Shevuot 11a — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rav Hisda:

Are you speaking of incense

to prove that it can be redeemed?

Incense is different,

for it has no sanctity of the body, but

its sanctity is monetary sanctity.

Because the mortar in which it is ground is not considered a service vessel.

Rava said to him:

If so,

since the incense does not become sanctified with sanctity of the body,

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

if one who immersed that day touched it, for one who immersed that day disqualifies only things that became sanctified with sanctity of the body. And if so,

why was it taught: If he placed

the

incense in a mortar,

it

becomes disqualified

through the touch of

one who immersed that day!?

And should you say: Every monetary sanctity

also

becomes disqualified through one who immersed that day, this is not correct!

But did we not learn: The meal-offerings

of an individual

are subject to misuse once they have been sanctified,

even though their sanctity is only monetary sanctity, since there is misuse of consecrated property both with monetary sanctity and with sanctity of the body. And if already

they became sanctified,

the meal-offerings through their being placed

in a

service vessel in the Temple courtyard, then by this they

were rendered fit to become disqualified through

the touch of

one who immersed that day, and

through the touch of

one lacking atonement

[who is one who was impure and became pure through immersion, but has not yet brought his offerings of purification].

And

those meal-offerings that became sanctified with sanctity of the body through their being placed in a service vessel were likewise rendered fit to become disqualified

through overnighting,

for if the night passed over them after they became sanctified, they are disqualified!

And it is demonstrated from this Mishna that only if they

became sanctified in a vessel

of service —

yes,

indeed they become disqualified through one who immersed that day, but if they

did not become sanctified in a vessel

of service,

no,

they do not become disqualified through one who immersed that day. And if so, this is a difficulty for Rav Hisda, who says that the sanctity of the incense is only monetary sanctity: how does it become disqualified through the touch of one who immersed that day?

Rav Hisda said to Rava: Rather, what

are you saying, that the sanctity of the incense placed in a mortar

is sanctity of the body,

and therefore it becomes disqualified through the touch of one who immersed that day?

If so,

since the incense became sanctified with sanctity of the body,

it should become disqualified

also

through overnighting,

according to the law of all things that became sanctified with sanctity of the body in a service vessel, for if the night passed over them, they became disqualified for sacrifice. And if so,

why did we learn

that incense that was ground in a mortar does not become disqualified through overnighting until it is placed in a service vessel?

For we learned in tractate Meila [following the Mishna brought above, that all the meal-offerings of an individual become sanctified with sanctity of the body through their being placed in a service vessel, and through this they are rendered fit to become disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day and through overnighting] —

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 in which there is no taking of a handful,

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 in which as well there is no taking of a handful, but they are burned in their entirety,

are subject to misuse once they have been sanctified! Once they became sanctified in a vessel

of service, at the time when they come to be burned,

they were rendered fit to become disqualified through one who immersed that day, through one lacking atonement, and through overnighting.

And it is demonstrated from here that the incense becomes sanctified both to become disqualified through one who immersed that day and to become disqualified through overnighting, whereas in the earlier beraita it is taught that it becomes sanctified only to become disqualified through one who immersed that day [for the beraita did not teach that it becomes disqualified through overnighting], since the incense does not become sanctified with sanctity of the body when they grind it in a mortar, but only when they place it in a service vessel before burning it, analogous to the service vessel of the handful and the frankincense, which are placed in a service vessel before they are burned.

And thus we should precisely infer from this Mishna:

Once they became sanctified

the handful, or the frankincense, or the incense

in a

service vessel at the time of burning,

yes.

They were rendered fit to become disqualified through one who immersed that day and through overnighting.

If they did not become sanctified

now, at the time of burning,

in a

service vessel,

no,

they were not rendered fit to become disqualified through one who immersed that day and through overnighting.

Even though the incense had already previously been in a mortar! And it is demonstrated that the mortar does not sanctify the incense with sanctity of the body, because the mortar is not considered a service vessel!

He said to him

Rava:

Are you speaking of overnighting?

That it is demonstrated from this, that the incense does not become disqualified through overnighting after it was ground in a mortar, that it does not yet possess sanctity of the body!? Do not prove anything from here. For the disqualification of overnighting is because of a change of form, since waiting throughout the night changes the appearance of the offering. And therefore,

incense is different

from the other offerings, for it does not become disqualified through overnighting even though it became sanctified with sanctity of the body in the mortar,

since its form

of the incense does not change through overnighting, but it remains in its form

throughout the entire year!

But once it became sanctified in a vessel in order to be sacrificed, the Sages decreed upon it the disqualification of overnighting, so that they would not come to permit it in the case of other consecrated things (Rashi).

And we raise an objection:

In any event,

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

is a difficulty,

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

And where did the sanctity that was in them go?

For we have not found redemption for sanctity of the body!?

Rava said: The heart of the court stipulates concerning them,

at the time of acquiring them, the communal offerings, concerning their sanctity —

if they were needed,

for them,

they were needed,

and they are sanctified with sanctity of the body,

but if not,

but they remained [whether among the daily offerings or among the incense],

they shall be

sanctified

for their value

alone, and they will be able to be redeemed from their sanctity.

Abaye said to Rava

:

But it is you, Master, who said: If one sanctified a male

unblemished

for its value,

so that its sanctity would be such that they could redeem it and purchase another offering with its value and sacrifice it,

it is sanctified,

itself

with sanctity of the body,

and there is no redemption for it. For anything fit for the altar does not leave the domain of the altar, even though the one who sanctified it explicitly sanctified it only for its value. And if so, this is a difficulty: what does the stipulation of the heart of the court accomplish concerning the remaining offerings, that they should not be sanctified except for their value? For even though they sanctified them only for their value, they do not leave the domain of the altar!?

Rava said to him:

It is not difficult. This

— that it does not leave the domain of the altar — applies in a case

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

since it itself is fit for an elevation-offering, it becomes sanctified itself with the sanctity of an elevation-offering.

But this

— that the stipulation of the heart of the court is effective, so that it should not be sanctified with sanctity of the body, and likewise the individual’s sanctification in which he sanctifies only for its value is effective — applies, for example,

where he said,

the individual concerning an unblemished male: This shall be sanctified

“for the value of libations”!

Since it itself cannot be sacrificed as libations, monetary sanctity alone takes effect in it, so that it is sold and libations are brought with its value. And all the more so, the court stipulating that the remaining daily offerings shall be sanctified for the value of “surplus — old contribution,” meaning that their sanctity shall be like the sanctity of the money remaining from the contribution of the previous year, designated for purchasing sheets of gold to cover the Holy of Holies, for the offering does not become sanctified with sanctity of the body, but only for its value.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava

:

The bull and the goat

of the inner offerings

of the Day of Atonement that were lost, and he set aside others in their place,