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 (ויקרא כז, יא) 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 (ויקרא כז, כז) 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 לאמר 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 ר' אושעיא טמאין נפדין טהורין אין נפדין איכא דאמרי אמר ר' 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,