Menachot 101a (קא.) — the Talmud in English

for we have not found anything consecrated in a service vessel that can be redeemed

[we have not found an item that was consecrated in a vessel and can then be redeemed].

The Gemara asks:

And where is an animal with a blemish called “impure”

[where do we find that an animal with a blemish is called “impure”?]

The Gemara answers: It is as

it was taught:

It is written [Leviticus 27:11]: “

And if it is any impure animal

…then the priest shall value it…and if he shall in any way redeem it…”

The verse is speaking of animals with blemishes

—which are impure and unfit for sacrifice—

that may be redeemed.

You say

that the verse is speaking of

animals with blemishes that may be redeemed; or perhaps it is speaking only of an actually impure animal

—such as a horse or a donkey—

itself,

and the verse is speaking of an animal of a species unfit to be an offering, which, if consecrated, can be redeemed, whereas an animal of a species fit to be an offering cannot be redeemed even when it has a blemish?

When it says

[there, verse 27]: “

And if it is an impure animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation,”

an actually impure animal

has already been

stated; so how do I understand

[it is necessarily necessary to interpret] “

And if it is any impure animal”?

The verse is speaking of animals with blemishes that may be redeemed.

One might have thought that they may be redeemed

even

for a transitory blemish; the verse states: “And if it is any impure animal

when the defect passes, is excluded.

from which they may not offer an offering to the Lord,”

to teach:

one that may not be offered to the Lord

at all is excluded; this one, which may not be offered today but may be offered tomorrow,

when the blemish passes.

Thus we find that the Torah called an animal with a blemish “an impure animal.”

Rav Huna bar Menoaḥ raised an objection

to Shmuel from the latter clause of our Mishna:

The birds, the wood, the frankincense, and the service vessels that became impure cannot be redeemed, as redemption was stated only with regard to an animal.

But

it is understandable with regard to birds:

They cannot be redeemed because they are

possessed of inherent sanctity, and redemption was stated

with regard to inherent sanctity

only for an animal.

But wood and frankincense,

which have not yet been consecrated in a vessel,

and service vessels—

all of which do not possess inherent sanctity—when they become impure,

should be redeemed

[they should be redeemed]!? For the reason “redemption was stated only with regard to an animal” does not apply to these, since that applies specifically to an item possessing inherent sanctity; but these do not possess inherent sanctity, so why should they not be redeemed!?

Rather, is it not necessary to explain that the reason that wood, frankincense, and service vessels cannot be redeemed is

into pieces of wood,

because ordinarily pure items cannot be redeemed,

even when they have not acquired inherent sanctity,

and these

—wood, frankincense, and service vessels that became impure—

also

cannot be redeemed, because

although they became impure, they are considered like pure items

that cannot be redeemed; and this is because:

With regard to wood,

since it is not food, by law it should not contract impurity at all; its entire susceptibility to impurity is because “the affection of the sacred” renders it susceptible, and therefore, as long as

it has not been smoothed

[scrubbed and prepared]

into billets,

making it fit for the wood of the arrangement,

it is not rendered susceptible

to contracting impurity. And

frankincense likewise,

which is not food but contracts impurity because of the affection of the sacred, therefore

as long as it has not been consecrated in a vessel, it is not rendered susceptible

to contracting impurity.

And

service vessels likewise,

although they can contract impurity, are nevertheless considered like pure objects with regard to this matter, in that they cannot be redeemed,

since they have purification in a ritual bath.

If so, it is proven that pure items cannot be redeemed, and this is a difficulty against Shmuel!?

The Gemara answers:

No; I will say to you that ordinarily pure items can be redeemed, and the reason these

—wood, frankincense, and service vessels—have no redemption, even though they do not possess inherent sanctity, is rabbinic:

because they are uncommon

[they are not readily found], and if the law were that they could be redeemed, one would redeem them for non-sacred use, and they would not be available for service.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It is understandable with regard to frankincense and service vessels—they are indeed

not common—

but wood

is

certainly readily available!?

The Gemara answers:

Wood too, since the Master said: Any wood in which a worm is found is unfit for the altar, it is therefore not common,

and consequently it cannot be redeemed.

Rav Pappa said: If Shmuel had heard

[if Shmuel had heard this], who said that even pure items may be redeemed,

the beraita that was taught:

One who designates unblemished animals

[who consecrates animals without blemishes]

for Temple maintenance may redeem them only for the altar, since anything fit for the altar never leaves the domain of the altar; he would have retracted his position

[he would have withdrawn his view], since meal offerings and libations are fit for the altar, and they must be redeemed specifically for the altar.

The Gemara rejects Rav Pappa’s statement:

That is not so

as Rav Pappa said; rather,

he did hear

this beraita, but

nevertheless

from his sin,” “

he did not retract his position, since the beraita stated that unblemished animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are not to be redeemed for a different reason:

From this we learned in Keritot 27b that if a poor person separated a tenth of an ephah and then became wealthy, he redeems it, adds money to it, and purchases a female sheep or goat. It is therefore clear that the meal offering of a sinner can be redeemed even when it is pure.

For

did you not say there—

with regard to wood, frankincense, and service vessels—

since they are uncommon, they are not redeemed

[since they are uncommon, they are not redeemed by rabbinic decree]—

Here too,

with regard to an unblemished animal,

since blemishes that disqualify an animal are common,

[since blemishes that disqualify an animal are common],

for

even

blemishes in the eyes

also disqualify it, unblemished animals are therefore uncommon,

and consequently, by rabbinic decree, they may be redeemed only for the altar. This has no bearing on meal offerings and libations, which may be redeemed because their being available is common.

Rav Kahana said, the ruling is not in accordance with Shmuel; rather:

not in accordance with Samuel, but:

Meal offerings and libations that were not consecrated in a vessel, when they are

impure they may be redeemed; when they are pure they may not be redeemed.

And Rabbi Oshaya likewise said: When they are impure they may be redeemed; when they are pure they may not be redeemed.

Some say that Rabbi Oshaya said:

Even when they are pure they may be redeemed,

in accordance with Shmuel.

Rabbi Elazar says:

All of them

[all meal offerings], when they are

impure they may be redeemed,

but when they are

pure they may not be redeemed, except for the tenth of an ephah of the meal offering of a sinner,

[who is obligated to bring an adjustable offering and is in the greatest poverty, in which case he brings a meal offering], which may be redeemed even when it has not become impure—

For the Torah says

[Leviticus 5, in the passage concerning the adjustable offering]: “

from his sin,” “

for his sin.”

From this we learn in Keritot 27b that if one was poor and set aside a tenth of an ephah, and then became wealthy, he redeems it, adds money to it, and purchases a sheep or a she-goat. It is thus explicit that the meal offering of a sinner may be redeemed even when it is pure.

The Gemara cites another statement of Rabbi Oshaya, and later in the discussion the two statements are connected.

Rabbi Oshaya said:

I heard that if one

performed piggul with a meal offering,

thereby rendering it forbidden to derive benefit from it,

according to Rabbi Shimon—

who is cited later in the discussion—

it does not contract food impurity,

and does not contract impurity like other foods.

As we learned:

Orlah and the produce of a vineyard planted with diverse species,

which are forbidden to derive benefit from,