Talmud zu Chullin 10:2
כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁקָּדַם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן וְנִפְדּוּ, חַיָּבִין בַּבְּכוֹרָה וּבַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְיוֹצְאִין לְחֻלִּין, לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד, וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן מֻתָּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. כֹּל שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן אֶת מוּמָן, אוֹ מוּם עוֹבֵר לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן, וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן נוֹלַד לָהֶם מוּם קָבוּעַ וְנִפְדּוּ, פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה וּמִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְאֵינָן יוֹצְאִין לְחֻלִּין לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד, וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן אָסוּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ חַיָּב, וְעוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ, יִקָּבֵרוּ:
Alle Tiere für Opfer, die vor ihrer Weihe einen dauerhaften [dh unheilbaren] Makel erlitten hatten und freigelassen wurden, unterliegen den Gesetzen über Erstgeborene und [die anderen sakerdotalen] Opfergaben und können, wie Tiere, für die sie verwendet werden חולין geschoren und für die Arbeit verwendet werden. Die Jungen und die Milch, die sie nach dem Lösegeld produzieren, dürfen ebenfalls verwendet werden, und es entsteht keine Schuld, wenn sie außerhalb des Tempels geschlachtet werden. Sie machen ein für sie ersetztes Tier nicht zu einem gültigen Opfer, sondern müssen nach ihrem Tod freigelassen werden. Ausgenommen sind Erstgeborene von Tieren und solche, die als Zehnten gegeben wurden. Wenn sie geweiht worden waren, bevor sie sich den Makel zugezogen hatten, oder wenn ein vorübergehender Makel der Weihe vorausgegangen war und sie anschließend einen dauerhaften Makel bekommen hatten, sind sie nach ihrer Freilassung frei von den Gesetzen, die sich auf Erstgeborene und andere Opfer beziehen ;; aber sie dürfen nicht wie Tiere, die für חולין verwendet werden, geschoren oder zur Arbeit verwendet werden. Die Jungen und die Milch, die sie produzieren, dürfen nicht verwendet werden, selbst nachdem sie freigelassen wurden, und jede Person, die sie außerhalb des Tempels geschlachtet hat, hat Schuldgefühle. Sie machen auch ein Tier, das sie ersetzt, zu einem gültigen Opfer und müssen begraben werden, wenn sie sterben.
Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim
Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane120While dedicated unblemished animals cannot be redeemed and cannot revert to profane status, animals willed to the Temple are not in this category as explained in the preceding Note. While selling the animals to be used as sacrifice is the prescribed proceeding, if the rules are not followed and they are sold for profane use the sale is valid on condition that the Temple receive its money.. A Mishnah says so121Mishnah Ḥulin10:2. The Mishnah states that blemished animals which were dedicated as sacrifices never become intrinsically holy; if they are redeemed they are fully profane, their offspring and their milk is profane (first quote). If they were validly dedicated and later developed a blemish, they have to be redeemed and used as profane food, but cannot totally lose their sacred status; they cannot be used for work nor are their offspring and their milk permitted (second quote, also Temurah7:1.), “their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it if they were redeemed unblemished and then became defective. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Does the Mishnah say so121Mishnah Ḥulin10:2. The Mishnah states that blemished animals which were dedicated as sacrifices never become intrinsically holy; if they are redeemed they are fully profane, their offspring and their milk is profane (first quote). If they were validly dedicated and later developed a blemish, they have to be redeemed and used as profane food, but cannot totally lose their sacred status; they cannot be used for work nor are their offspring and their milk permitted (second quote, also Temurah7:1.)? “Their offspring and their milk are forbidden after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Yose: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane. If you are saying they did not become profane, how could the sanctity of the altar fall on sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple123Since what is dedicated for one category of sancta cannot be changed to another, both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua must agree that the sale of the animal by the Temple makes it profane; the dedication of the buyer is the valid dedication of a profane animal.?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim
The sanctity of the altar falls on defective animals. In which respect? For shearing and work125It is sinful to dedicate a defective animal to the altar. The question is whether such a dedication is effective at all. The statement here shows that the animal has to be treated according to the rules of an animal dedicated unblemished which later developed a defect (Note 121). B correctly adds prohibition of its offspring or its milk.. “126Tosephta Pesaḥim9:19, Temurah2:5; Babli Temurah19b/20a. The text of B in the anonymous statement, “does not effect substitution”, is a scribal error as shown by the later text in B.
The reference is to Lev. 27:10, that it is forbidden to make a substitution for a dedicated animal, but if such a substitution was made, both the original animal and its substitute are sancta. Therefore “to effect substitution” implies “the original dedication is valid.” Everybody agrees that even if the dedication is void as dedication for the altar, it is valid as a gift of the animal or its value for the upkeep of the Temple. If somebody dedicated a female for his elevation offering, or his Pesaḥ, or his reparation offering, it effects substitution. Rebbi Simeon says, for his elevation offering it effects substitution; for his Pesaḥ or his reparation offering it does not effect substitution.” “127This is known only as a quote in the Babli, Temurah20b. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, neither for his elevation offering, nor his Pesaḥ, nor his reparation offering, does it effect substitution.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird128Male animals are prescribed for four-legged elevation sacrifices, Lev. 1:3,10, but not for birds, 1:14 (Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata6(2,5). Argument missing in B.. [And]129Corrector’s addition, unwarranted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon120While dedicated unblemished animals cannot be redeemed and cannot revert to profane status, animals willed to the Temple are not in this category as explained in the preceding Note. While selling the animals to be used as sacrifice is the prescribed proceeding, if the rules are not followed and they are sold for profane use the sale is valid on condition that the Temple receive its money. is, if there are differences in its own kind, so much more if it is not its own kind. What are differences in its own kind? As it was stated121Mishnah Ḥulin10:2. The Mishnah states that blemished animals which were dedicated as sacrifices never become intrinsically holy; if they are redeemed they are fully profane, their offspring and their milk is profane (first quote). If they were validly dedicated and later developed a blemish, they have to be redeemed and used as profane food, but cannot totally lose their sacred status; they cannot be used for work nor are their offspring and their milk permitted (second quote, also Temurah7:1.), “a yearling as reparation offering, and he brought one of two years, he satisfied his obligation; a two-year old as reparation offering, and he brought one of three years, he did not satisfy his obligation”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua said the same. As Rebbi Joshua said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth122If willing one’s property to the Temple were a genuine dedication, the animal which was unblemished at the time of donation but later developed a defect never could regain full profane status. Therefore the rule only is possible if the position of R. Joḥanan (Note 119) is adopted., so Rebbi Simeon123Since what is dedicated for one category of sancta cannot be changed to another, both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua must agree that the sale of the animal by the Temple makes it profane; the dedication of the buyer is the valid dedication of a profane animal. said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth. If you would say that they are sancta as to their body, they should graze124This sentence added to the truncated text of B repeats the prior argument. Animals which are leftovers are animals bought with sheqel money but not used at the end of the tax year. Since these animals become dedicated only at the moment they are used (end of the text for Note 100), their status as far as dedication goes is identical to that of animals willed to the Temple.. “Rebbi said, I agree with Rebbi Simeon about the Pesah; could the Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering? But I do not agree with the words of Rebbi Simeon for reparation offerings; could a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering?125It is sinful to dedicate a defective animal to the altar. The question is whether such a dedication is effective at all. The statement here shows that the animal has to be treated according to the rules of an animal dedicated unblemished which later developed a defect (Note 121). B correctly adds prohibition of its offspring or its milk.” Rebbi Abbin said, in case a Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering, its body is brought as well-being offering; in case a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering, its body cannot be brought as elevation offering. What about it? In one case one says, it is sanctified for its money’s worth; in one case one says, it is sanctified in its body126Tosephta Pesaḥim9:19, Temurah2:5; Babli Temurah19b/20a. The text of B in the anonymous statement, “does not effect substitution”, is a scribal error as shown by the later text in B.
The reference is to Lev. 27:10, that it is forbidden to make a substitution for a dedicated animal, but if such a substitution was made, both the original animal and its substitute are sancta. Therefore “to effect substitution” implies “the original dedication is valid.” Everybody agrees that even if the dedication is void as dedication for the altar, it is valid as a gift of the animal or its value for the upkeep of the Temple..
The reference is to Lev. 27:10, that it is forbidden to make a substitution for a dedicated animal, but if such a substitution was made, both the original animal and its substitute are sancta. Therefore “to effect substitution” implies “the original dedication is valid.” Everybody agrees that even if the dedication is void as dedication for the altar, it is valid as a gift of the animal or its value for the upkeep of the Temple. If somebody dedicated a female for his elevation offering, or his Pesaḥ, or his reparation offering, it effects substitution. Rebbi Simeon says, for his elevation offering it effects substitution; for his Pesaḥ or his reparation offering it does not effect substitution.” “127This is known only as a quote in the Babli, Temurah20b. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, neither for his elevation offering, nor his Pesaḥ, nor his reparation offering, does it effect substitution.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird128Male animals are prescribed for four-legged elevation sacrifices, Lev. 1:3,10, but not for birds, 1:14 (Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata6(2,5). Argument missing in B.. [And]129Corrector’s addition, unwarranted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon120While dedicated unblemished animals cannot be redeemed and cannot revert to profane status, animals willed to the Temple are not in this category as explained in the preceding Note. While selling the animals to be used as sacrifice is the prescribed proceeding, if the rules are not followed and they are sold for profane use the sale is valid on condition that the Temple receive its money. is, if there are differences in its own kind, so much more if it is not its own kind. What are differences in its own kind? As it was stated121Mishnah Ḥulin10:2. The Mishnah states that blemished animals which were dedicated as sacrifices never become intrinsically holy; if they are redeemed they are fully profane, their offspring and their milk is profane (first quote). If they were validly dedicated and later developed a blemish, they have to be redeemed and used as profane food, but cannot totally lose their sacred status; they cannot be used for work nor are their offspring and their milk permitted (second quote, also Temurah7:1.), “a yearling as reparation offering, and he brought one of two years, he satisfied his obligation; a two-year old as reparation offering, and he brought one of three years, he did not satisfy his obligation”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua said the same. As Rebbi Joshua said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth122If willing one’s property to the Temple were a genuine dedication, the animal which was unblemished at the time of donation but later developed a defect never could regain full profane status. Therefore the rule only is possible if the position of R. Joḥanan (Note 119) is adopted., so Rebbi Simeon123Since what is dedicated for one category of sancta cannot be changed to another, both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua must agree that the sale of the animal by the Temple makes it profane; the dedication of the buyer is the valid dedication of a profane animal. said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth. If you would say that they are sancta as to their body, they should graze124This sentence added to the truncated text of B repeats the prior argument. Animals which are leftovers are animals bought with sheqel money but not used at the end of the tax year. Since these animals become dedicated only at the moment they are used (end of the text for Note 100), their status as far as dedication goes is identical to that of animals willed to the Temple.. “Rebbi said, I agree with Rebbi Simeon about the Pesah; could the Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering? But I do not agree with the words of Rebbi Simeon for reparation offerings; could a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering?125It is sinful to dedicate a defective animal to the altar. The question is whether such a dedication is effective at all. The statement here shows that the animal has to be treated according to the rules of an animal dedicated unblemished which later developed a defect (Note 121). B correctly adds prohibition of its offspring or its milk.” Rebbi Abbin said, in case a Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering, its body is brought as well-being offering; in case a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering, its body cannot be brought as elevation offering. What about it? In one case one says, it is sanctified for its money’s worth; in one case one says, it is sanctified in its body126Tosephta Pesaḥim9:19, Temurah2:5; Babli Temurah19b/20a. The text of B in the anonymous statement, “does not effect substitution”, is a scribal error as shown by the later text in B.
The reference is to Lev. 27:10, that it is forbidden to make a substitution for a dedicated animal, but if such a substitution was made, both the original animal and its substitute are sancta. Therefore “to effect substitution” implies “the original dedication is valid.” Everybody agrees that even if the dedication is void as dedication for the altar, it is valid as a gift of the animal or its value for the upkeep of the Temple..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy