Menachot 101

דמכלי שרת לא אשכחן דמיפריק

One cannot draw the conclusion that these substances can be redeemed, since we do not find a case where an item that has been consecrated in a service vessel is redeemed.

ובעל מום היכא איקרי טמא דתניא ואם כל בהמה טמאה אשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן לה׳ בבעלי מומין שנפדין הכתוב מדבר

The Gemara asks: And where is a blemished animal called “impure” in the Torah? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita with regard to redeeming an offering, that the Torah states: “And if it be any impure animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it is good or bad; as you the priest values it, so shall it be. But if he will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part thereof to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:11–13). The verse is speaking of blemished animals that are redeemed, and they are referred to as impure because they are not fit to serve as offerings.

אתה אומר בבעלי מומין שנפדו או אינו אלא בבהמה טמאה ממש כשהוא אומר ואם בבהמה הטמאה ופדה בערכך הרי בהמה טמאה אמורה הא מה אני מקיים ואם כל בהמה טמאה בבעלי מומין שנפדו הכתוב מדבר

The Gemara clarifies: Do you say that the verse is referring to blemished animals that were redeemed, or is it referring only to an actual non-kosher [tamei] animal, as the plain sense of the verse indicates? The Gemara responds: When the verse states later in that section: “And if it be of an impure [tamei] animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation, and shall add to it the fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:27), an actual non-kosher animal is mentioned as being subject to redemption. How do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And if it be any impure [tamei] animal” (Leviticus 27:11)? The verse is speaking of blemished animals that were redeemed, i.e., that have the possibility of being redeemed.

יכול יפדו על מום עובר תלמוד לומר אשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן לה׳ מי שאינה קריבה לה׳ כל עיקר יצתה זו שאינה קריבה היום וקריבה למחר

The Gemara continues to discuss this halakha: One might have thought that offerings are redeemed even due to the presence of a temporary blemish. Therefore, the continuation of the verse states: “Of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord,” which is referring to an animal that is not sacrificed to God at all. The verse serves to exclude this animal with a temporary blemish, which is not sacrificed today, while it remains blemished, but is sacrificed tomorrow, after the blemish disappears.

מותיב רב הונא בר מנוח העופות והעצים והלבונה וכלי שרת שנטמאו אין להן פדיון שלא נאמר פדיון אלא בבהמה בשלמא עופות קדושת הגוף נינהו ולא נאמר אלא בבהמה

Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ raises an objection to Shmuel’s opinion that even meal offerings and libations that are pure may be redeemed if they have not yet been consecrated in a service vessel. The mishna states: With regard to consecrated birds, wood for the altar, frankincense, and service vessels, once they became ritually impure, they have no possibility of redemption, as redemption of consecrated items is stated only with regard to an animal consecrated for the altar that became blemished. Granted, birds are not redeemed, since they are imbued with inherent sanctity, and the Torah stated that only with regard to blemished animals, not birds, is redemption possible for items of inherent sanctity.

אלא עצים ולבונה וכלי שרת ליפרקו אלא לאו משום דטהורין בעלמא אין נפדין

But with regard to wood, and frankincense that is not consecrated with inherent sanctity until it is placed in a service vessel, and service vessels themselves that became impure, since none of these possess inherent sanctity, let them be redeemed. Rather, is it not that these items are not redeemed because pure sacrificial items in general are not redeemed, even when they do not possess inherent sanctity?

והני נמי אף על גב דנטמאו כטהורים דמו דעצים ולבונה לאו בני אשויי אוכלא נינהו אלא חיבת הקודש משוה להו אוכלא

And these items too, i.e., the wood, frankincense, and service vessels, even though they became impure, they are treated like they are pure. Their impurity is incomplete because wood and frankincense are not capable of becoming food, and consequently they should not be susceptible to impurity at all. Rather, the regard for the sanctity of sacred property transforms their status into that of food, which renders them susceptible to ritual impurity.

דעצים כמה דלא משפי להו לגזירין לא מיתכשרי לבונה נמי כמה דלא קידשה בכלי שרת לא מיתכשרה כלי שרת נמי הואיל ואית להו טהרה במקוה

With regard to wood, as long as one does not trim it into logs, it does not become susceptible to impurity. With regard to frankincense as well, as long as it is not consecrated in a service vessel, it does not become susceptible to impurity. With regard to service vessels also, since they have the capacity to attain purity in a ritual bath, their impurity is revocable. Apparently, the reason the mishna teaches that these items are not redeemed is because they are in some sense still regarded as pure, and consecrated items that are considered ritually pure are not redeemed, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.

לא לעולם אימא לך טהורין בעלמא נפדין והני משום דלא שכיחי הוא

The Gemara responds: No, actually, I will say to you that in general, pure items are redeemed; and these items are not redeemed, despite the fact that they are not imbued with inherent sanctity, because they are not readily available. If these items can be redeemed when they are pure, then they may not be available for the Temple service.

בשלמא לבונה וכלי שרת לא שכיחי אלא עצים מישכח שכיחי עצים נמי כיון דאמר מר כל עץ שנמצא בו תולעת פסול לגבי מזבח הילכך לא שכיחי

The Gemara challenges: Granted, frankincense and service vessels are not readily available, but wood is readily available. Why, then, may it not be redeemed? The Gemara answers: Wood usable for the Temple service is also difficult to procure. This is apparent since the Master said that any wood in which a worm is found is disqualified for use on the altar. Consequently, wood suitable for the altar is not readily available.

אמר רב פפא אי שמיעא ליה לשמואל הא דתניא המתפיס תמימים לבדק הבית אין פודין אותן אלא למזבח שכל הראוי למזבח אינו יוצא מידי מזבח לעולם ואף על גב דקדושת דמים נינהו אין נפדין הואיל וטהורים הם הוה הדר ביה

The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Shmuel that libations and the flour for meal offerings are redeemed even when pure, as long as they have not been consecrated in a service vessel. Rav Pappa said that if Shmuel had heard that which is taught in the following baraita, he would have retracted his opinion. The baraita teaches: In the case of one who consecrates unblemished animals for Temple maintenance rather than for the altar, they are redeemed only for use on the altar. They may not be redeemed for any other use, in accordance with to the principle that any consecrated item that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar may never leave the altar. And even though these animals possess only sanctity that inheres in their value, they are not redeemed, since they are ritually pure and fit for the altar. Had Shmuel known this baraita, he would have retracted his opinion.

ולא היא שמיעא ליה ולא הדר ביה לאו אמרת התם כיון דלא שכיחי לא מיפרקי

The Gemara responds: But that is not so; this baraita was heard by him, and he still did not retract his opinion. Rather, he explained it as follows: Didn’t you say there, i.e., earlier in the discussion of the mishna, that the reason one may not redeem wood, frankincense, and service vessels that were consecrated for Temple maintenance is that since they are not readily available, the Sages decreed that they are not redeemed?

הכא נמי כיון דשכיחי מומין דפסלי בבהמה דאפילו בדוקין שבעין נמי פסלי הילכך לא שכיחי

Here, too, with regard to an unblemished animal that was consecrated for Temple maintenance, since blemishes that disqualify an animal as an offering are common, as even a blemish as insignificant as one on the cornea of the eye also disqualifies the animal, therefore, unblemished animals that are fit to be sacrificed on the altar are not readily available. That is why the Sages decreed that unblemished animals, even when consecrated for Temple maintenance, may be redeemed only for use as an offering on the altar. By contrast, meal offerings and libations, which were the subject of Shmuel’s statement, are readily available, and may be redeemed even when they are still pure.

רב כהנא אמר טמאין נפדין טהורין אין נפדין וכן אמר רבי אושעיא טמאין נפדין טהורין אין נפדין איכא דאמרי אמר רבי אושעיא אפילו טהורין נפדין

§ After analyzing Shmuel’s opinion permitting the redemption of meal offerings and libations that are pure and have not yet been consecrated in a service vessel, the Gemara now cites a dissenting opinion: Rav Kahana said that only meal offerings and libations that are impure are redeemed, but those that are pure are not redeemed. And Rabbi Oshaya similarly said that those meal offerings and libations that are impure are redeemed, but those that are pure are not redeemed. There are those who say that Rabbi Oshaya says: Even pure ones are redeemed.

רבי אלעזר אומר כולן טמאין נפדין טהורין אין נפדין חוץ מעשירית האיפה של מנחת חוטא

Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to all meal offerings, if they are impure they are redeemed, and if they are pure, they are not redeemed, except for the tenth of an ephah of fine flour of a meal offering of a sinner, which is redeemed even if it is pure.

שהרי אמרה תורה מחטאתו על חטאתו

The reason for this is that the Torah stated with regard to an extremely destitute individual who brings a tenth of an ephah of fine flour: “And the priest shall effect atonement for him for his sin [meḥattato] that he has sinned of one of these, and it shall be forgiven for him” (Leviticus 5:13). By contrast, with regard to a wealthy person who brings a lamb as a sliding-scale offering, the verse states: “And the priest shall effect atonement for him from his sin [al ḥattato] that he has sinned” (Leviticus 5:6). The word “al,” which can also mean on, indicates that if an extremely destitute individual designates a tenth of an ephah for his meal offering and then becomes wealthy, he redeems his meal offering and adds money on to the original sum in order to purchase an offering that is appropriate for his current financial status. In that case, the meal offering is redeemed even if it is pure.

אמר רבי אושעיא שמעתי פיגל במנחה לרבי שמעון אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין דתנן הערלה וכלאי הכרם

§ The Gemara cites another statement that Rabbi Oshaya says: I heard that according to Rabbi Shimon, when one rendered a meal offering piggul by sacrificing it with the intent to consume it beyond its designated time, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. As we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Okatzin 3:12): Orla, diverse kinds in a vineyard,

ושור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה וצפורי מצורע ופטר חמור ובשר בחלב כולם מטמאין טומאת אוכלין

the flesh of an ox that is stoned, a heifer whose neck is broken,the birds sacrificed by a leper (see Leviticus 14:4–7), a firstborn donkey whose neck was broken, and meat cooked together with milk are all susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, despite the fact that they are forbidden for consumption.

רבי שמעון אומר כולן אין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין ומודה רבי שמעון בבשר בחלב שמטמא טומאת אוכלין הואיל והיתה לו שעת הכושר

Rabbi Shimon says: None of them are susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since they are all items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, and they are therefore not considered food. And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to meat cooked together with milk that it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food since it, i.e., both the meat and the milk, had a time that it was fit for consumption before it was rendered forbidden.

ואמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון מכל האכל אשר יאכל אוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים קרוי אוכל אוכל שאי אתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים אינו קרוי אוכל

And Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that an item from which it is prohibited to derive benefit is not susceptible to impurity of food? It is because it is stated: “All food which may be eaten [ha’okhel asher ye’akhel], that on which water comes, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). The redundancy in the phrase “food which may be eaten” indicates that specifically food that you are able to feed to others, in this case, gentiles, is termed food for the purposes of susceptibility to the impurity of food, but food that you are not able to feed to others is not termed food. Therefore, items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit and which it is therefore prohibited to feed to others are not considered food in this context.

והא פיגל במנחה נמי אוכל שאי אתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים הוא

Rabbi Oshaya explains how this can be applied to piggul: A meal offering that one rendered piggul is also food that you are not able to feed to others, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Consequently, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food according to Rabbi Shimon.

אי הכי בשר בחלב נמי תיפוק ליה דאוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים הוא

The Gemara asks: If so, why doesn’t he also derive that meat cooked in milk is susceptible to impurity because it is food that you may feed to others, as Rabbi Shimon maintains that it is permitted to derive benefit from meat and milk cooked together?

דתניא רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון בשר בחלב אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה שנאמר כי עם קדוש אתה לה׳ אלהיך לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו ולהלן הוא אומר ואנשי קדש תהיון לי ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו מה להלן אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה אף כאן אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: With regard to meat cooked in milk, eating it is prohibited and deriving benefit from it is permitted, as it is stated: “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21). And elsewhere the verse states: “And you shall be holy men to Me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by animals [tereifa] in the field” (Exodus 22:30). Just as there, with regard to an animal torn by animals, which is forbidden as a tereifa, i.e., an animal possessing a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, eating it is prohibited but deriving benefit from it is permitted, so too here, with regard to meat cooked in milk, where being a holy people is also mentioned, eating it is forbidden but deriving benefit from it is permitted.

חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דאוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים הוא ועוד לדידיה נמי היתה לו שעת הכושר

The Gemara answers: The baraita that cites Rabbi Shimon’s opinion states one reason why meat cooked in milk is susceptible to impurity and adds another. One reason is that it is food that you can feed to others. Therefore, it is called food for the purpose of being susceptible to impurity. And another reason is that even for him, i.e., a Jew, although it is currently prohibited to eat the milk and meat, it had a time when each was fit to be eaten, i.e., before they were cooked together; therefore, they remain susceptible to impurity.

מיתיבי רבי שמעון אומר יש נותר שהוא מטמא טומאת אוכלין ויש נותר שאינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says that there is a case of the leftover of an offering that is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, but there is also a case of the leftover of an offering that is not susceptible to the impurity of food.

כיצד לן לפני זריקה אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין לאחר זריקה מטמא טומאת אוכלין

How so? If it was left overnight before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, as it never became fit for consumption. But if it was left overnight after the sprinkling of the blood, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since from after the sprinkling of the blood until it was left overnight, it was fit for consumption.

(והא) ופיגול בין בקדשי קדשים בין בקדשים קלים אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין פיגל במנחה מטמא טומאת אוכלין

The baraita continues: And with regard to piggul, both in cases of offerings of the most sacred order as well as in cases of offerings of lesser sanctity, the meat of the offering is not susceptible to the impurity of food. This is because it was rendered forbidden for consumption at the beginning of the sacrificial rite, and was never fit for consumption. If the priest rendered a meal offering piggul, it is susceptible to the impurity of food, since it did have a period of time when it was acceptable, i.e., when it was still flour before it was consecrated as a meal offering. This ruling contradicts Rabbi Oshaya’s understanding that according to Rabbi Shimon, a meal offering that became piggul is not susceptible to the impurity of food.

לא קשיא כאן שהיתה לה שעת הכושר כאן שלא היתה לה שעת הכושר

The Gemara answers: That is not difficult, as here, in the baraita where Rabbi Shimon ruled that the meal offering that became piggul is susceptible to the impurity of food, it is referring to a case where it had a time in which it was fit for consumption. There, where it is not susceptible to the impurity of food, it is referring to a case where it did not have a time in which it was fit for consumption.

היכי דמי דלא היתה לה שעת הכושר דאקדשינהו במחובר

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where it did not have a time in which it was fit for consumption? Before the flour was consecrated as a meal offering, it was certainly permitted for consumption. The Gemara answers: This would occur where he consecrated the wheat while it was still attached to the ground and was therefore not yet susceptible to impurity. Once harvested, it was already prohibited for consumption.

וליפרקינהו הניחא להך לישנא דאמר רבי אושעיא טמאין נפדין טהורין אין נפדין שפיר

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The flour may still have a time in which it was fit. Let him redeem it before it is placed in a service vessel. Why is it regarded as not having a time in which it was fit for consumption? The Gemara qualifies the question: This distinction, between flour that came from wheat that was consecrated before it was harvested and wheat or flour that was consecrated at a later point, works out well according to this version of that which Rabbi Oshaya said: Impure meal offerings and libations that have not been consecrated in a service vessel are redeemed; if they are pure, they are not redeemed. Accordingly, it works out well that the flour does not have a time in which it was fit for consumption when it came from wheat that was consecrated before being harvested. It could not be redeemed and made fit for consumption.

אלא להך לישנא דאמר אפילו טהורין נפדין לפרקינהו

But according to this version of what Rabbi Oshaya said: Even pure meal offerings and libations are redeemed, there remains the possibility of letting him redeem the meal offering while it is pure and before is consecrated in a service vessel. Therefore, it should be considered as having a time in which it is fit for consumption.

השתא מיהא לא פריק

The Gemara answers: In any event, now he has not redeemed it. Therefore, it is not considered to have had a time in which it is fit for consumption.

וכיון דאי בעי פריק ליה שמעינן ליה לרבי שמעון דאמר כל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי

The Gemara asks: How can the flour be considered as not having a time in which it is fit for consumption merely because he has not redeemed it, even though he could have redeemed it? Since in a case where if he wants, he may redeem it, don’t we attribute to Rabbi Shimon that he said that for any item that stands to be redeemed, it is as if it already is redeemed?

דתניא רבי שמעון אומר פרה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין הואיל והיתה לה שעת הכושר ואמר ריש לקיש אומר היה רבי שמעון פרה נפדית על גב מערכתה

The Gemara cites a source for this assertion: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A red heifer, even if it has been slaughtered and it is therefore prohibited to derive benefit from it, is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since it had a time in which it was fit. And Reish Lakish said, explaining how it is possible to derive from this halakha that any item that could be redeemed is considered as though it has been redeemed: Rabbi Shimon would say that a red heifer is redeemed with money even when it has already been slaughtered and placed upon its pyre in preparation for being burned. If so, a meal offering that could be redeemed should also be considered fit for consumption, as it is considered as though it has been redeemed.

הכי השתא בשלמא פרה עומדת לפדות היא שאם מצא אחרת נאה הימנה מצוה לפדותה אלא הני מנחות מצוה לפדותן

The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? Granted, with regard to the red heifer, it is considered to be an item that stands to be redeemed, since if he found another animal choicer than it, there is a mitzva to redeem the first one and purchase the choicer one with the money. But is there a mitzva to redeem these meal offerings?

והא לן לפני זריקה דמצוה למיזרקיה ואי בעי זרק וקתני דאין מטמא טומאת אוכלין

The Gemara challenges: But there is a case where sacrificial meat remained overnight before the sprinkling of the blood occurred, where there was a mitzva to sprinkle the blood the day before, and if he had wanted he could have sprinkled it, and the offering would not have been disqualified. And yet, Rabbi Shimon teaches in the baraita that sacrificial meat that remained overnight is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, even though it should have been considered fit for consumption on the day the offering was slaughtered, as the blood stood to be sprinkled and there was a mitzva to sprinkle it.

הכא במאי עסקינן שלא היתה שהות ביום למיזרקיה

The Gemara answers: Here, we are dealing with a case where there was not sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, as the offering was slaughtered close to sunset. Therefore, the blood did not stand to be sprinkled and the meat was therefore never fit for consumption.

אבל היתה לו שהות ביום מאי מטמא טומאת אוכלין

The Gemara asks: But in a case where the offering was slaughtered when there was sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, what would then be the halakha according to Rabbi Shimon? Would meat left overnight be susceptible to the ritual impurity of food?

אדתני לן לאחר זריקה מטמא טומאת אוכלין ליפלוג בדידה במה דברים אמורים שלא היתה לו שהות ביום אבל היתה לו שהות ביום מטמא טומאת אוכלין

If so, rather than Rabbi Shimon teaching the following: Sacrificial meat that was left overnight before the blood was sprinkled is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, but if left overnight after the sprinkling of the blood it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, instead let him distinguish within the case itself: In what case is this statement said? When is sacrificial meat left overnight without the blood of the offering having been sprinkled not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food? It is in a case where there was not sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood; but if there was sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food.

הכי נמי קאמר לן קודם שיראה לזריקה אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין לאחר שיראה לזריקה מטמא טומאת אוכלין

The Gemara answers: That is indeed what he is saying in the baraita, that if the offering was left overnight before it was available for sprinkling, i.e., if it was slaughtered so late in the day that there was no time left to sprinkle the blood, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. By contrast, if it was left overnight after it was available for sprinkling, i.e., there was still time to sprinkle the blood, then it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food.

והא פיגל בין בקדשי קדשים בין בקדשים קלים מצוה למיזרקיה

The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Shimon in fact hold that an item that stands to be redeemed is treated as though it has already been redeemed, and is therefore considered to have had a time in which it is fit, even if it was never actually redeemed? But isn’t it so that when one renders either offerings of the most sacred order or offerings of lesser sanctity piggul, there was a mitzva to sprinkle the blood once the offering was slaughtered,