Menachot

for we do not find any case in which what has been hallowed in a vessel of ministry may be redeemed.1 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:2 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,3 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.4 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,5 the frankincense5 and the vessels of ministry6 be redeemed? It must be because the others7 if still clean may not be redeemed,8 and these9 even though unclean are regarded as clean. For10 wood and frankincense are no foodstuffs but are placed in the category of foodstuffs only by reason of sacred esteem.11 Accordingly wood, so long as it has not been cut up into chips.12 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,13 [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.14 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. 15 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,16 since what is fit for the altar can never be released from the altar’,17 he would have retracted [his statement].18 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 they19 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, they20 are undoubtedly scarce. R. Kahana said, [If they21 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,22 since the Torah has stated [in the one case] from his sin23 and [in the other] for his sin.24 R. Oshaia said, I have heard that if a meal-offering was made piggul25 it does not, according to R. Simeon,26 convey fooduncleanness. For it has been taught:27 ‘Orlah,28 diverse kinds of the vineyard,29 redeemed. ordinary standards they cannot contract uncleanness. V. Pes. 35a; Hul. 36b. clean’. This is an obvious gloss, and is not found in MS.M. nor in other MSS. and is deleted by Sh. Mek. unclean. 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. remainder outside the prescribed time.