תּלמוד אויף ויקרא 27:9

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

There⁴²Mishnah Temurah 2:3., we have stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, He⁴³God, in instituting the rules of Lev. 27:10 ff. made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices.” Ḥizqiah said, in error: a prohibition, the one who substitutes: a prohibition⁴⁴He explains the Mishnah. Once an animal has been dedicated, it cannot be exchanged for another animal as long as it did not develop a blemish (Lev. 27:10). A person who intentionally violates this prohibition is whipped. It is asserted that a person who unintentionally violates the prohibition is also whipped (see the next paragraph). But a dedication in error is not a dedication for the House of Hillel.. If he wants to say “profane” but said “an elevation sacrifice”, it is sanctified⁴⁵While for vows one requires that “his heart and mouth be in unison”, for Temple dedications only the pronouncement counts (Deut. 23:24).. If he wants to say “an elevation sacrifice” but said “profane”, it is not sanctified. It follows that Rebbi Joḥanan, interpreting Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, parallels Rebbi Jeremiah’s explanation⁴⁶In the first paragraph of this Halakhah (Terumot 3:8, Note 86). regarding the House of Shammai on sacrifices. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, may one understand that “He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices,” if somebody dedicates a firstling?⁴⁷This is a question for Ḥizqiah. Without his comment, we would have read the Mishnah in Temurah to state that substitution in error is substitution, dedication in error is not dedication. But he insists that for R. Yose ben R. Jehudah, substitution in error is criminally punishable. Now everybody agrees that dedication in error is not punishable, but where do we find that intentional dedication should be punishable, to justify R. Yose ben R. Jehudah’s formulation? The answer is that the dedication of a firstling (which must be given to a Cohen) for any other sacrifice is forbidden (Lev. 27:26) and, therefore, should be subject to criminal prosecution. Can it be dedicated? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa, and Rebbi Yasa say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicated a firstling and it was brought to the altar, it is not sanctified even for its money’s worth⁴⁸The firstling is sanctified at birth and never becomes the rancher’s property. The rancher has to raise the calf or lamb for 30 days and then is obligated to deliver it to a Cohen. Since nobody can dedicate what is not his, any dedication of a firstling by the rancher is void, not only invalid. In the case described, any Cohen can come and take the firstling from the altar and eat it (since only the blood of a firstling is given to the altar but nothing of its meat). There can be no prosecution for a nonexisting act.. If somebody dedicated a blemished animal for the altar, even as a substitute it is not sanctified⁴⁹The example of dedication of a blemished animal cannot be used as illustration of R. Yose ben Jehudah’s statement. A blemished animal cannot be dedicated; therefore, it neither can become a substitute sacrifice. The rules of substitutions and dedications are identical for blemished animals.. But if somebody dedicated an animal with a temporary blemish. Is that consistent⁵⁰(Logically) connected. This technical term appears as מְחֻוָּר “whitish, clear” in the Babli, pointing to differences in the pronunciation of ב, β in Galilee and ب in Babylonia. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Die Aussprache des “Bet” in talmudischer Zeit, Bulletin, Verband jüdischer Lehrer und Kantoren der Schweiz Nr. 21, 1977, pp. 4–5. with whipping⁵¹Since a temporary blemish does not permanently disqualify the animal from the altar, the dedication cannot be a crime. Again, there is no difference between dedication and substitution; R. Yose ben R. Jehudah cannot refer to this case.? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, explain it if he gave unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple⁵²Donating unblemished cattle, sheep, or goats for the upkeep of the Temple clearly violates the injunction of Lev. 27:9 to reserve such animals for the altar. However, that rule is formulated as an obligation, not as a prohibition and, therefore, involves no prosecutable offense. In the next paragraph it is established that R. Jehudah and his son found a biblical source which allows one to find a prohibition in Lev. 27:9. The rule of R. Yose ben Jehudah is valid only for him and his father, not for most other Sages..

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.