Menachot 101a — the Talmud in English

for we have not found that anything from a service vessel is redeemed

[we have not found an object that was consecrated in a vessel that is redeemed].

The Gemara asks:

And where is a defective animal called impure

[where do we find that a defective animal is called impure]?

And we answer: Like this

as it was taught:

It is written [Leviticus 27:11]: “

And if any impure animal

... and the priest shall value it... and if he will indeed redeem it...”

With regard to defective animals

— those impure for sacrifice —

the verse speaks, [namely, animals] that are redeemed.

You say:

The verse speaks of

defective animals that are redeemed, or is it only speaking of an actually impure animal

— such as a horse or a donkey —

itself,

the verse speaks, so that if he consecrated them they are redeemed, since this species is unfit as an offering, but an animal fit to be an offering is not redeemed even when it is defective?

When it says

[there, verse 27]: “

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

an actually impure animal

is already

stated; so how do I fulfill

[it is necessarily necessary to interpret] “

And if any impure animal”

The verse speaks of defective animals that are redeemed.

Could they be redeemed

even

for a transient defect? The verse says: “And if any impure animal

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

to teach:

one that cannot be offered to the Lord

at all; this one, which cannot be offered today but can be offered tomorrow,

when

the defect passes.

We have therefore found that the Torah called a defective animal “an impure animal.”

Rav Huna bar Menaḥem raises an objection

to Samuel from the latter clause of our Mishna:

The birds, the wood, the frankincense, and the service vessels that became impure have no redemption, for redemption was stated only with regard to an animal.

But

granted that birds

are not redeemed because

they are the sanctity of the body, and redemption was stated

with regard to the sanctity of the body

only with regard to an animal.

But wood and frankincense,

which he has not yet consecrated in a vessel,

and service vessels — all of these are not consecrated with the sanctity of the body — when they become impure,

should they be redeemed

[redeemed]!? For regarding these, the reason “redemption was stated only with regard to an animal” does not apply, since that applies specifically to an object consecrated with the sanctity of the body; but these are not consecrated with the sanctity of the body, so why should they not be redeemed!?

it has not been smoothed

Rather, is it not necessarily to interpret that the reason that wood, frankincense, and service vessels are not redeemed is

because ordinarily pure [objects] are not redeemed

even when they were not consecrated with the sanctity of the body,

it does not become susceptible

and these

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

also

are not redeemed, because

even though they became impure, they are considered like pure [objects]

that are not redeemed, and because:

For wood

— since it is not food, by law it should not receive impurity at all, and all its impurity is because the “affection of the sacred” renders it susceptible ; and if so, for as long as

he has not smoothed

[rubbed and beautified]

them into billets,

to make them fit for the wood of the arrangement,

they do not become susceptible

to receive impurity. And

frankincense also,

which is not food and receives impurity because of the affection of the sacred, if so,

for as long as he has not consecrated it in a vessel, it does not become susceptible

to receive impurity.

And

service vessels also,

although they receive impurity, nevertheless, in this matter they are like a pure [object], so that they are not redeemed,

since they have purification in a ritual bath.

And if so, it is proven that pure [objects] are not redeemed, and this is a difficulty against Samuel!?

And we answer:

No; I will always say to you: ordinarily pure [objects] are redeemed, and these

— wood, frankincense, and service vessels — the reason that they have no redemption, even though they are not consecrated with the sanctity of the body, is rabbinic,

because they are not common

[they are not readily available], and if the law were that they could be redeemed, then he would redeem them for ordinary use and they would not be available for service.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, frankincense and service vessels

indeed

are not common, but wood

is

readily available!?

And we answer:

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

and therefore they do not redeem it.

Rav Pappa said: If Samuel had heard

[if Samuel had heard] — who said: even pure [objects] are redeemed —

this that was taught:

One who designates unblemished animals

[who consecrates animals that have no defect]

for the repair of the Temple does not redeem them except for the altar, for everything fit for the altar never leaves the domain of the altar; he would have retracted his position

[he would have retracted], for the meal-offerings and the libations are fit for the altar, and they must be redeemed specifically for the altar.

The Gemara rejects the words of Rav Pappa:

It is not so

as Rav Pappa [said], for in fact

he heard

this beraita,

and

nevertheless

he did not retract his position,

for the beraita said that unblemished animals consecrated for the repair of the Temple are not to be redeemed for another reason:

For

did you not say there

— with regard to wood, frankincense, and service vessels —

since they are not common, they are not redeemed

[since they are not common, they are not redeemed rabbinically] —

Here also,

with regard to an unblemished animal,

since defects that disqualify an animal are common,

[since defects that disqualify an animal are common],

for

they

also disqualify even for a speck in the eye,

therefore they are not common

unblemished animals, and therefore, rabbinically, they redeem them only for the altar; and it has no connection to meal-offerings and libations, which are redeemed since they are common.

Rav Kahana said,

not in accordance with Samuel, but:

Meal-offerings and libations — which were not consecrated in a vessel — when they are

impure, they are redeemed; pure, they are not redeemed.

And Rabbi Oshaya likewise said: Impure, they are redeemed; pure, they are not redeemed.

There are those who say: Rabbi Oshaya said:

Even pure [objects] are redeemed,

in accordance with Samuel.

Rabbi Elazar says:

All of them

[all the meal-offerings], when they are

impure, are redeemed,

and when they are

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

[who became obligated in an ascending-and-descending offering, and this is in the case of extreme poverty, when he brings a meal-offering], which is redeemed even when it did not become impure —

For the Torah said

[Leviticus 5] in the section of the ascending-and-descending offering: “

from his sin,” “

for his sin,”

and from this we learned in Keritot 27b that if he was poor and separated the tenth of an ephah and then became wealthy, he redeems it and adds money to it and purchases a female sheep or a female goat; it is therefore explained that the meal-offering of a sinner is redeemed even when it is pure.

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

Rabbi Oshaya said:

I heard that if he

rendered the meal-offering piggul

and through this it became forbidden to benefit from,

according to Rabbi Shimon

— who is brought later in the discussion —

it does not transmit the impurity of foods,

it does not receive impurity like other foods.

For we learned:

The fruit of the first three years and the produce of a vineyard planted with mixed seeds

which are forbidden for benefit,