ואם בבהמה הטמאה ופדה בערכך אין מקרא זה מוסב על הבכור שאין לומר בבכור בהמה טמאה "ופדה בערכך" וחמור אין זה שהרי אין פדיון פטר חמור אלא טלה והוא מתנה לכהן ואינו הקדש אלא הכתוב מוסב על ההקדש שלמעלה דיבר בפדיון בהמה טהורה שהוממה וכאן דיבר במקדיש בהמה טמאה לבדק הבית לשון רש"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ״ז:כ״ז) ויתכן שנתרץ כי לפי שאמר אך בכור אשר יבוכר לה' בבהמה לא יקדיש איש אותו חזר ואמר ואם בבהמה הטמאה הוא הבכור שהקדיש ופדה בערכך לפרש שאין בכור נוהג בבהמה טמאה אלא בפטר חמור שכבר נתפרש דינו (שמות יג יג) ולימד שאפילו הקדישו אינו קדוש כדין בכור אלא כשאר הקדש הוא ונפדה ולכך אמר שיפדה אותו המקדיש בתוספת חומש ואחר יקנה אותו בערכך והכתוב של מעלה (ויקרא כ״ז:י״א) ואם כל בהמה טמאה אשר לא יקריבו ממנה על פי פשוטו בבהמה טמאה ועל מדרש רבותינו (תמורה לב) הכתוב מיותר בעבור שכפל "טמאה אשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן לה'" לפיכך ידרשו ואם כל בהמה טמאה ואשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן לה' לרבות בעלי מומין קבועין שאין מקריבים מהן קרבן לה': AND IF IT BE AN ANIMAL FORBIDDEN TO BE EATEN [dedicated to the Temple], THEN HE SHALL RANSOM IT ACCORDING TO THY VALUATION. “This verse does not refer to the firstling [mentioned in the preceding verse], because one cannot state about the firstling of a forbidden animal, then he shall ransom it according to thy valuation [since among all forbidden animals, only the firstborn of an ass has to be redeemed]. It cannot refer to [the firstling of] an ass, since the [animal given in] redemption of an ass is only a lamb196Exodus 13:13. [while here the animal is to be redeemed according to thy valuation, i.e., as you wish], and [moreover the lamb given in redemption of a firstling ass is a] gift to the priest, and is not given to the Temple treasury [as is stated here]. Rather, the verse refers to something dedicated to the Temple treasury [and is a continuation of Verse 11], for above [in Verse 11] He spoke about redeeming a [dedicated] animal which is fit to be eaten and which became blemished [thus disqualifying it as an offering], and here [in the verse before us] He speaks of a case where one dedicated for Temple repairs an animal which is not permitted to be eaten, [or offered up].” Thus far the language of Rashi.
It is possible that we answer [Rashi’s argument as to why this verse cannot be referring to the redemption of this firstling of an ass, and that we do interpret it as referring to such a case, by saying] that because He stated [in the preceding verse], Only the firstborn of the beasts, which is born as a firstling to the Eternal, no man shall sanctify it, therefore He reverted [to this subject] and stated [in the verse before us] that if the firstling that he sanctified be of an animal that is forbidden to be eaten, then he shall ransom it according to thy valuation, explaining that [the law of] the firstling does not apply to forbidden animals, except for the firstling of an ass, the law of which has already been explained.196Exodus 13:13. Thus He taught [here] that even if a person did dedicate it, its sanctity is not like that of the law of a [permitted] firstling [which can never be redeemed], but it is like anything else which is dedicated to the Temple treasury, and it may be redeemed. Therefore He stated [here] that he who dedicated it redeems it by adding one-fifth [to its actual value], whereas another person may redeem it according to thy valuation [without the additional one-fifth]. And the verse above [11] stating, And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering, refers, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, to an animal that may not be eaten [not to the firstling of an ass, which has been dedicated to the Temple treasury]. According to the interpretation of our Rabbis,197Temurah 32 b. there is a redundant expression in that verse [11 above], since He repeated an unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering to the Eternal [it being self-understood that an offering may not be brought from an animal that may not be eaten]. Therefore the Rabbis interpreted it as follows: “and if it be any unclean beast, or [if it be] of which they may not bring an offering unto the Eternal,” thus including [permitted] animals which have become permanently blemished, of which offerings may not be brought [and thus if they were dedicated to the Temple treasury, the law stated in the verse is to be applied].
27:27
1