Sanhedrin 112b — the Talmud in English

We learned in our Mishna:

“And the consecrated property within it shall be redeemed, etc.”

The Sages taught:

If

there were

in the city that was condemned

consecrated animals—

If there were

consecrated animals designated for the altar,

such as an olah or an asham offering that the wicked people within it had set aside, although they are not considered “its animals,” but rather animals belonging to Heaven, nevertheless, since it is objectionable to offer sacrifices of these wicked people, these animals are gathered into an enclosure and fed barley until their bellies burst — and

they will die

on their own .

And if there were

consecrated property for Temple maintenance—

it shall be redeemed.

And terumot

that were in it—

shall rot.

And second tithe and sacred writings—

shall be put into geniza.

Rabbi Shimon says: “Its animal”

implies—

but not the animal of a firstborn, and

the animal of

a tithe [the law of these animals is that their meat belongs to an Israelite, while their fat and blood are offered on the altar].

мясо этих животных принадлежит израильтянину, а их жир и кровь приносятся на жертвеннике].

“Its spoil”

implies—

excluding consecrated money and second-tithe money.

The reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion will be explained below.

The Master said: If there were consecrated animals in it, consecrated animals designated for the altar shall die.

And

this is difficult:

Why should they die? Let

those animals

graze until they develop a disqualifying blemish [until a blemish occurs in them],

пока у них не появится порок],

and

then

they shall be sold, and the proceeds shall be allocated for communal offerings!

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish explained this matter:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Even their monetary value is forbidden, because it is stated:

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination.”

Reish Lakish said: The consecrated animals designated for the altar about which the tanna spoke

—

they are the property of their owners. And here

the case under discussion is

consecrated animals for which one is liable to replace them [if they are lost after he set them aside as an offering, he must bring another animal],

то есть если они пропадут после того, как он отделил их для жертвоприношения, он обязан привести другое животное],

and

this is the approach of

Rabbi Shimon, who says

that consecrated animals for which one is liable to replace them

are the property of their owners,

and these animals are therefore like the other animals within the city, whose law is that they are killed by the sword. And the reason that we learned that they die, rather than being killed together with the other animals, is out of regard for Heaven.

We raise an objection:

Since the latter clause

of the beraita

is Rabbi Shimon’s,

it follows that the

first clause—

is not

the approach of

Rabbi Shimon

?

And we answer: The case is

lesser sanctity [such as second tithe and the Paschal offering],

например, о втором десятинном продукте и пасхальной жертве],

and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: Lesser-sanctity offerings

are the property

.

We raise an objection:

But offerings of the highest sanctity,

which are not the property of their owners,

what

is their law? Do they indeed

graze

until they develop a blemish and then are redeemed?

If so,

rather than teaching in the latter clause [rather than teaching in the latter clause] “Consecrated property for Temple maintenance shall be redeemed,”

вместо того чтобы таннай учил в конце]

let him distinguish and teach it with regard to that very matter [let the tanna distinguish among the offerings designated for the altar themselves]: The statement that they die

пусть таннай разделит и разъяснит закон относительно самих жертвенных животных]: то, что мы учили о том, что они умрут,

applies when—

the offerings are of lesser sanctity. But offerings of the highest sanctity—

shall graze!

And we explain: The tanna could not teach that offerings of the highest sanctity shall be redeemed. The reason is

that there is a sin offering, which

has the law that if

its owners die—

it is destined to die,

and therefore, if there was in the condemned city an animal that had been set aside as a sin offering, since its owners died, having been killed along with all the wicked people of the city, that animal is destined to die and is not redeemed.

Therefore,

it is not possible for the tanna to teach categorically, “Offerings of the highest sanctity shall be redeemed,” since there is an exception, namely a sin offering, which is not redeemed.

Обсуждают это:

We consider the matter:

Granted, Rabbi Yohanan did not state his opinion in accordance with Reish Lakish,

because

it is written: “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination.”

Therefore, even if the animals were redeemed, it would be forbidden to use their proceeds.

But Reish Lakish, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan?

He could say—

Reish Lakish:

When we say, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination,”

that a sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination before the Holy One, blessed be He,

that applies when it is present as it is [that is so specifically when the animal itself still exists].

то есть когда само животное всё ещё существует].

But here,

where the animal is allowed to graze until it develops a blemish and is then redeemed for money,

since it has changed [since the matter has changed, as it is no longer the animal itself but its monetary value]—

поскольку предмет изменился: речь идёт уже не о самом животном, а о его стоимости],

it has changed,

and it is permitted to use the money for the needs of consecrated property.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says: “Its animal”—

but not the animal of a firstborn or of a tithe.

What is the case under discussion?

In what circumstances is this referring?

If you say it is referring to unblemished animals [unblemished firstborn and tithe animals, in which no blemish occurred], why is it necessary to exclude them from the word “your animal”? After all,

о первенцах и животных десятины без порока, у которых не возник физический изъян], то зачем исключать их из слова «твой скот»? Ведь

it is the property of Heaven,

and it is excluded by the word “its spoil”!

Rather,

if we say that the case is referring to

blemished animals,

then

they are its spoil,

so why are they excluded from all the other animals of the city?

Ravina said: Actually,

the case is referring to

blemished animals,

but nevertheless they are not killed with the other animals of the city, because this is how the verse is expounded: “Its animal”—

that which is eaten by you,

by its owners,

as its animal. These are excluded,

the animals of a firstborn and of a tithe,

which are not eaten as its animal,

since they are not called “the animal of the condemned city,”

but as a firstborn and a tithe [they are called “the firstborn and tithe animal of the condemned city”],

их называют «первенцем и десятиной города, приговорённого к уничтожению»],

for they are the property of Heaven.

And

Ravina’s statement

disagrees

with

Shmuel. For Shmuel said

in response to our question concerning Rabbi Shimon:

Everything is offered, and everything is redeemed.

What is he saying?

What did Shmuel intend by his statement?

This is what he is saying: Every

offering

that is offered

on the altar

when it is unblemished, and is redeemed [and requires redemption]

и требует выкупа]

when it is blemished,

such as all other offerings of lesser sanctity except a firstborn and a tithe—

from “its spoil” [from the word “its spoil”]

из слова «его добыча»]

it is excluded [it is excluded]. Since it requires redemption when it is blemished, it is considered the property of Heaven .

то есть не включается в этот закон]. Поскольку при наличии физического изъяна она требует выкупа, она считается добычей Небес .

And anything that is offered when it is unblemished but is not redeemed when it is blemished,

but is eaten by its owners without redemption, such as a firstborn and a tithe, is not considered the property of Heaven even when it is unblemished, and it cannot be excluded by the word “its spoil.” Rather,

it is derived from “animal” [from the word “its animal”]: A firstborn and tithe that are unblemished are excluded, because they are not called the animal of the condemned city.

из слова «его скот» мы исключаем] первенца и животных десятины без порока, поскольку они не называются скотом города, приговорённого к уничтожению.

By contrast, a blemished animal, which is eaten by its owners without redemption, is not excluded from the category of the animal of the condemned city, and is judged together with them .

And in this Shmuel disagrees with Ravina. Shmuel holds that only unblemished animals are excluded, whereas blemished animals are judged together with the other animals of the city. Ravina, however, holds that even blemished animals are not killed, and this is derived from the word “your animal,” as explained above.

We learned in a beraita:

Terumot shall rot.

Rav Ḥisda said: They taught this—

only with regard to teruma in the possession of an Israelite,

which has not yet been given to a koen. Since this is so, it is possible that he would ultimately have given it to a righteous koen who was not a resident of the city. It would then be considered a deposit belonging to a resident of another city that was found within the condemned city, whose law is that it is permitted and is not burned.

However, since it is possible that he would have given it to a wicked koen who was a resident of the city, the teruma is not permitted to be eaten; rather, its law is that it must rot.

But teruma

that had already been given

to the possession of a koen

who was a resident of the city—

since it is his property

of the koen,

—

indeed, it

shall be burned.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

from the beraita. For we learned:

“Second tithe and sacred writings shall be put into geniza.” And second tithe in the possession of an Israelite

is comparable to teruma in the possession of a koen,

since in both cases it is his property,

and

nevertheless

it teaches

with regard to second tithe

“shall be put into geniza,”

and not in accordance with Rav Ḥisda’s statement that teruma in the possession of a koen shall be burned!

Rather, if it was stated—

it was stated as follows [if Rav Ḥisda’s statement was made, it was made as follows]:

если высказывание Рава Хисды было произнесено, то оно было произнесено следующим образом]:

Rav Ḥisda said: They taught

that terumot shall rot—

only

in the case of

teruma

that is already

in the possession of a koen,

as it is his property. Nevertheless, we do not say that it shall be burned, in order not to treat teruma disrespectfully, since it is consecrated.

But teruma

that is still

in the possession of an Israelite,

who has not given it to a koen—

shall be given to a koen

who is righteous

in another city [who was not condemned along with them].

который не был изгнан вместе с ними].

We learned there:

“Dough of second tithe is exempt from ḥalla [there is no need to separate ḥalla from it].

от него не требуется отделять халу].

The statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages obligate

the dough of second tithe in the separation of ḥalla.

Rav Ḥisda said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages

is with regard to second tithe

found

in Jerusalem,

where it is permitted for its owner to eat it.

For Rabbi Meir holds: Second tithe is the property of the Most High. And the Rabbis hold: It is the property of an ordinary person.

But

second tithe found

in the outlying areas,

outside Jerusalem, where it is forbidden to eat [and is permitted for eating only if it is redeemed with money]—

everyone agrees that it is exempt

from the separation of ḥalla, since it is the property of the Most High .

Rav Yosef raised an objection: Second tithe and sacred writings shall be put into geniza.

What is the case under discussion?

In what circumstances is this referring?

If you say

it is referring to second tithe found

in Jerusalem, is Jerusalem

a

condemned city [could Jerusalem become a condemned city]?

разве Иерусалим становится городом, приговорённым к уничтожению]?

But it was taught in a beraita: Ten matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem, and this is one of them: It does not become a condemned city,

even if most of the residents of the city were led astray!

Rather,

if we say that the case is referring to

о

second tithe belonging to a resident of

another city

that was condemned,

and they brought it inside [and brought the tithe into Jerusalem] before that city was condemned—

внесли этот десятинный продукт в Иерусалим] ещё до того, как тот город был совращён, —

This cannot be said. If so, why should it be put into geniza?

The partitions

окончательно

of Jerusalem

had already absorbed it [the walls of Jerusalem had already absorbed it] before the city was condemned, and it should therefore be permitted even for eating!

Rather, is it not—

necessarily, the case is referring to second tithe found

in the outlying areas,

which had not yet been brought into Jerusalem,

and it teaches: “Shall be put into geniza”!

And if it is as Rav Ḥisda said, that second tithe found in the outlying areas is, according to everyone, the property of the Most High, why should the tithe not be permitted even for eating!?

And we reject this:

No. Actually,

the case is referring to second tithe

belonging to another city, and they brought it inside [and had already brought it into Jerusalem] before that city was condemned.

который уже внесли в Иерусалим] до того, как этот город был совращён.

And what is the case here?—

That it became impure,

and therefore it is forbidden for eating .

We raise an objection:

And

even so, why should it be put into geniza?

Let him redeem it [let him redeem it]!

пусть его выкупят]!

As Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it derived with regard to second tithe that became impure that it may be redeemed even

when it is already found

in Jerusalem,

despite the statement “But if the way be too far for you, so that you cannot carry it, etc., then you shall turn it into money,” from which we derive from the words “if the way be too far for you” that one redeems only when far away, but one may not redeem when nearby?

The verse states: “So that you cannot carry it.” And carrying—

means nothing other than eating, as it is stated: “And he lifted portions from before him”!

And this is how we expound the verse: “If the way be too far for you,” when you are at a distance, or “so that you cannot carry it,” when you cannot eat it because it became impure, then “you shall turn it into money, etc.”

And we say:

What is the case here?—

With

an item

purchased

with second-tithe money. That is, one purchased meat, wine, or beer with the money, and they became impure. In such a case, redemption is ineffective.

And Rabbi Elazar’s statement that redemption is effective applies to the actual produce of second tithe that one brought to Jerusalem and that became impure there.