שבועות יא

שבועות יא

דִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים הוּא.

as it has only sanctity that inheres in its value. By contrast, animal offerings have inherent sanctity, which cannot be removed.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לֹא תִּפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם! אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: נְתָנָהּ בְּמַכְתֶּשֶׁת – נִפְסֶלֶת בִּטְבוּל יוֹם?

Rabba challenges Rav Ḥisda’s claim about incense: If that is so, it should not become disqualified through contact with one who was ritually impure who immersed that day but is still not regarded as fully pure until nightfall, as only items with inherent sanctity are disqualified in such a way. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita with regard to the incense: Once the priest has placed it in a mortar to grind it, it can be disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day?

וְכִי תֵּימָא כׇּל קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים מִיפַּסְלִי בִּטְבוּל יוֹם; וְהָתְנַן: הַמְּנָחוֹת, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ; קָדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה.

Rabba deflects a possible challenge: And if you would say to defend your opinion that all items that have sanctity that inheres in their value are also disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day, that is not so. He explains: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Me’ila 9a): With regard to the ingredients of the meal-offerings, one is liable for misusing them from when they are consecrated with sanctity that inheres in their value by the owner verbally dedicating them to the Temple? Once they are further consecrated with inherent sanctity by being placed in a service vessel, they become fit to be disqualified both through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, and through being left overnight.

קָדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי אִין, לֹא קָדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי לָא!

Rabba explains the proof: From this mishna it is apparent that if the ingredients of the meal-offerings were consecrated with inherent sanctity by being placed in a service vessel, then, yes, they can be disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day, but if they were not consecrated by being placed in a service vessel, then they will not be disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day, as they have only sanctity that inheres in their value.

אֶלָּא מַאי – קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף הִיא?! אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, תִּיפָּסֵל בְּלִינָה! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשׁוּחַ וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – מוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ, קָדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה.

Rav Ḥisda responds: Rather, what do you say? Do you say that the surplus incense, which was only placed in a mortar but never in a service vessel, has inherent sanctity? But if that is so, it should be disqualified by being left overnight. Why, then, did we learn in a mishna (Me’ila 10a): With regard to the handful of the meal-offering that the priest takes to burn on the altar, the frankincense, the incense, the meal-offering of priests, the meal-offering of the anointed priest, i.e., High Priest, and the meal-offering of libations, one is liable for misusing them from when they are consecrated by verbally dedicating them for their purposes. Once they are further consecrated with inherent sanctity by being placed in a service vessel, they become fit to be disqualified both through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, and through being left overnight.

קָדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי – אִין, לֹא קָדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי – לָא.

Rav Ḥisda explains the proof: From this mishna it is apparent that if these items were consecrated with inherent sanctity by being placed in a service vessel, then yes, they can be disqualified by being left overnight, but if they were not consecrated by being placed in a service vessel, then they will not be disqualified by being left overnight, as they have only sanctity that inheres in their value. Apparently, even after the incense has been placed in the mortar, it still does not have inherent sanctity.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִינָה קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי קְטוֹרֶת, הוֹאִיל וְצוּרָתָהּ בְּכׇל הַשָּׁנָה כּוּלָּהּ.

Rabba said to him: Did you say that you can provide a proof from the disqualification that occurs as a result of an item’s being left overnight? One cannot do so, as incense is different, because even though it has inherent sanctity, it is not disqualified by being left overnight, since its form remains unchanged throughout the entire year, and the disqualification brought about by being left overnight applies only to a substance that spoils over time.

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא: וְכִי קְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁבָּהֶן לְהֵיכָן הָלְכָה? אָמַר רַבָּה: לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן; אִם הוּצְרְכוּ הוּצְרְכוּ, וְאִם לָאו יִהְיוּ לִדְמֵיהֶן.

The Gemara notes: In any case, Rav Ḥisda’s initial question is still difficult: But the sanctity that was inherent in them, to where has it gone? Rabba said: With regard to the consecration of items for public offerings such as the daily offerings and incense, the court tacitly stipulates concerning them as follows: If they are ultimately required to be used as offerings that year, then they are required for that, and they should be consecrated as offerings. But if they are not required that year, then they are only to be consecrated for their value, i.e., for them to be sold and then for their proceeds to be used toward the purchase of offerings.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר: הִקְדִּישׁ זָכָר לְדָמָיו – קָדוֹשׁ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף! לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דְּאָמַר ״לִדְמֵי עוֹלָה״, הָא דְּאָמַר ״לִדְמֵי נְסָכִים״.

Abaye said to Rabba: But wasn’t it you, Master, who said: If one consecrated a male ram for its value, since that ram is itself fit to be brought as an offering, it is automatically consecrated with inherent sanctity? Accordingly, to what avail is the court’s stipulation? Since the items are fit to be used as offerings, they will automatically become consecrated with inherent sanctity, even if they are consecrated only for their value. Rabba answers: This is not difficult. This case, where the ram is automatically consecrated with inherent sanctity, is referring to a situation where the donor says that it should be consecrated for the value of a burnt-offering, for which the ram is itself suitable, whereas that case, of the court’s stipulation, is analogous to a situation where he says that a ram should be consecrated for the value of libations, for which the ram itself is not suitable and therefore is not automatically consecrated with inherent sanctity.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶם,

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s suggestion from that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and one separated and sacrificed others in their stead,

וְכֵן שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן – כּוּלָּן יָמוּתוּ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיִפְּלוּ דְּמֵיהֶן לִנְדָבָה. שֶׁאֵין חַטַּאת צִבּוּר מֵתָה.

and likewise, goats that were designated to atone for an act of unwitting public idol worship that were lost, and one separated and sacrificed others in their stead, in such cases, all of the lost animals, should they subsequently be found, shall be left to die. This is in accordance with the halakha that a sin-offering whose owner has already achieved atonement is left to die. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They should graze until they become unfit by developing a blemish, and then they are sold and their proceeds are allocated for communal gift offerings. They are not left to die, because the halakha is that a communal sin-offering is not left to die.

וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן!

Abaye explains his challenge: But why should it even be necessary to wait until the offerings develop a blemish? Let us say here also that the court tacitly stipulates concerning them, so that if it ultimately emerges that they were not needed, then they should have only sanctity that inheres in their value, and therefore it should be possible to redeem them even if they do not develop a blemish.

אֲבוּדִין קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי אֲבוּדִין, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי.

Rabba deflects the challenge: Did you say that there is a proof from the case of lost animals? Cases of lost animals are different, because they are not common. Therefore, the court does not stipulate concerning such an eventuality.

הֲרֵי פָּרָה, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא, וְתַנְיָא: פָּרָה נִפְדֵּית עַל כׇּל פְּסוּל שֶׁבָּהּ – מֵתָה תִּפָּדֶה, נִשְׁחֲטָה תִּפָּדֶה, מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה הֵימֶנָּה תִּפָּדֶה. שְׁחָטָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי מַעֲרַכְתָּהּ – אֵין לָהּ פְּדִיָּיה עוֹלָמִית! שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הִיא.

Abaye persists: But consider the case of a red heifer, which is not common, and yet it is taught in a baraita: A red heifer may be redeemed for any disqualification that occurs to it. If it died, it shall be redeemed; if it was slaughtered in an improper place, it shall be redeemed; if another was found that is choicer than it, it shall be redeemed. But once the priest has slaughtered it properly on its arrangement of wood on the Mount of Olives, it can no longer be redeemed. Presumably, the reason it may be redeemed if a choicer one is found is that the court tacitly stipulates that in such a case it should be consecrated with sanctity that inheres in its value. It is apparent that even in uncommon cases, the court makes such stipulations. Rabba rejects the proof: The red heifer is different, as in all cases it has only the sanctity of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which inheres only in the item’s value, and so it can always be redeemed, even if still unblemished.

אִי הָכִי, מֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁחֲטָה תִּפָּדֶה?! הָא בָּעֵינַן הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה! הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לָא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.

Abaye asks: If so, if it died or was slaughtered, how can it be redeemed? In order for an item to be redeemed, don’t we require that it first undergo the process of standing and valuation? The animal must be stood before a priest who then evaluates how much it should be redeemed for (see Leviticus 27:11–12), and a dead animal cannot stand. Rabba answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Items consecrated to be offered on the altar were included in the requirement of standing and appraising, but items with the sanctity of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, such as the red heifer, were not included in the requirement of standing and appraising.

אִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: שְׁחָטָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי מַעֲרַכְתָּהּ, אֵין לָהּ פְּדִיָּיה עוֹלָמִית.

Abaye asks: If, as you claim, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then say and try to justify the latter clause, which states: Once the priest has slaughtered it properly on its arrangement of wood on the Mount of Olives, it can no longer be redeemed.

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: פָּרָה מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין, הוֹאִיל וְהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר; וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, פָּרָה נִפְדֵּית עַל גַּב מַעֲרַכְתָּהּ!

And this statement is not consistent with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, as isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says that the meat of a red heifer that was slaughtered properly is susceptible to becoming ritually impure with the ritual impurity of food, even though it is prohibited to partake of it in its current state, since it had a time when it was fit to be eaten. And in explanation of when it was fit to be eaten, Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Shimon would say that a red heifer may be redeemed even while it is upon its arrangement of wood. It is considered fit to be eaten due to the potential to redeem it, which would allow one to then partake of it. It is apparent from Reish Lakish’s comment that the latter clause, and by logical extension, the rest of the baraita, is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion.

אֶלָּא שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, הוֹאִיל וְדָמֶיהָ יְקָרִין.

Rabba concedes therefore that the red heifer can be redeemed due to the fact that the court makes a stipulation with regard to it, but, nevertheless, he defends his opinion that they do not normally make a stipulation for uncommon cases: Rather, the case of a red heifer is different, since it is of great monetary value. Therefore, to avoid a great loss, the court makes a stipulation despite its being an uncommon case.

אָמַר מָר: מֵתָה תִּפָּדֶה. וְכִי פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים?! אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: מִשּׁוּם עוֹרָהּ. וְקָיְימִי בֵּית דִּין וּמַתְנוּ אַדַּעְתָּא דְּעוֹרָהּ?! אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: מִגַּמְלָא אוּנַּהּ.

The Gemara interjects with a question concerning the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: If a red heifer died, it shall be redeemed. The Gemara asks: But may one redeem consecrated items in order to feed the meat from them to dogs? Certainly one may not. Nevertheless, the meat of a red heifer that died without being slaughtered is not suitable for any other purpose. Rav Mesharshiyya said: It is redeemed for the sake of its hide. The Gemara asks: But does the court stand and stipulate with its mind on the hide of the heifer, which is presumably of little value? Rav Kahana said: As people say in a popular adage: From a camel, even just its ear. Since a camel is so valuable, even the flesh of its ear is valuable and should be saved if possible. Similarly, the hide of a red heifer will also be valuable.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ זֶה בָּזֶה? אָמַר לְהוּ: יִקְרְבוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כַּפָּרָתָן שָׁוָה, הֵיאַךְ הֵן קְרֵיבִין? אָמַר לָהֶן: כּוּלָּן בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו.

§ Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s claim that the court tacitly stipulates concerning items consecrated for public offerings from the mishna (2b): The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: What is the halakha with regard to whether goats consecrated for different days may be sacrificed, this one in place of that one? For example, if a goat was initially consecrated to be sacrificed as part of the Yom Kippur additional offerings, may it be sacrificed instead as part of the Festival additional offerings? Rabbi Shimon said to them: Such a goat may be sacrificed. They said to Rabbi Shimon: Since, according to you, their atonement is not the same, how could they possibly be sacrificed? Rabbi Shimon said to them: They can be interchanged, since ultimately all of them come to atone for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן! רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָאָמְרַתְּ? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן. דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תְּמִידִין שֶׁלֹּא הוּצְרְכוּ לַצִּבּוּר, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים.

Abaye explains the objection brought from the mishna: But according to Rabba, why did Rabbi Shimon give the reason he gave? Let Rabbi Shimon say instead that the court tacitly stipulates concerning them that they should be consecrated for the day on which they are ultimately brought. Rabba answers: Did you say a proof from a statement of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon does not accept the principle that the court tacitly stipulates concerning them, as is apparent from that which Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Concerning lambs consecrated for the daily offerings that were not needed by the public, according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon they are not redeemed if they are unblemished; according to the statement of the Rabbis they are redeemed, even if they are unblemished.

וְרַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – מַאן נִינְהוּ? אִי נֵימָא רַבָּנַן דִּקְטוֹרֶת –

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold that the court does make such stipulations, who are they? Where is their opinion recorded? If we say that they are the Sages who ruled, in the mishna cited above (Shekalim 4:5), with regard to surplus incense that it may be redeemed,