Shekalim 12b: Talmud study for Daf Yomi

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 profane. A Mishnah says so10:2. 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 so10:2. 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 Temple 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.?

The sanctity of the altar falls on defective animals. In which respect? For shearing and work. “9:19, 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.” “20b. 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 bird 1:3,10, but not for birds, 1:14 (Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata6(2,5). Argument missing in B.. [And] Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon 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 stated10:2. 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 worth, so Rebbi Simeon 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 graze 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?” 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 body9:19, 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..

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Joshua: 22:18–19.Speak to Aaron, and his sons, and to all Children of Israel, and say to them: each single man from Israel, etc. who willoffer an elevation sacrifice to the Eternal, anything could be elevation sacrifice, voluntarily from you, unblemished, male. From where even females? The verse says, in cattle, to include females 1:3, whereמִן הַבָּקָר clearly is partitive, only the select from the cattle, here בַּבָּקָר, “in the herd”, is inclusive. While females cannot be elevation sacrifices, they can be dedicated that their proceeds be used for elevation sacrifices.. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar: It says male, and you are saying in cattle, to include females. Then similarly it is written unblemished, and you are saying in cattle, to include the blemished?

What is between them? The stick of a weaver’s shuttle is between them.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Eleazar: 22:18–19.Speak to Aaron and to his sons, etc., who would sacrifice to the Eternal as elevation sacrifice; everything may be brought as elevation sacrifice, by your volition, unblemished, male. I could think that this includes birds. The verse says, in cattle, not birds7(20), Wayyiqra I Parshata6(3)]. In addition, since Lev. 1:14–17 is addressed to the individual, but Lev. 22:18–19 to the public, it is inferred that birds as elevation offerings are possible only to the individual; the public is restricted to four-legged animals. Since a gift to the Temple is a gift to the public, birds given to the Temple as part of an estate may not be sacrificed.. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying, there said Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird 1:3,10, but not for birds, 1:14 (Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata6(2,5). Argument missing in B.. And here, he says so? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it following what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Anything which could be sacrificed neither itself nor its money’s worth is sanctified only as money’s worth. And you are saying, this is correct. You cannot sacrifice it, for it is written in cattle. You cannot redeem it since birds cannot be redeemed.12:1. Not only birds, but also dedicated wine and flour cannot be redeemed since the rules of redemption in Lev. 27 are formulated referring to four-legged animals only.