/b, quotes both the argument in the style of R. Aqiba and that of R. Ismael without mentioning any names.. And from where that substitute names of bans are like bans? “A vow, a vow”¹⁷This is an application of the second hermeneutical rule of gezerah šawah “equal cut”. If it was established in Num. 30:3 that “vow” means “anything that implies a vow” and in Lev. 27:2 any dedication to the Temple, including bans, is classified as “vow”, it follows that anything which implies a ban is a ban.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of bans are like bans. And from where that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir? “A vow, a vow”¹⁸Again this is an application of gezerah šawah, but this time the reference quote is Num. 6:2, cf. Note 14.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁹This reference is odd since the argument is about vows, not oaths. One has to assume that the scribe left out the relevant portion of the sentence which should be identical to the one used in the preceding case., “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir.

HALAKHAH: “One does not sell Second Tithe.” One does not sell it because holiness is written for it³Lev. 27:30.. One does not use it as a pledge because blessing is written about it⁴Deut. 14:24. Taking a loan and giving a pledge is not a sign of blessing.. “⁵A similar text in Tosephta 1:1: “How may one not sell it? One should not say, here is 200 [zuz] worth, give me 100 in exchange.” If Second Tithe were sold, it would not be redeemed and the buyer would have to eat the produce in purity and sanctity in Jerusalem (assuming the existence of the Temple.) How may one not sell it? A person should not say to his neighbor, here you have this mina’s worth of Second Tithe, give me 50 zuz profane for it.”

Some want to understand it from the following⁸Sifra Beḥuqotai Pereq 12(9); Sifry Deut. 105.: (Deut. 14:22): “You should certainly tithe,” a general statement. “All grain⁹While תבוּאה in biblical Hebrew means “yield” in general, its meaning in rabbinic legal texts is limited to “grain”. of your seed,” a detail. For every general statement followed by a detail, the general statement only implies the detail. That means, only grain. From where legumes? The verse says (Lev. 27:30): “All tithe from the earth, from seeds of the earth, from the fruit of the tree, belongs to the Eternal.” This includes seeds of garlic, cress¹⁰This is the meaning of Syriac תחלא and of Maimonides’ (Ma‘serot 4:6) Arabic חבּ אל-רשאד. and rocket¹¹Cf. Śevi‘it 9:1.. I might think to add the upper part of arum¹²The inedible part carrying the seeds. and the seeds of vetch, the seeds of onions, the seeds of turnips and radishes, and all other garden seeds that are not eaten; the verse says, “from¹³Talmudic interpretation gives to a prefix מ a partitive meaning. seeds of the earth,” and not all seeds of the earth. (Lev. 27:30) “From fruits of trees,” to include all fruits of trees. I might think to add acacia¹⁴Some Sifra and Sifry sources read שקמה “sycamore”. and ṣalmona¹⁵The commentators take צלמונה as a place name. {A place צלמון is mentioned in Mishnah Yebamot 16:6. Cf. also Sulmo, later Sulmona, birth place of Ovid (E. G.).} However, since the other two kinds are trees, the word also must denote a tree, possibly connected with Accadic ṣulmu “black (tree)”. pods, and carobs from dry land¹⁶Sifra reads גרידה “(earth) dry and hard”. This is the basis of the translation, rather than גדירה “fenced in”. In Sifry most mss. read גירודה (variant of גרידה, cf. Levy’s Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 357a); one ms. reads גירוגא “willow basket”.; the verse says, “from¹³Talmudic interpretation gives to a prefix מ a partitive meaning. fruits of trees,” not all fruits of trees.

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 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.

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.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels him who says “in the evening”, as we have stated³¹Tosephta Peah 2:5: “R. Jehudah says, in the morning the farmer has to say: Everything the poor did collect (ms. Erfurt: will collect) from the sheaves shall be abandoned; R. Dosa says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, for we are not responsible for tricksters.” Since the rules for collecting single stalks are rather restrictive, RR. Jehudah and Dosa hold that the farmer should declare that anything the poor take in excess of what is legal shall be abandoned to them to protect the poor from sin. The Sages hold that we can only force all the poor to strictly follow the rules if they have to fear sinning when they overstep the legal bounds.
The parallel discussion to this paragraph is in Babli Baba Qama 69 a/b. There are major differences between Yerushalmi and Babli. The name tradition of the Tosephta is that of the Babli, the opposite of the Yerushalmi. In the text, the main (Vienna ms.) text, “will collect”, is the original reading of the Babli, the Erfurt text is the (conditionally) corrected reading of the Babli and the original reading of the Yerushalmi. The Babli (in the name of R. Joḥanan) rejects the notion that the “discreet religious ones” follow Rabban Simeon, the position implied by R. Joḥanan’s statement in the Yerushalmi.: “Rebbi Dosa says, ‘everything the poor will collect between the sheaves shall be abandoned’, it is abandoned. Rebbi Jehudah says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, for we are not responsible for tricksters.” But he is not parallel to him who says “in the morning”. Can one abandon anything if it is standing on the ground³²“In the morning” means before the day’s harvest. Then the grain is still standing and no stalks lie on the ground that it should be possible to define what can be abandoned. Since the farmer does not want to abandon the field, his declaration is void.? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is even parallel to him who says “in the morning”. Is it not Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s³³Chapter 4:6. Even if the declaration by the farmer in the morning is legally invalid, it becomes activated once the stalks are taken up if we hold that the rules of Second Tithe and abandoned stalks are identical.? In addition, he holds that taking Second Tithe is its redemption³⁴He thinks that the entire declaration is unnecessary; but if somebody wants to do it out of religious scruples, he may put aside something of value for people to take.. Rebbi Yose said, is that (Lev. 27:19): “It shall be his³⁵(Lev. 27:19): “If the person dedicating his field will redeem it, he shall add a fifth of its value and it shall be his.” This verse clearly ties the transfer of title to the property to the payment of money. If we hold that the rules of redemption are the same for dedicated property and Second Tithe, then taking up the tithe cannot be its redemption.”? If somebody saw a loaf floating in a river and said, that loaf shall be dedicated, did he say anything³⁶Since he cannot dispose of the loaf, he cannot dedicate it. Similarly, he cannot dedicate stalks to the poor if it is totally unknown which ones they will be.? Rebbi Jeremiah said, before you ask all these questions regarding “in the morning”, ask them regarding “in the evening!” He answered him, he who holds “in the evening” does not have all these questions³⁷Since in the evening all grain has been cut for the day and bound in sheaves, it is now well-defined what is there for the poor and the owner can make any declaration he wishes. The same holds for the discreet religious ones who can redeem the well-defined fruits of their fourth-year vineyard or orchard..

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.

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.

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.].

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.].

MISHNAH: A person who made a vow of nazir, asked the Sages and they forbade, counts from the moment of his vow⁸⁵He regretted his vow. When the vow was confirmed, the time of his regret is also counted.. If he asked the Sages and they permitted, if he had an animal designated, it leaves and grazes with the herd⁷³Mishnah 4. If a person makes a vow of nazir, designates an animal as his sacrifice at completion, and then asks about his vow and has it annulled, the animal becomes profane.. The house of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree that this is dedication in error, it leaves and grazes in the herd⁸⁶Therefore, the principle announced in Mishnah 1 does not always apply.? The House of Shammai anwered, do you not agree that if somebody erred and designated the ninth as the tenth, or the tenth as ninth, or the eleventh as tenth, it is sanctified⁸⁷Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8. Every tenth newborn animal of cattle, sheep, and goats has to be brought as sacrifice (Lev. 27:31). The sacrifice is eaten by the rancher and his family; the priests have no part in it. The verse requires that the animals be counted with a staff and the tenth be designated. If the rancher erred between 9, 10, 11, all animals involved are sanctified. But if the error was by a count of more than one, there is no dedication and the animals remain profane.? The House of Hillel anwered, not the staff sanctified it, for if he erred and put his staff on the eighth or the twelth, did he do anything? But the verse which sanctified the tenth sanctified the ninth and the eleventh⁸⁸Lev. 27:31, interpreted in the Halakhah, the Babli Bekhorot 61a, and Sifra Beḥuqqotay Pereq 13(2)..

“If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated.” Following Rebbi Ismael who said all “comings”⁵⁶Any command introduced by the words “it shall be when you come into the Land” applies only after the distribution of the Land to the tribes which by rabbinic tradition was 14 years after the crossing of the Jordan, cf. Seder Olam Chap. 11 (in the author’s edition, Northvale NJ 1998, Notes 3–5). Cf. Ševi‘it 6, Note 10, Ḥallah 2:1, Note 12. The statement of R. Ismael is discussed at length in Babli Qiddušin 37a–38a; it is also quoted in Yerushalmi Soṭah 7:4 (fol. 21c), 9:1 (fol. 23c). said in the Torah refer to after 14 years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Ismael agrees in the cases of ḥallah and ‘orlah. It was also stated thus: (Num. 15:18)⁵⁷This argument, directly attributed to R. Ismael in Sifry Šelaḥ #110, applies only to ḥallah where the usual form כבאכם is used. The rules for ‘orlah start: וכי תבאו אל הארץ but it does not say וירשתם וישבתם בה “after you inherited and settled there.” This kind of argument is applicable only to the Babylonian version which insists not on “coming” but on “settling”. In Sifra (loc. cit. N. 53), the immediate obligation of ‘orlah after the crossing of the Jordan, whether planting was done by Jew or Gentile, is deduced from Lev. 19:23: “When you come into the Land and plant any food-tree.” “At your coming,” because the verse changed its language, the Sages changed⁵⁸This seems to imply that Sadducee interpretation was different. the terms of obligation.” Rebbi Jonah asked: Rebbi Ismael is inconsistent. There, he says “being” and “getting” is the same⁵⁹In the chapter on dedications, Lev. 27:9 ff., the redemption of a house is described by והיה לו “it shall be his”, whereas the redemption of a field is וקם לו “it shall be confirmed for him”. The rules are identical even though the expressions are different. The corresponding baraitot in Sifra Beḥuqqotai Pereq 10 are anonymous., “breaking” and “smashing” is the same⁶⁰Two parallel synonymous expressions in Deut. 12:3. In this case, Sifry Deut. #61 disagrees and notes that “smashing” is more than “breaking”., “redemption” and “deliverance” is the same⁶¹Lev. 27:28,29; two parallel verses., and here he takes note of a change in expression!

“If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated.” Following Rebbi Ismael who said all “comings”⁵⁶Any command introduced by the words “it shall be when you come into the Land” applies only after the distribution of the Land to the tribes which by rabbinic tradition was 14 years after the crossing of the Jordan, cf. Seder Olam Chap. 11 (in the author’s edition, Northvale NJ 1998, Notes 3–5). Cf. Ševi‘it 6, Note 10, Ḥallah 2:1, Note 12. The statement of R. Ismael is discussed at length in Babli Qiddušin 37a–38a; it is also quoted in Yerushalmi Soṭah 7:4 (fol. 21c), 9:1 (fol. 23c). said in the Torah refer to after 14 years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Ismael agrees in the cases of ḥallah and ‘orlah. It was also stated thus: (Num. 15:18)⁵⁷This argument, directly attributed to R. Ismael in Sifry Šelaḥ #110, applies only to ḥallah where the usual form כבאכם is used. The rules for ‘orlah start: וכי תבאו אל הארץ but it does not say וירשתם וישבתם בה “after you inherited and settled there.” This kind of argument is applicable only to the Babylonian version which insists not on “coming” but on “settling”. In Sifra (loc. cit. N. 53), the immediate obligation of ‘orlah after the crossing of the Jordan, whether planting was done by Jew or Gentile, is deduced from Lev. 19:23: “When you come into the Land and plant any food-tree.” “At your coming,” because the verse changed its language, the Sages changed⁵⁸This seems to imply that Sadducee interpretation was different. the terms of obligation.” Rebbi Jonah asked: Rebbi Ismael is inconsistent. There, he says “being” and “getting” is the same⁵⁹In the chapter on dedications, Lev. 27:9 ff., the redemption of a house is described by והיה לו “it shall be his”, whereas the redemption of a field is וקם לו “it shall be confirmed for him”. The rules are identical even though the expressions are different. The corresponding baraitot in Sifra Beḥuqqotai Pereq 10 are anonymous., “breaking” and “smashing” is the same⁶⁰Two parallel synonymous expressions in Deut. 12:3. In this case, Sifry Deut. #61 disagrees and notes that “smashing” is more than “breaking”., “redemption” and “deliverance” is the same⁶¹Lev. 27:28,29; two parallel verses., and here he takes note of a change in expression!

There⁹⁹Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8. This starts the discussion of the rules of animal tithes (Note 87)., we have stated: “If he called the ninth tenth, and the tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, all three are sanctified. The ninth may be eaten when it develops a defect¹⁰⁰As explained later in this paragraph, the ninth is holy but is not dedicated as a sacrifice. Therefore, it is barred from becoming a sacrifice. The owner has to wait until it develops a blemish (which will be automatic with age); then it can be redeemed and eaten under the rules of profane slaughter., the tenth is tithe, the eleventh is brought as well-being sacrifice¹⁰¹It is holy and a sacrifice, but not tithe. Therefore, the priest’s parts are due from it..” “It shall be holy”¹⁰²Lev. 27:32: “About tithes of cattle and flocks, anything which passes under the staff, the tenth shall be holy for the Eternal.” Since the determination of which animal is the tenth is not automatic, any which either is the tenth or is designated as the tenth by the rancher’s staff is holy., this teaches that holiness falls on the ninth and the eleventh. ¹⁰³Babli Bekhorot 61a, Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 16(4). I could think that both of them should be sacrificed, the verse says “cattle”¹⁰⁴Lev. 3:1, speaking of well-being sacrifices., “cattle” to include the eleventh. “From the cattle”¹⁰⁵In all situations, the expression מן “from” is interpreted to mean: “Not all.” It is then a problem of rabbinic interpretation to determine which kinds are excluded. Since the expression “from the cattle” mentioned in Lev. 1:3 was used to exclude animals used for sinful purposes [Sifra Wayyiqra Parsheta 2(7)], the expression used here can be taken to apply to other situations., to exclude the ninth. What reason do you have to include the eleventh and to exclude the ninth? After the verse included, it excluded. You can argue, when are sanctified [animals] subject to substitution¹⁰⁶Substitutions of tithe animals arc mentioned in Lev. 27:33.? Before¹⁰⁷There can be no substitution for an animal which has not yet been designated as sacrifice since that would be a purely profane operation. or after? One has to say, afterwards. I am including the eleventh which is after sanctification and I am excluding the ninth which is before sanctification.

It is written³⁹Lev. 27:26., but a firstling which is born first to the Eternal by a domestic animal no person can declare holy. No holiness can fall on anything holy⁴⁰The argument is based on the second part of the verse, not quoted in the text: whether ox or sheep, it [already] is the Eternal’s; cf. Mishnah Arakhin8:7. The problem addressed is how to rectify the situation that tithe or sabbatical money was taken for the sheqel. Not only is there an obligation to make up for the value taken but the coin given as sheqel, being already holy (of a minor degree) cannot possibly acquire the holiness of monies dedicated to the Temple. Without rectification, the use of the coin by the Temple authorities would be sinful.. What does he do? He brings a profane tetradrachma and says, the monies of Second Tithe wherever they be⁴¹Meaning the coins given as sheqel. are redeemed by this tetradrachma; this is designated as Second Tithe and the others⁴¹Meaning the coins given as sheqel. are declared sheqalim.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: One does add a fifth only for the first dedication⁴⁰As a rule, any money paid to the Temple in liquidation of a personal debt is paid at the rate of 125% of the debt, the value plus one fifth from above; cf. Terumot Chapter 6, Note 1.. Rebbi Eleazar said, this is what has been stated (Lev. 27:27): “If it is an impure animal, he shall redeem it for its value⁴¹The verse continues: “its fifth he shall add to it”.;” just as an impure animal is special in that it is a first dedication⁴²An impure animal, i. e., a domesticated animal whose kind is not acceptable as a sacrifice, given to the Temple can only be an original gift, never a substitution. so for anything which is a first dedication he has to add a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah⁴³An Amora of the early second generation, student of R. Ḥanina. In the Babli, he appears as R. Samuel ben Ḥiyya. in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with tithe money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with Passover money⁴⁴Since the pesaḥ sacrifice must be eaten by subscription, if more animals were bought before the holiday than were actually used, the remainder are automatically used for well-being sacrifices (Babli Zebaḥim7b). developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Yudan said, one is needed and one is not needed. Rebbi Mana said, Passover is needed, well-being sacrifices are not needed⁴⁵Since tithe money is used mainly for well-being sacrifices, this is the original dedication.. You should not say that since the Pesaḥ sacrifice is changed into well-being sacrifices it is like one dedication, he would not add a fifth⁴⁶If the pesaḥ was automatically changed into a well-being sacrifice which then developed a blemish, one certainly would have to add a fifth. But in the case here the well-being sacrifice was bought with money from the redemption of a blemished pesaḥ sacrifice, one should not say that this is a second dedication exempt from the fifth..

Rebbi Jonah asked: Is it the same for animal tithe³⁶Lev. 27:32; from the verse it is clear that the minimum number of newborn animals subject to tithe is 10. The Mishnah (Bekhorot 9:7) states that animals are close to one another to be counted together for tithes if they are within grazing distance of one another; this is fixed at 16 mil. It is stated that the distance from Kefar Ḥananiah to Sepphoris is 16 mil, from Sepphoris to Kefar Othnai also 16 mil. Tosephta (Bekhorot 7:3) and Babli (Bekhorot 55a) state that there is an obligation of animal tithe if the total number of newborn animals of a single owner in Kefar Ḥananiah, Sepphoris, and Kefar Othnai is at least ten with at least one being at Sepphoris. R. Jonah now asks whether it is sufficient that the owner had animals at Sepphoris which were in the past counted for tithe, similar to the situation described in Mishnah 3.? As you say there, if he had five obligated ones in Kefar Ḥananiah, five obligated in Kefar Othnay, and five free ones in Sepphoris? As you say there, if something of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine; is it the same in this case? If you say that ḥallah is different since there it bites, are these 16 mil not as if it did bite? We find ḥallah from practice, we do not find animal tithe from practice³⁷The rule of Mishnah 3 is rabbinic; for animal tithe only biblical standards apply. R. Jonah’s question is answered in the negative..

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rebbi La following Rebbi Ismael (Lev. 27:31): “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add their fifth to it.” That excludes the fourth-year orchard; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption, one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth-year orchard.

Rav Yehudah bar Ezechiel¹⁶³He is Rav Yehudah who is frequently quoted in both Talmudim. The texts given are only an introduction to the doxology required by the Mishnah, “He Who is good and does good.” In the Babli (Taänit 6b), Rav Yehudah quotes a shorter text in the name of Rav. A longer text, patterned on the benediction after the recitation of Psalms on Sabbath and holidays with a different final doxology, is reported there in the name of R. Yoḥanan. It seems that long texts were never accepted in Galilee. said, my father used to recite for rainfall: May Your Name be magnified, sanctified, praised, and elevated, our King, for every drop that You bring down to us, and you make them refrain one from the other. (Job 36:27) “For He reduces water drippings;” as one says (Lev. 27:18): “Your value will be reduced.” Rebbi Yudan said, not only that, but He brings them down in measure, as it is said (Job 28:25): “Water He determined by measure.” Rebbi Yose bar Jacob¹⁶⁴He always is quoted together with R. Yudan of Migdal; he might be R. Yose bar Jacob bar Idi mentioned in Midrashim. went to visit Rebbi Yudan from Migdal¹⁶⁵An Amora of the fourth generation, living in Migdal Nunia North of Tiberias.. While he was there, rain started to come down and he heard his (R. Yudan’s) voice saying: Thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads we are obliged to thank Your Name, our King, for every drop that You bring down to us, for You do good things for the guilty ones. He said to him: From where do you have this? He said to him: This is the benediction that Rebbi Simon recited for rainfall.

How do we hold? If he said to him, go and redeem for me, he is his agent⁷⁸The status of the agent is the status of his employer; a fifth is due.; go and redeem for yourself, they are the other’s property⁷⁹A fifth is due for the gift as stated in Mishnah 3.. But we have to hold that he said to him, redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property. We have stated thus: “Redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property, he does not add a fifth.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, for any tithe, where neither it nor its redemption money is his, he does not have to add a fifth. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 27:31): “If a person goes to redeem of his own tithes, his own fifth he shall add to it;” both it and its redemption money must be his.

Rav Jehudah bar Ezechiel¹³⁷He is Rav Jehudah, frequently mentioned in both Talmudim. said, so was my father Ezechiel used to recite for rainfall: May Your Name be magnified, sanctified, praised, and elevated, our King, for every drop that You bring down to us, and you make them refrain one from the other¹³⁸Differently in the Babli 6b.. [As it is said,] for He reduces water drippings; they combine as rain for a flood¹³⁹Job36:27., as one says, the valuation will be reduced¹⁴⁰Lev.27:18.. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, not only that, but He brings them down in measure, as it is said: Water He determined by measure¹⁴¹Job28:25..” Rebbi Yose bar Jacob went to visit Rebbi Yudan from Migdal. While he was there, rain started to come down and he heard his voice saying: Thousands of thousands we are obliged to thank Your Name, our King, for every drop that You bring down to us, for You do good things for the guilty ones. He said to him¹⁴²R. Yose bar Jacob to R. Yudan from Magdala.: From where do you have this? He said to him: This is the benediction that Rebbi Simon recited for rainfall.

⁵²This is from Ḥallah 1:9 (ח), Notes 218–223. In the Babli (Sanhedrin 6b, Bava Qamma 94a) and in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin1:1 (Notes 70–72) this is a tannaitic statement. Here, the argument is that a religious obligation, like eating mazzah on Passover, cannot be fulfilled in a sinful way. The Babli insists that not even the regular benedictions before and after eating can be recited if the food is stolen or robbed. It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes⁵³Ps. 10:3. Usually, the verse is read to mean: “Certainly, the wicked one praises his own desires; he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal! The Tosephta (Sanhedrin 1:2) explains the verse as referring to judges who do not follow the rules.. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation⁵⁴The robber certainly cannot recite a benediction for robbed food, but after he ate it he acquired the food (or if he robbed flour he acquired it by baking) and is no longer required to return the robbed piece but has to pay. In that stage, the robber seems to be in the same position as a buyer who is slow in paying and one does not understand why he should not recite grace.? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed⁵⁵A good deed done by immoral means is no good deed at all and no religious obligation can be satisfied in this way. He declares his first argument faulty.. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin⁵⁶He accepts R. Jonah’s original logic.. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments⁵⁷Lev. 27:34.. If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds⁵⁸He sides with R. Jonah’s final position against R. Yose..

There we have stated¹⁰⁹Mishnah Temurah7:2.: “There is about gifts for the upkeep of the Temple that unspecified gifts to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple. Sanctification for the upkeep of the Temple falls on everything¹¹⁰Anything of value can be donated to the Temple., and me`ilah applies to what grows from it<sup>111</sup>Not only growth from seeds donated but all income from the principal are protected by me`ilah laws as is the original donation., and priests have no usufruct from it.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple¹¹²Since the Mishnah starts “if somebody gives his property,” this means it is unspecified, given to the Temple to use it as it sees fit, and R. Eliezer says that all proceeds go to the upkeep of the Temple..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer : If a man dedicate his house holy to the Eternal¹¹³Lev. 27:14.. How do we hold? If for a dwelling, it already is written, if the dedicator redeem his house¹¹⁴Lev. 27:15.. Therefore we hold that he dedicates his property. From here that unspecified dedications to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple¹¹⁵Verse 14 states that if a person dedicates his house, a priest has to determine its value. V. 15 the notes that if the donor wants to regain his house, he has to pay 125% of the value. Since it is assumed that a dwelling is always needed, the donation of a house could have been described in one sentence, combining valuation and redemption. Since the verses are split, it is understood that also property not used as dwelling is included and is given to produce money for the Temple, not the priests (in contrast to agricultural property, vv.21..

There we have stated¹⁰⁹Mishnah Temurah7:2.: “There is about gifts for the upkeep of the Temple that unspecified gifts to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple. Sanctification for the upkeep of the Temple falls on everything¹¹⁰Anything of value can be donated to the Temple., and me`ilah applies to what grows from it<sup>111</sup>Not only growth from seeds donated but all income from the principal are protected by me`ilah laws as is the original donation., and priests have no usufruct from it.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple¹¹²Since the Mishnah starts “if somebody gives his property,” this means it is unspecified, given to the Temple to use it as it sees fit, and R. Eliezer says that all proceeds go to the upkeep of the Temple..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer : If a man dedicate his house holy to the Eternal¹¹³Lev. 27:14.. How do we hold? If for a dwelling, it already is written, if the dedicator redeem his house¹¹⁴Lev. 27:15.. Therefore we hold that he dedicates his property. From here that unspecified dedications to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple¹¹⁵Verse 14 states that if a person dedicates his house, a priest has to determine its value. V. 15 the notes that if the donor wants to regain his house, he has to pay 125% of the value. Since it is assumed that a dwelling is always needed, the donation of a house could have been described in one sentence, combining valuation and redemption. Since the verses are split, it is understood that also property not used as dwelling is included and is given to produce money for the Temple, not the priests (in contrast to agricultural property, vv.21..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start¹³¹At the start of building the Temple, the situation described in the verse from Ezra. While the verse refers to Samaritans, the discussion here is about Gentile offerings. one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects¹³²After the building was finished and funds are needed for its continual upkeep., and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects¹³³Since the Torah clearly accepts Gentile sacrifices, Lev. 22:25, one also has to accept vessels or other objects inscribed with the Gentile donor’s name. But unspecified moneys for the continual upkeep of the Temple are reserved for and are a duty upon Jews.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects. A baraita¹³⁴Tosephta 1:7, Sifra Emor Parashah7(2), Babli Menaḥot73b; cf. Nazir9:1 Note 8. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One does not accept from them voluntary gifts for Temple property for the upkeep of the Temple.” He explains it, both at the start and at the end, if it is for non-definite objects. A Mishnah¹³⁵Mishnah Arakhin1:3, where R. Meïr and R. Jehudah disagree about the status of a Gentile with respect to the rules detailed in Lev. 27:2–8. disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Everybody agrees that they make vows and are objects of vows¹³⁶Since a voluntary sacrifice must be vowed to the Temple before it can be offered, Lev. 22:25 clearly implies that a Gentile’s vows are valid in a Jewish setting. It is stated that a Jew may make a vow whose object is a Gentile or which is conditioned on the actions of a Gentile.. He explains it for elevation offerings¹³⁷These are the only sacrifices which a Gentile unquestionably is able to bring. It is difficult to see how he could bring a well-being offering which as a family sacrifice has to be consumed by the pure family members. The Gentile, being biblically unable to be impure, cannot biblically be pure either.. One understands that he makes a vow to bring an elevation offering. Can he be the object of a vow for an elevation offering? No, if an Israel says, I undertake to bring an elevation offering, when a Gentile hears him and says, I am undertaking what he says¹³⁸While the Gentile is not the passive object of a vow, his vow is subsidiary to the Jew’s.. Does he not bring libations with it¹³⁹As required by Num. 15:1–15.? Is not the excess money given for libations used for vessels of Service? Then it turns out that he brought {money for} a definite object¹⁴⁰Nobody brings his libations to the Temple; he pays for them in the Temple; they are brought from the Temple’s stores, and the net proceeds are used to buy gold and silver vessels for the Temple. These are objects that could be engraved with the donor’s name.! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value¹⁴¹While not mentioned in Lev. 27:2–8, in fact this is what money donations to the Temple are used for.? Are offerings of one’s value not for the upkeep of the Temple¹⁴²The person making the vow of his value is intent to give the money to the worship; what actually is done with the money is not of interest to him.? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple¹⁴³Similarly, the excess money given for libations goes into a big pot where the individual contributions are no longer recognizable; no donor’s plate can be affixed to any vessel bought with such money.; so here you are saying, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for vessels of Service. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah said, Rebbi Simon asked: Does this imply that one does not accept from them¹⁴³Similarly, the excess money given for libations goes into a big pot where the individual contributions are no longer recognizable; no donor’s plate can be affixed to any vessel bought with such money. for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem¹⁴⁴Neh. 2:20..

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts⁷⁶In R. Eleazar’s opinion, R. Aqiba accepts Mishnah 3:3 without change. R. Eliahu Fulda notes that “layman” is mentioned only as contrast to “Temple”. This seems to contradict the statements in Halakhah 2:1, Notes 5–6.. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt⁷⁷Shaping the heap is the end of grain processing, which triggers the obligation of heave and tithes. R. Aqiba states in Mishnah Menaḥot 10:4 that leftover flour made by Temple personnel from barley for the ‘omer offering is obligated for tithes. Since the cut grain has to be cleaned before milling, that cleaning process is the equivalent of shaping the heap in a regular harvest. The anonymous majority holds everywhere that all Temple grain is exempt from heave and tithes.
Everybody in that Mishnah agrees that dough made from this flour is subject to ḥallah.. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt⁷⁸This argument is brought without a dissenting voice in Babli Menaḥot 67a.. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power⁷⁹The Babli, Menaḥot 67a, holds that this is not biblical but purely rabbinic.? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.⁸⁰The ethnicity of the farmer is not mentioned. The questioner, and the rabbis quoted in the last sentence, must hold with R. Meïr that possession by a Gentile does not remove the obligations imposed on produce of the Land; cf. Peah 4, Notes 129–131.” But is here⁸¹In the laws of ḥallah. not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread⁸²If this מ is partitive, there is no reason why in Lev. 27:30 it cannot be partitive also. The argument of R. Jonah is rejected.. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple⁸³It is implied that in the matter of grain grown by a Gentile in the Land, R. Meïr reports the position of R. Aqiba.
A Genizah text reads רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. “Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Temple’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple”. This may be the better text..

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.?

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.?

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.?

Some of them¹³⁴The items listed in the Mishnah. are given to the people of the watch¹³⁵The families of certified Cohanim, admitted to service in the Temple, were divided into 24 sections, each of which was the watch serving in the Temple for one week. Except for the High Priest, no Cohen had the right to officiate in the Temple except during holidays and the week assigned to his watch.; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings¹³⁶Unblemished firstlings which are a sacrifice of which the owners receive no part. Blemished firstlings, unfit for sacrifice, may be given to any Cohen locally. and First Fruits¹³⁷Have to be delivered to the Cohen in the Temple. to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra, from where that ḥērem-dedications¹²³Num. 18:14. According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin28a]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion (Arakhin29a). are for the people of the watch? He said to him: (Lev. 27:21) “Like the ḥērem-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen¹³⁸Since the chapter deals with transactions by the Temple treasurer, it follows that a specially dedicated field has to be given by the treasurer to the Cohen officiating in the Temple, i. e., to the watch of the week. The same argument in Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin 28a..” From where that the property itself should be given to the people of the watch? Because it is written “it shall become the property of the Cohen.” (From where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch?)¹³⁹A dittography in both mss.; it must be an old error. But is it not written: (Deut. 18:3) “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,” should it not be for the people of the watch¹⁴⁰If “Cohen” in the first verse means “Cohen of the current watch” then in the second verse it should have the same meaning. But since Deut. 18:3 clearly speaks about profane slaughter, away from the Temple, the meaning of the word must include any Cohen.
The Babli (Arakhin 28b) disagrees and compares “Cohen” in this verse, about which it is written (v. 16) “If … a man declares holy for the Eternal” to the Cohen mentioned in the law about the repentant offender in case the person he injured or defrauded has died heirless, where it is written: (Num.5:6) “The money must be returned to the Eternal for the Cohen”. The latter money is distributed among the people of the current watch.? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Lev. 27:28) “Every ḥērem-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.” Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch¹⁴¹All most holy sacrifices are either totally burned or eaten by Cohanim only., so ḥērem- dedications are for the people of the watch!

Some of them¹³⁴The items listed in the Mishnah. are given to the people of the watch¹³⁵The families of certified Cohanim, admitted to service in the Temple, were divided into 24 sections, each of which was the watch serving in the Temple for one week. Except for the High Priest, no Cohen had the right to officiate in the Temple except during holidays and the week assigned to his watch.; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings¹³⁶Unblemished firstlings which are a sacrifice of which the owners receive no part. Blemished firstlings, unfit for sacrifice, may be given to any Cohen locally. and First Fruits¹³⁷Have to be delivered to the Cohen in the Temple. to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra, from where that ḥērem-dedications¹²³Num. 18:14. According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin28a]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion (Arakhin29a). are for the people of the watch? He said to him: (Lev. 27:21) “Like the ḥērem-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen¹³⁸Since the chapter deals with transactions by the Temple treasurer, it follows that a specially dedicated field has to be given by the treasurer to the Cohen officiating in the Temple, i. e., to the watch of the week. The same argument in Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin 28a..” From where that the property itself should be given to the people of the watch? Because it is written “it shall become the property of the Cohen.” (From where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch?)¹³⁹A dittography in both mss.; it must be an old error. But is it not written: (Deut. 18:3) “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,” should it not be for the people of the watch¹⁴⁰If “Cohen” in the first verse means “Cohen of the current watch” then in the second verse it should have the same meaning. But since Deut. 18:3 clearly speaks about profane slaughter, away from the Temple, the meaning of the word must include any Cohen.
The Babli (Arakhin 28b) disagrees and compares “Cohen” in this verse, about which it is written (v. 16) “If … a man declares holy for the Eternal” to the Cohen mentioned in the law about the repentant offender in case the person he injured or defrauded has died heirless, where it is written: (Num.5:6) “The money must be returned to the Eternal for the Cohen”. The latter money is distributed among the people of the current watch.? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Lev. 27:28) “Every ḥērem-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.” Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch¹⁴¹All most holy sacrifices are either totally burned or eaten by Cohanim only., so ḥērem- dedications are for the people of the watch!

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it⁹⁵The defective coin which fails the standards of Mishnah 4.? In walled cities⁹⁶Greek χάραξ, χάρακος “palisade”. until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him⁹⁷If the person who handed out the defective coin recognizes that it is the coin given out illegally, he has a moral duty to take it back even when the legal period in which he can be forced to take it back has expired. If he refuses, the injured party has the right to complain (i. e., tell about the case to other people) but has no recourse in court.. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly⁹⁴In Temple times, Second Tithe produce was redeemed for coin which was spent on food in Jerusalem, to be eaten there in purity. Since the redemption is a transaction between a person and himself, occasionally deficient coins may be used since he knows the deficiency. But one may not collect deficient coins during the year and then use the collected coins for redemption (Ma‘aśer Šeni 2:7, Note 96).’⁹⁸After the destruction of the Temple and the disappearence of the ashes of the red cow (cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 3) when food can no longer be eaten in purity, the coin has to be destroyed. For that purpose it even is preferable to use defective coins..
Cheating is by four oboli⁹⁹Mishnah 3., claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah¹⁰⁰The court will not impose a judicial oath unless it be a case in which the claim is at least 2 oboli and the defendant admits to owing at least 1 peruṭah:, Mishnah Šebuot 6:1.. There are five peruṭot¹⁰¹The peruṭah appears as minimal standard in five legal categories.: Confession is about one peruṭah¹⁰⁰The court will not impose a judicial oath unless it be a case in which the claim is at least 2 oboli and the defendant admits to owing at least 1 peruṭah:, Mishnah Šebuot 6:1.; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah’s worth¹⁰²Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1.; one who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property committed larceny¹⁰³He has to pay a 25% fine and bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5:15–16.; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media¹⁰⁴Mishnah Bava qamma 9:7..
There are five fifths¹⁰⁵Five cases in which a payment of 125% of the amount is due.: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe¹⁰⁶If he eats in error, Mishnah Terumot 6:1; Lev. 22:14, Num. 18:26., or heave of the tithe of demay¹⁰⁷This only applies to demay(produce of which it is not known whether it was tithed), but not to the heave of its tithe; Mishnah Demay 1:2, Note 67., or ḥallah¹⁰⁸Num. 15:20., or first fruits¹⁰⁹Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1., adds a fifth¹¹⁰All these cases are considered identical since each of them is called “heave” in a verse.. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year¹¹¹Lev.19:24, 27:31. or his Second Tithe¹¹²Mishnah Ma‘aśer Šeni 5:5; Deut.14:25., adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth¹¹³Lev. 27:19.. He who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth¹⁰³He has to pay a 25% fine and bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5:15–16.. He who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth¹¹⁴Lev. 5:24..

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it⁹⁵The defective coin which fails the standards of Mishnah 4.? In walled cities⁹⁶Greek χάραξ, χάρακος “palisade”. until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him⁹⁷If the person who handed out the defective coin recognizes that it is the coin given out illegally, he has a moral duty to take it back even when the legal period in which he can be forced to take it back has expired. If he refuses, the injured party has the right to complain (i. e., tell about the case to other people) but has no recourse in court.. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly⁹⁴In Temple times, Second Tithe produce was redeemed for coin which was spent on food in Jerusalem, to be eaten there in purity. Since the redemption is a transaction between a person and himself, occasionally deficient coins may be used since he knows the deficiency. But one may not collect deficient coins during the year and then use the collected coins for redemption (Ma‘aśer Šeni 2:7, Note 96).’⁹⁸After the destruction of the Temple and the disappearence of the ashes of the red cow (cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 3) when food can no longer be eaten in purity, the coin has to be destroyed. For that purpose it even is preferable to use defective coins..
Cheating is by four oboli⁹⁹Mishnah 3., claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah¹⁰⁰The court will not impose a judicial oath unless it be a case in which the claim is at least 2 oboli and the defendant admits to owing at least 1 peruṭah:, Mishnah Šebuot 6:1.. There are five peruṭot¹⁰¹The peruṭah appears as minimal standard in five legal categories.: Confession is about one peruṭah¹⁰⁰The court will not impose a judicial oath unless it be a case in which the claim is at least 2 oboli and the defendant admits to owing at least 1 peruṭah:, Mishnah Šebuot 6:1.; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah’s worth¹⁰²Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1.; one who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property committed larceny¹⁰³He has to pay a 25% fine and bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5:15–16.; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media¹⁰⁴Mishnah Bava qamma 9:7..
There are five fifths¹⁰⁵Five cases in which a payment of 125% of the amount is due.: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe¹⁰⁶If he eats in error, Mishnah Terumot 6:1; Lev. 22:14, Num. 18:26., or heave of the tithe of demay¹⁰⁷This only applies to demay(produce of which it is not known whether it was tithed), but not to the heave of its tithe; Mishnah Demay 1:2, Note 67., or ḥallah¹⁰⁸Num. 15:20., or first fruits¹⁰⁹Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1., adds a fifth¹¹⁰All these cases are considered identical since each of them is called “heave” in a verse.. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year¹¹¹Lev.19:24, 27:31. or his Second Tithe¹¹²Mishnah Ma‘aśer Šeni 5:5; Deut.14:25., adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth¹¹³Lev. 27:19.. He who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth¹⁰³He has to pay a 25% fine and bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5:15–16.. He who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth¹¹⁴Lev. 5:24..

“He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly.” ¹¹⁸Cf. Babli 53b. A parallel, different treatment is in Ma‘aśer Šeni4:3, Notes 57–63. Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simon¹¹⁹For obvious chronological reasons this must read: R. Simon (in Ma‘aśer Šeni: R. Yose ben R. Simon) in the name of R. Joḥanan.: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which in itself is not worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭah¹²⁰The Babli presents this as R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion. The Yerushalmi Ma‘aśer Šeni quotes only the second opinion.. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. As it was stated: “From its tithe,¹²¹Lev. 27:31.” except what is worth less than a peruṭah.¹²²As always in rabbinic interpretation, the prefix מ is partitive: Not for all tithe has a fifth to be given in redemption. Sifra Beḥuqqotai Pereq12(10); Babli 53b. This means, not unless itself is worth a peruṭah. Another Tanna states: “From its tithe¹²¹Lev. 27:31., its fifths¹²³Lev. 5:23. The plural “fifths” is interpreted to mean that if somebody is obligated to pay a fifth and then reneges and swears falsely that he does not owe it, the first fifth becomes principal on which another fifth is due. This may continue until the fifth becomes less that a peruṭah. Sifra Wayyiqra Parašah 13(12); Babli 53b.” except if it is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Abin bar Mamal¹²⁴Everywhere else, including Ma‘aśer Šeni, he is called Abba bar Mamal. There, it is shown that quite a number of “perutot” are missing from the Mishnah. said, our Mishnah follows neither one since we have stated “there are five peruṭot”, but we did not state “not unless itself is worth a peruṭah”; we have stated “there are five fifths”, but we did not state “not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah”.

¹⁵⁴Babli 7a. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: What did Mordocai and Esther do? They wrote a letter and sent to our rabbis¹⁵⁵The established rabbinate in the Holy Land, the only one authorized to decree practices valid everywhere.. So they said to them, do you accept upon yourselves these two days every year? They answered them, are not the troubles which come upon us enough, that you want to add to ours the trouble of Haman? They insisted and wrote them a second letter; that is what is written¹⁵⁶Esth. 9:29., to confirm to them this second [Purim]letter. What was written in it? They told them, if this is your fear, already it is written and deposited in Archives¹⁵⁷Greek ’αρχεῑον.: are these not written in the annals of the kings of Media and Persia¹⁵⁸Esth. 10:2.. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: 85 Elders and among them more than 30 prophets¹⁵⁹In Babli sources: 120 Elders. were sorry about this matter. They said, it is written¹⁶⁰Lev. 27:34. Quoted in the same sense in the Babli Šabbat 104a, Yoma 80b, Temurah 16b.: These are the commandments which the Eternal commanded to Moses. These are the commandments which we were commanded by Moses’s saying. So did Moses say to us: No other prophet will reveal to you anything afterwards. And Mordocai and Esther want to introduce something new¹⁶¹Since from the middle of Chapter 9 to the end of the Scroll the rules of Purim are written to be interpreted as biblical laws. This cannot be compared to Ḥanukkah which is a purely rabbinical time of remembrance. Writing new rules of biblical status is a clear violation of the prohibition neither to add nor to subtract(Deut. 4:2). This is a sufficient reason for Sadducees to reject the scroll and the attendant questionable activities.? They did not move from there but discussed [the matter]¹⁶²Corrector’s addition in Babylonian style. until the Holy One, praise to Him, illuminated their eyes and they found it written in the Torah, in Prophets, and in Hagiographs. This is what is written¹⁶³Ex. 17:14., the Eternal said to Moses, write this in a book for remembrance. This is the Torah, as you are saying, this is the Torah which Moses put before the Children of Israel¹⁶⁴Deut. 4:44.. Remembrance are the Prophets, a book of remembrance is being written before Him for those who fear the Eternal,¹⁶⁵Mal. 3:16. etc. In a book are the Hagiographs, Esther’s word confirmed the matter of these Purim days and it was written in a book¹⁶⁶Esth. 9:32..

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rebbi La following Rebbi Ismael (Lev. 27:31): “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add its fifth to it.” That excludes the fourth year after planting; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption¹¹⁴גָּאֹל יִגְאַל. One of these statements follows Rebbi, the other Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel., one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth year after planting.

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed maẓẓah²¹⁸The parallel is in Šabbat 13:3 (fol. 14a); in the Babli (Sanhedrin 6b, Baba Qama 94a) and in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1:1 (fol. 18b) this is a tannaïtic statement. Here, the argument is that a religious obligation, like eating maẓẓah on Passover, cannot be fulfilled in a sinful way. The Babli insists that not even the regular benedictions before and after eating can be recited if the food is stolen or robbed.. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of (Ps. 10:3): “He who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes.²¹⁹Usually, the verse is read to mean: “Certainly, the wicked one praises his own desires; he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal!” The Tosephta (Sanhedrin 1:2) explains the verse as referring to judges who do not follow the rules.” Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation²²⁰The robber certainly cannot recite a benediction for robbed food, but after he ate it he acquired the food (or if he robbed flour he acquired it by baking) and is no longer required to return the robbed piece but has to pay. In that stage, the robber seems to be in the same position as a buyer who is slow in paying and one does not understand why he should not recite grace.? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed²²¹A good deed done by immoral means is no good deed at all and no religious obligation can be satisfied in this way. He declares his first argument faulty.. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin²²²He accepts R. Jonah’s logic, cf. Note 159.. Rebbi Hila said, (Lev. 27:34): “These are the commandments.” If you did them they way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds²²³He sides with R. Jonah against R. Yose..

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.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rebbi Yose had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rebbi Hila said, we have stated thus (Lev. 27:21)¹²¹Sifra Beḥuqotay Paras̊ah 4(3), a similar text; quoted in Babli Baba Meẓiʻa 54b.: “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised¹²²The verse adds: “He has to add its fifth”..” Just as an unclean animal is particular in that it is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication¹²³It could not be a sacrifice in either case; it was alive in both cases., so I am adding the dead animal which is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, and I exclude the one for which he said, this is dedicated, and then it died, which is not the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication¹²⁴Even according to the Sages, it can be redeemed without standing and appraisal.. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so¹²⁵This is the operative rule.: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk¹²⁶Meїlah 3:5. Larceny committed on anything dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple incurs a fine of 25% and requires a sacrifice for atonement..” Is not milk comparable to its being dead¹²⁷The use of masculine חמור for a female donkey is in all Mishnah mss.; it has wrongly been corrected in the editions of Babli (Meїlah 12b).? With all that needs redemption one can commit larceny¹²⁸It was not there at the moment of dedication and, being a fluid, it cannot stand.. You cannot explain it as giving the rules of dead [animals] since we stated “a donkey”¹²⁹A live one.. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rebbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal¹³⁰It could even have been a blemished kosher animal.?

“A promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual.” How? If he bought a cow from the Temple for 200. If he did not have occasion to pay the 200 until the going rate was a mina, he has to pay 200. That means, a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual. A cow from the Temple for a mina. If he did not have occasion to pay the mina until the going rate was 200, he has to pay 200. That is what is written⁵⁵²Lev. 27:19: “He has to add a fifth of its estimated value, then it is delivered to him.” Therefore, if he adds, it is delivered to him; if he does not add, it is not delivered to him. ⁵⁵³Babli 28b, Tosephta 1:9.“ ‘This steer as elevation offering, or this house as a qorbān,’ they are in the Temple’s possession wherever they are, for it is written: “The Eternal’s are the earth and what fills it,” etc. But among private persons one obtains possession only be taking hold.”

‘Whoever learns from his fellow a single chapter.’ Since [the Baraitha] refers to ‘a single small letter’, what need was there to mention ‘one word’? And [since it refers] to ‘one word’, why mention ‘a single rule’ or ‘a single chapter’? [The intention is] one letter of the Talmud, one word of the Mishnah, one verse of Scripture, one rule even though it has not been established, one chapter even of [the tractate] Derek ’Ereẓ.¹³⁵The text of H is followed. Derek ’Ereẓ is a treatise on ethical conduct, included in this series of Minor Tractates. How [can one learn] ‘a single letter’? For example,¹³⁶Cf. Shab. 77b (Sonc. ed., p. 365, nn. 4, 6, 8) where the discussion is on whether certain Hebrew words are to be spelt with the letter ’alef or ‘ayin. me’ammeẓin or me‘ammeẓin; gar’inin or gar‘inin; or ’ommemoth or ‘ommemoth. And he¹³⁷Rabbah b. ‘Ulla in Shab. loc. cit. gave a reason [that the word should be spelt] gar ‘inin, for it is written, And an abatement shall be made [wenigra‘] from thy valuation;¹³⁸Lev. 27, 18, where the root gara‘ is spelt with ‘ayin. ‘ommemoth, for it is written, The cedars in the garden of God could not hide it;¹³⁹Ezek. 31, 8. There the root ‘amam is spelt with ‘ayin. me‘ammeẓin, for it is written, And shutteth his eyes from looking upon evil.¹⁴⁰Isa. 33, 15. Again the root ‘aẓam has the letter ‘ayin. He did not, however, give his own opinion [whether these words should be written] with ’alef or ‘ayin. But one [of the examples cited] is written with ’alef? They are surely written with ’ayin! He speaks of words which enter the heart,¹⁴¹So rendered by H. It may mean examples of a natural interchange of sibilants. as for instance, massiḳin, meziḳin.¹⁴²Cf. B.B. 116b (Sonc. ed., p. 695) where both words are used in the sense of ‘bandits’. But is not this [a better] example—for instance that which we have learnt:¹⁴³Beẓah 35b (Sonc. ed., p. 179). One may let fruit drop [mashshilin] through a trap-door on a Festival? If [one uses the verb] mashshilin he does not make a mistake; for we have learnt:¹⁴⁴Beẓah loc. cit. [If the firstling is a] shaḥol or a kasol, [it may be slaughtered]; shaḥol [means an animal] whose hip has become dislocated and kasol [an animal] one of whose hips is higher than the other.¹⁴⁵Hence the root shaḥal means ‘slip, fall’, the same as the root nashal in mashshilin. If one teaches the word mashshirin¹⁴⁶From the root nashar, ‘fall’. he does not make a mistake; for we have learnt:¹⁴⁷Beẓah loc. cit. If one’s clothes fell [nashru] in the water on a Sabbath he may walk in them without fear. He who uses the word mashshirin does not make a mistake; for we have learnt:¹⁴⁸ibid. The hair-clipper [shaḥor]¹⁴⁹Which causes the hair ‘to fall’ from the head. and the barber’s scissors are susceptible to defilement even though [the two parts] are separated. But [we are speaking of the change] of one letter and here it [deals with the change of] one word! It was only necessary as an opinion.¹⁵⁰A general example of the interchange of letters.
Raba said: Even with the waw, which is clearly one letter, you might argue that since it does not add anything to the meaning, conclude that one is not [obliged to honour him who teaches it]! Hence [the Baraitha] teaches that, since at times with the help of it a reason [for a law] is established [it is to be taken into consideration],¹⁵¹i.e. he is obligated to pay honour to him who teaches it to him. and it only applies where the reason [for a law] is established by it. Raba said: [It also applies] in connection with Scripture, although the reason for a law may not be established by it and it may be a letter that is not pronounced. But you said ‘a verse of Scripture’!¹⁵²If taught warrants respect to the instructor. This was necessary for a case when he expounded it in connection with a halakah.

‘The priesthood [in the form of] twenty-four distinctions’:¹⁷⁹These were the perquisites of the priests. Cf. B.Ḳ. 110b (Sonc. ed., p. 646). viz. ten in [the precincts of] the Temple, ten in the provincial towns and four in Jerusalem. Ten in [the precincts of] the Temple, viz. the sin-offering [of an animal], trespass-offering [for a known sin], peace-offerings of the congregation, sin-offering of a bird, trespass-offering for a doubtful sin, the log of oil in the case of a leper, the two loaves, the shewbread, remnant of the ‘Omer and remnants of the meal-offerings. Ten in the provincial towns, viz. terumah, the terumah of the tithe, ḥallah, the first of the fleece, the shoulder, cheeks and maw, the redemption of the first-born son, the redemption of the firstling of an ass, [payment of a fine for] robbery committed against a proselyte,¹⁸⁰Cf. Ḥul. 133b (Sonc. ed., p. 758, n. 16). devoted [articles],¹⁸¹Num. 18, 14. B.Ḳ. reads ‘a field devoted’. and a field of possession.¹⁸²Lev. 27, 16-21. And four in Jerusalem, viz. the firstlings, the first fruits, the portion separated of the thanks-offering, and of the ram of the Nazirite. What are these [portions]? The breast and the thigh. It has been taught:¹⁸³B.Ḳ. 110b (Sonc. ed., p. 645, n. 9). All these [perquisites] were granted to Aaron by ḳal waḥomer, gezerah shawah, binyan ’ab and kelal uferaṭ.¹⁸⁴These are the first four of the thirteen exegetical principles by which the Torah is interpreted and enumerated by R. Ishmael. Cf. the text in P.B., p. 13.