מנחות 101 — Soncino English Talmud

¹for we do not find any case in which what has been hallowed in a vessel of ministry may be redeemed. Where do we find what is blemished described as unclean? — It has been taught: And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord: this verse speaks of blemished animals, that they shall be redeemed. You say it speaks of blemished animals, that they shall be redeemed; perhaps it is not so, but actually it speaks of an unclean beast. When the verse says, And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thy valuation, the unclean beast is already spoken of; what then am I to make of the verse, ‘And if it be any unclean beast’? The verse clearly speaks of blemished animals, that they shall be redeemed. I might suppose that they may be redeemed even though they have but a passing blemish; the text therefore states, ‘Of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord’, [referring clearly to] such animals as may at no time be brought as an offering unto the Lord, but one must exclude from this verse animals which may not be brought to-day but which may be brought to-morrow. R. Huna b. Manoah raised an objection: BIRD-OFFERINGS, THE WOOD, THE FRANKINCENSE, AND THE VESSELS OF MINISTRY MAY NOT BE REDEEMED, FOR THE RULE OF REDEMPTION APPLIES ONLY TO [OFFERINGS OF] CATTLE. Now this is quite right with regard to bird-offerings, for they are holy in themselves, and the rule [of redemption] applies only to [offerings of] cattle; but why may not the wood, the frankincense and the vessels of ministry be redeemed? It must be because the others if still clean may not be redeemed, and these even though unclean are regarded as clean. For wood and frankincense are no foodstuffs but are placed in the category of foodstuffs only by reason of sacred esteem. Accordingly wood, so long as it has not been cut up into chips. is not predisposed [to uncleanness]; and frankincense, so long as it has not been hallowed in a vessel of ministry, is similarly not predisposed [to uncleanness]; and as regards vessels of ministry, since they can be made clean by immersion in a mikweh, [they are not regarded as unclean]! — No, I still maintain that the others even though clean may be redeemed, but these [may not be redeemed even when unclean] because they are scarce. I grant you that frankincense and vessels of ministry are scarce, but surely wood is not scarce! — Even wood is scarce, in view of a Master's ruling that wood in which a worm is found is unfit for the altar. R. Papa said, Had Samuel heard of the following [Baraitha] which was taught: ‘If a man consecrated unblemished animals for the Temple treasury, they may be redeemed only for the altar, since what is fit for the altar can never be released from the altar’, he would have retracted [his statement]. But it is not so; [in fact] he had heard of [that Baraitha] and yet did not retract his statement. For did you not say above that because they were scarce they may not be redeemed? Then in this case too, since blemishes which disqualify cattle are of frequent occurrence, for even a skin over the eye disqualifies, they are undoubtedly scarce. R. Kahana said, [If they became] unclean they may be redeemed, but [if they are] clean they may not be redeemed. And so said R. Oshaia, [If they became] unclean they may be redeemed, [but if they are] clean they may not be redeemed. Some there are who say that R. Oshaia said, Even though [they are] clean they may be redeemed. R. Eleazar says. All [meal-offerings] may be redeemed if [they have become] unclean, and if [they are] clean they may not be redeemed, excepting the tenth part of an ephah of the sinner's meal-offering, since the Torah has stated [in the one case] from his sin and [in the other] for his sin. R. Oshaia said, I have heard that if a meal-offering was made piggul it does not, according to R. Simeon, convey fooduncleanness. For it has been taught: ‘Orlah, diverse kinds of the vineyard,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ

^ᵃnote:For even an animal-offering, once it has been hallowed by a vessel of ministry, i.e., slaughtered, can in no wise be redeemed.
^ᵇnote:Lev. XXVII, 11.
^ᶜnote:Ibid. 27.
^ᵈnote:When the blemish will have passed away.
^ᵉnote:Which became unclean before it was hallowed in a vessel of ministry.
^ᶠnote:Which became unclean.
^ᵍnote:Meal-offerings and drink-offerings.
^ʰnote:Thus in conflict with Samuel's statement supra p. 617.
^ⁱnote:Wood, frankincense and vessels of ministry.
^ʲnote:This sentence is omitted in MS.M. and other MSS., and is also deleted by Sh. Mek.
^ᵏnote:The honour in which sacred things are held makes them fit to contract uncleanness even though according to ordinary standards they cannot contract uncleanness. V. Pes. 35a; Hul. 36b.
^ˡnote:And so fit to be used on the altar.
^ᵐnote:V. Glos.
^ⁿnote:And if they could be redeemed there might not be left sufficient for the Temple requirements.
^ᵒnote:Supra 85b.
^ᵖnote:I.e., they are to be sold for an offering.
^ᵠnote:Cur. edd. add here: ‘For though they are consecrated for their value only they may not be redeemed, since they are clean’. This is an obvious gloss, and is not found in MS.M. nor in other MSS. and is deleted by Sh. Mek.
^ʳnote:That meal-offerings and drink-offerings may be redeemed even though they are still clean; v. supra p. 617.
^ˢnote:Wood fit for the altar, frankincense, and vessels of ministry.
^ᵗnote:Animals free from all blemishes and so fit for the altar.
^ᵘnote:Meal-offerings and drink-offerings.
^ᵛnote:This may be redeemed even though still clean. According to R. Gershom: it may not be redeemed at all even though unclean.
^ʷnote:Lev. V, 6, 10.
^ˣnote:Ibid. 13. For the offences enumerated in Lev. V, 1-4 a rich man must bring for a sin-offering a she-lamb or a she-goat, a poor man two doves, and one in extreme poverty a meal-offering. But it is to be observed that concerning the first two Scripture uses the expression, u,tyj ivfv uhkg rpfu And the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin, whilst concerning the latter Scripture says, u,tyj kg ivfv uhkg rpfu And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin. From these variations of expression the Rabbis derived the law that if a rich man sinned and set apart money for his animal-offering and then became poor, he has only to bring doves or a meal-offering from a part of the money set aside (i.e., u,tyjn from the money set apart for his sin) and the remainder he may retain for himself. And on the other hand, if a poor man sinned and set apart money for his meal-offering and then became rich, he must add to the money set aside (i.e., u,tyj kg for, in addition to, the money set apart for his sin), and bring the offering prescribed for a rich man, or if he brought a tenth of flour for his meal-offering, he must redeem it and add money to it in order to acquire a bird-offering or an animal-offering. Thus we see that this meal-offering is redeemed even though clean.
^ʸnote:E.g., while taking out the handful the priest expressed the intention of burning the handful or of eating the remainder outside the prescribed time.
^ᶻnote:Who holds that whatsoever is forbidden for any kind of use cannot convey food-uncleanness.
^ᵃᵃnote:So MS.M.; cur. edd.: ‘We have learnt’. It is not found, however, in the Mishnah, but in Tosef. ‘Uk. III and Bek. 9b.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. Glos. This and all the others enumerated are forbidden for any kind of use.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. Deut. XXII, 9.

²an ox condemned to be stoned, the heifer whose neck was to be broken, the birds of the leper, the firstling of an ass, and meat cooked in milk — all these convey food-uncleanness. R. Simeon says, All these do not convey food-uncleanness. R. Simeon, however, agrees that meat cooked in milk conveys food-uncleanness, for there was a time when it was permitted. And R. Assi had said in the name of R. Johanan, What is the reason for R. Simeon's view? [Because it is written], All food therein which may be eaten; [therefore], food which you may give others to eat is termed food, but food which you may not give others to eat is not termed food. And the meal-offering which was made piggul is also a food which you may not give others to eat. If that is so, then meat cooked in milk [should convey food-uncleanness] by virtue of the fact that it is a food which you may give others to eat! For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, Meat cooked in milk is forbidden to be eaten but is permitted for use, for it is written, For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk; whilst elsewhere it is written, And ye shall be holy men unto Me; therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; [ye shall cast it to the dogs]. Just as there it is forbidden to be eaten but is permitted for use, so here too it is forbidden to be eaten but is permitted for use! — He gave one reason and yet another. For one thing it is a food which you may give others to eat, and besides even for [the Israelite] himself there was a time when it was permitted. An objection was raised [from the following]: R. Simeon says, There is nothar which conveys food-uncleanness and there is also nothar which does not convey food-uncleanness. Thus if [the flesh of the offering] had remained overnight before the sprinkling of the blood, it does not convey food-uncleanness; but if [it had remained overnight] after the sprinkling of the blood, it conveys food-uncleanness. And an offering that had been made piggul, be it of the most holy or of the less holy offerings, does not convey food-uncleanness. But a meal-offering that had been made piggul conveys food-uncleanness! — This is no difficulty, for in the one case there was a time when it had been permitted, whilst in the other there was no time when it had been permitted. How is it that there was no time when it had been permitted? — Where [the grain] had been consecrated [for a meal-offering] while it was still growing. But one could have redeemed it! This of course presents no difficulty according to that version which gives R. Oshaia's view thus: If they became unclean they may be redeemed, but if they are clean they may not be redeemed. But according to the other version which gives as his view: Even though they are clean they may be redeemed, [then the question will be asked here,] one could have redeemed it! — [That is so but] the fact is that it had not been redeemed. But if one so desired one could have redeemed it, and we have heard R. Simeon say that whatsoever stands to be redeemed is as though it were redeemed. For it was taught: The [Red] Cow conveys food-uncleanness, since there was a time when it was permitted [to be eaten]. And Resh Lakish observed that R. Simeon used to say that the Red Cow could be redeemed even on its woodpile! — There is no comparison at all. The Red Cow can rightly be regarded as ready to be redeemed, for if another cow finer than this one is obtainable, it is a meritorious act to redeem it; but as regards meal-offerings, is there any meritorious act to redeem [what has been consecrated for a meal-offering]? But in the case where [a portion of the sacrifice] had remained overnight before the sprinkling [of the blood], there was a duty to sprinkle the blood, and if one so desired one could have sprinkled it, nevertheless the [Baraitha] states that it does not convey food-uncleanness! — We must assume that there was no time left during the day for the sprinkling [of the blood]. Then what would be the position where there was sufficient time left in the day [for the sprinkling]? It would convey food-uncleanness! If so, instead of teaching, ‘If [it remained overnight] after the sprinkling [of the blood] it conveys food-uncleanness’, [the Tanna] should have drawn a distinction in the very case itself in the following terms: This applies only where no time was left during the day [for the sprinkling of the blood], but if there was sufficient time left in the day [for the sprinkling] it conveys food-uncleanness! — That is just what [the Tanna] meant to teach: If [the portion of the sacrifice] had remained overnight before [the blood] was ready for the sprinkling, it does not convey food-uncleanness; but if after [the blood] was ready for the sprinkling, it conveys food-uncleanness. But in the case where an offering, either of the most holy or of the less holy kind, had been made piggul, there was a duty to sprinkle [the blood in the proper manner],40^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ

^ᵃᵈnote:V. Ex. XXI, 28. The ox had been slaughtered after it had been condemned to be stoned for killing a human being.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. Deut. XXI, 1ff. The heifer was slaughtered after it had been brought down to the rough valley, and as soon as it was brought down there it became forbidden for all purposes.
^ᵃᶠnote:Which had been slaughtered. V. Lev. XIV, 4.
^ᵃᵍnote:Which had been slaughtered for a gentile but was not quite dead yet; v. Hul. 117b, Sonc. ed., p. 648, n. 5. The firstling of an ass is before redemption forbidden for all purposes. V. Ex. XXXIV, 20.
^ᵃʰnote:It is assumed for the present that this is also forbidden for all purposes. V. infra.
^ᵃⁱnote:If they had been rendered unclean, e.g. by a reptile, they can convey uncleanness to other foodstuffs by contact.
^ᵃʲnote:For before the meat had been cooked in the milk, although it had been left to soak therein, both the meat and the milk were permitted to be eaten.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lev. XI, 34.
^ᵃˡnote:Sc. gentiles.
^ᵃᵐnote:And conveys food-uncleanness.
^ᵃⁿnote:And what is forbidden for all uses may not be given away even to gentiles.
^ᵃᵒnote:For it must be burnt.
^ᵃᵖnote:That R. Simeon derives his view from the exposition of the verse quoted, and therefore what is permitted for use conveys food-uncleanness.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., according to R. Simeon.
^ᵃʳnote:V. Hul. 116a.
^ᵃˢnote:Deut. XIV, 21.
^ᵃᵗnote:Ex. XXII, 30.
^ᵃᵘnote:Since it may be cast to the dogs. And as it is one's duty to provide for one's animals this is accounted as a benefit.
^ᵃᵛnote:Sc. meat cooked in milk.
^ᵃʷnote:And for that reason alone it conveys food-uncleanness.
^ᵃˣnote:V. supra p. 621, n. 10. On the other hand, the other forbidden things enumerated were at no time permitted to be eaten, since a living animal is deemed to be forbidden until it has been ritually slaughtered.
^ᵃʸnote:I.e., ‘that which remained’; the portion of a sacrifice that had not been eaten or sacrificed upon the altar within the time prescribed. It may not be eaten or put to any kind of use, but must be burnt.
^ᵃᶻnote:In this case the flesh of the sacrifice had never been permitted to be eaten, hence it is not regarded as a foodstuff.
^ᵇᵃnote:Accordingly the flesh was permitted to be eaten the same day after the sprinkling of the blood until midnight.
^ᵇᵇnote:This last ruling is contrary to R. Oshaia's ruling supra p. 620.
^ᵇᶜnote:The flour of the meal-offering had been permitted for food before it had been consecrated for the meal-offering, hence even though it is now piggul it still conveys food-uncleanness. This is the case dealt with by the Baraitha quoted.
^ᵇᵈnote:That dealt with by R. Oshaia.
^ᵇᵉnote:Accordingly there would have been a time when it was permitted for food.
^ᵇᶠnote:V. Hul., Sonc. ed., pp. 455-6.
^ᵇᵍnote:Even though it is forbidden for all purposes.
^ᵇʰnote:I.e., even after it had been slaughtered upon the specially erected woodpile and is ready for burning it may be redeemed if a finer animal is obtainable.
^ᵇⁱnote:Of course not. Therefore it is not regarded as already redeemed.
^ᵇʲnote:Obviously we do not accept the principle that whatever is in the condition ready to be sprinkled is considered as already sprinkled.
^ᵇᵏnote:I.e., the sacrifice was slaughtered almost at sunset, so that the blood could not possibly have been sprinkled in the proper time; accordingly the flesh was never permitted as food.
^ᵇˡnote:Viz., where it had remained overnight before the sprinkling.
^ᵇᵐnote:That the sacrificial portion which remained overnight does not convey food-uncleanness.
^ᵇⁿnote:And it goes without saying that if it remained overnight after the sprinkling it conveys food-uncleanness.
^ᵇᵒnote:I.e., there was no time left in the day for the sprinkling.
^ᵇᵖnote:As there was time left in the day for the sprinkling it is regarded as already sprinkled; accordingly the flesh is considered as having been in the permitted state, and therefore conveys food-uncleanness.
^ᵇᵠnote:I.e., free from any intention that makes the offering piggul.