שבועות 11 — parallel

11:1

for it has [only] a monetary holiness. — If so, let it not become invalid by [the touch of] a tebul yom, and yet it has been taught: As soon as it [the incense] is placed in the mortar it becomes liable to invalidation by [the touch of] a tebul yom! But perhaps you will say, all things which have only a monetary holiness are liable to invalidation by [the touch of] a tebul yom — [that cannot be,] for we have learnt: The meal-offerings are liable to be trespassed against as soon as they are verbally consecrated; when they are consecrated in the vessel, they become liable also to invalidation by [the touch of] a tebul yom, and one lacking atonement, and by linah. [Hence we may deduce:] ‘When they are consecrated in the vessel’ — yes, [they become liable to invalidation by the touch of a tebul yom,] but before they are consecrated in the vessel — no! — Well then, is it [the incense] holy bodily? If so, let it become invalidated [also] by linah, and yet we have learnt: The handful, and the frankincense, and the incense, and the meal-offering of the priests, and the meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest, and the meal-offerings brought with libations, are liable to be trespassed against as soon as they are verbally consecrated; when they are consecrated in the vessel, they become liable also to invalidation by [the touch of] a tebul yom, and one lacking atonement, and by linah, [Hence we may deduce:] When ‘they are consecrated in the vessel’ — yes, [they become liable to invalidation by linah,] but before they are consecrated in the vessel — no. He said to him: You argue from [the fact that it is not invalidated by] linah [that therefore the incense is not bodily holy]! Incense is different [it is bodily holy even in the mortar, but is not invalidated by linah], because it retains its form all the year. Nevertheless, the question remains [since the incense is bodily holy]: whither has the holiness in them departed? — Rabbah said: The Beth din make a mental stipulation that if they are required, they are required [i.e., utilised]; but if not, they shall be holy only for their value. Said Abaye to him: But you, Sir, yourself said, if one consecrates a male [ram] to be holy only for its value, it nevertheless becomes bodily holy? This is no question: [I said it becomes bodily holy] in the case where he said it should be holy for its value to buy a burnt offering; but if he said it should be holy for its value to buy libations [it does not become bodily holy]. — Abaye asked him, [It was taught:] The bullock and [inner] goat of the Day of Atonement which were lost, others being set apart in their stead,

—

11:2

and also the goats to atone for idolatry which were lost, others being set apart in their stead — they all die. This is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say: They pasture till they become unfit [for sacrifice], then they are sold, the money going as a donation [to the Temple treasury], for a congregational sin-offering does not die. — Why [should they be starved, or pasture till they become blemished]? Let us say the Beth din make a mental stipulation [that if they be lost and found again they be redeemed unblemished]? — You quote the case of lost sacrifices! Lost sacrifices are different, because they are rare. But the red heifer is rare, and yet it was taught: The red heifer is redeemed on account of any disqualification in it; if it died, it is redeemed; if it was slaughtered, it is redeemed; if he found another which was more excellent, it is redeemed; but if he had already slaughtered it on its wood-pile, it can never be redeemed? The red heifer is different, for it is in the category of holy things for Temple repair. If so, how is it redeemed if it died or was slaughtered [outside the prescribed place], surely we require ‘placing and valuation’? — This will be in accordance with R. Simeon, who says that holy things for the altar are subject to the law of ‘placing and valuation’, but holy things for the Temple repair are not subject to the law of ‘placing and valuation’. If it is in accordance with R. Simeon's view, how will you explain the last clause: If he had already slaughtered it on its wood-pile, it can never be redeemed? Surely, it has been taught: R. Simeon says. ‘The red heifer defiles the defilement of edibles, because it had a period of fitness.’ And R. Simeon b. Lakish said: ‘R. Simeon used to say that the red heifer may be redeemed [even] on its woodpile!’ Well, then, the red heifer is different, because it is expensive. The Master said: ‘If it died, it is redeemed.’ Do we then redeem holy things in order to feed dogs? — R. Mesharsheya said: [It is redeemed] for the sake of its hide. Do the Beth din, then, make a mental stipulation [merely] for the sake of its hide? — R. Kahana said: ‘Men say, of a camel the ear [is valuable].’ He further asked him: THEY SAID TO R. SIMEON: IS IT PERMITTED TO OFFER UP THE GOAT SET APART FOR ONE DAY ON ANOTHER? HE SAID TO THEM: IT MAY BE OFFERED. THEY ARGUED WITH HIM: SINCE THEY ARE NOT EQUAL IN THE ATONEMENT THEY BRING, HOW CAN THEY TAKE EACH OTHER'S PLACE? HE REPLIED: THEY [ARE ALL AT LEAST EQUAL IN THE WIDER SENSE IN THAT THEY] ALL BRING ATONEMENT FOR TRANSGRESSIONS OF THE LAWS OF UNCLEANNESS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMPLE AND HOLY FOOD THEREOF. Now, why [should R. Simeon give such an unconvincing reply]? Let him say, the Beth din make a mental stipulation in their case! — You argue thus against R. Simeon! R. Simeon does not hold that the Beth din are empowered to make a mental stipulation; for R. Idi b. Abin said that R. Amram said that R. Johanan said: The regular offerings which are not required for the community are, according to R. Simeon, not redeemed unblemished; and, according to the Sages, are redeemed unblemished. Who are the Rabbis who disagree with R. Simeon [and hold that the Beth din make a mental stipulation]? Shall we say they are the Rabbis [who state the law] of incense? 30

—