Shevuot 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rav Hisda:

Are you speaking of the incense

to prove that it can be redeemed?

The incense is different,

for it possesses not intrinsic sanctity but

sanctity of monetary value.

This is because the mortar in which it is ground is not considered a Temple vessel.

Rava said to him:

If so,

since the incense does not acquire intrinsic sanctity,

it should not become disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day,

if one who immersed that day touched it, for one who immersed that day disqualifies only items that acquired intrinsic sanctity. And if so,

why is it taught: If one placed

the incense

in a mortar,

it

becomes disqualified

through contact with

one who immersed that day?

And should you say that all items possessing sanctity of monetary value

also

become disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day, this is not correct!

But didn’t we learn: With regard to the meal-offerings

of an individual,

one commits misuse of them once they have been consecrated,

even though their sanctity is only sanctity of monetary value, since one commits misuse of consecrated property whether it possesses sanctity of monetary value or intrinsic sanctity. And once

the meal-offerings have acquired sanctity

through being placed

in a

Temple vessel in the Temple courtyard, they have thereby

been rendered susceptible to becoming disqualified through

contact with

one who immersed that day, and

through contact with

one lacking atonement [

who is impure but has purified himself through immersion and has not yet brought his purification-offerings].

And

those meal-offerings that acquired intrinsic sanctity through being placed in a Temple vessel were likewise rendered susceptible to becoming disqualified

through overnight stay,

for if the night passed over them after they had been consecrated, they are disqualified!

And it is evident from this Mishna that only if they

acquired sanctity in a vessel

of the Temple service—

yes,

they do indeed become disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day; but if they

did not acquire sanctity in a vessel

of the Temple service, they

do not

become disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day. And if so, this is a difficulty for Rav Hisda, who said that the sanctity of the incense is only sanctity of monetary value: How can it become disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day?

Rav Hisda said to Rava: But what then

do you say—that the sanctity of the incense placed in a mortar

is intrinsic sanctity,

and that is why it becomes disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day?

If so,

since the incense acquired intrinsic sanctity,

it should also become disqualified

as well

through an overnight stay,

as is the law with regard to all items that acquire intrinsic sanctity in a Temple vessel: if the night passes over them, they become disqualified for sacrifice. And if so,

why did we learn

that incense ground in a mortar does not become disqualified through an overnight stay until it is placed in a Temple vessel?

For we learned in tractate Meila [following the Mishna cited above, which states that all the meal-offerings of an individual acquire intrinsic sanctity through being placed in a Temple vessel and are thereby rendered susceptible to becoming disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day and through an overnight stay]—

the handful and the frankincense

of an individual’s meal-offering,

and the incense,

which is a communal offering,

and the meal-offering of priests,

which is burned in its entirety and from which no handful is removed,

and the meal-offering of the anointed priest,

which he brings every day,

and the libation meal-offering,

which is brought with an animal offering and from which, too, no handful is removed, but which is burned in its entirety—

one commits misuse of them once they have been consecrated! Once they acquired sanctity in a vessel

of the Temple service at the time they are brought to be burned,

they were rendered susceptible to becoming disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day, one lacking atonement, and through an overnight stay.

And it is evident from here that the incense acquires sanctity so as to become disqualified both through contact with one who immersed that day and through an overnight stay, whereas in the earlier beraita it is taught that it acquires sanctity only so as to become disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day [as the beraita does not teach that it becomes disqualified through an overnight stay]. This is because the incense does not acquire intrinsic sanctity when it is ground in a mortar, but only when it is placed in a Temple vessel before it is burned, analogous to the Temple vessel used for the handful and the frankincense, which are placed in a Temple vessel before they are burned.

And this is what we should infer precisely from this Mishna:

If they acquired sanctity

the handful, the frankincense, or the incense

in a vessel

of the Temple service at the time of burning,

yes.

They were rendered susceptible to becoming disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day and through an overnight stay.

If they did not acquire sanctity

at that time, at the time of burning,

in a vessel

of the Temple service,

they did not

become susceptible to becoming disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day and through an overnight stay.

Even though the incense had already previously been in a mortar! And it is evident that the mortar does not impart intrinsic sanctity to the incense, because the mortar is not considered a Temple vessel!

He said to him

Rava:

Are you speaking of an overnight stay?

Do you claim that it is evident from the fact that the incense does not become disqualified through an overnight stay after being ground in a mortar that it has not yet acquired intrinsic sanctity? You cannot prove anything from here. For the disqualification resulting from an overnight stay is due to a change in form, as waiting through the night changes the appearance of the offering. Therefore,

the incense is different

from other offerings: it does not become disqualified through an overnight stay even though it acquired intrinsic sanctity in the mortar,

since its form

does not change through an overnight stay; rather, it retains its form

throughout the entire year!

Nevertheless, once it acquired sanctity in a vessel in order to be sacrificed, the Sages decreed upon it the disqualification of an overnight stay, so that people would not come to permit such a stay with regard to other consecrated items (Rashi).

And we raise an objection:

In any event,

even if Rava has properly answered Rav Hisda’s difficulty, there still

remains a difficulty,

namely, Rav Hisda’s earlier difficulty concerning Rabbi Yohanan’s statement that the remaining daily offerings can be redeemed: 22

And where has the sanctity that they possessed gone?

For we do not find redemption for an item possessing intrinsic sanctity!?

Rava said: The heart of the court stipulates with regard to them,

at the time the communal offerings are acquired, concerning their sanctity:

If they are needed,

for the offerings,

they are needed,

and they are consecrated with intrinsic sanctity;

but if not,

rather, they remained [whether daily offerings or incense],

they shall be

consecrated

only for their monetary value,

and they can be redeemed from their sanctity.

Abaye said

to Rava:

But it was you, Master, who said: If one consecrated a male

unblemished animal

for its monetary value,

so that its sanctity would be such that it could be redeemed and another offering purchased with its value and sacrificed,

it itself is consecrated

itself with

intrinsic sanctity,

and it cannot be redeemed. For anything fit for the altar does not leave the domain of the altar, even if the one who consecrated it explicitly consecrated it only for its monetary value. If so, this is a difficulty: What benefit is there in the stipulation of the court concerning the remaining offerings, that they should not be consecrated except for their monetary value? After all, even if they were consecrated only for their monetary value, they do not leave the domain of the altar!?

Rava said to him:

It is not difficult. This

case, in which it does not leave the domain of the altar, is when

he said, “For the value of an elevation-offering,”

since the animal itself is fit to be an elevation-offering, it becomes consecrated itself with the sanctity of an elevation-offering.

But this

case, in which the stipulation of the court is effective so that it does not acquire intrinsic sanctity, and likewise the consecration of an individual who consecrates an animal only for its monetary value is effective, is, for example, when

he said

regarding an unblemished male animal: Let this be consecrated

“for the value of libations”!

Since the animal itself cannot be sacrificed as libations, it acquires only sanctity of monetary value, so that it can be sold and libations can be brought with its value. And all the more so, this applies to the court stipulating that the remaining daily offerings should be consecrated for the value of “surplus—contribution—old”; that is, their sanctity should be like the sanctity of the funds remaining from the contribution of the previous year, which are designated for purchasing sheets of gold to plate the Holy of Holies. The offering does not acquire intrinsic sanctity, but only sanctity for its monetary value.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava:

from a source:

The bull and the goat

of Yom Kippur

that were inside the Sanctuary, which were lost, and he designated others in their place,