Shevuot 11aשבועות י״א א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shevuot 11a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
11aי״א א

דקדושת דמים הוא

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

אלא מעתה לא תפסל בטבול יום אלמה תניא נתנה במכתשת נפסלת בטבול יום

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?

וכי תימא כל קדושת דמים מיפסלי בטבול יום והתנן המנחות מועלין בהן משהוקדשו קדשו בכלי הוכשרו ליפסל בטבול יום ובמחוסר כפורים ובלינה

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.

קדשו בכלי אין לא קדשו בכלי לא

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 been 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.

אלא מאי קדושת הגוף היא אלא מעתה תיפסל בלינה אלמה תנן הקומץ והלבונה והקטורת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משוח ומנחת נסכים מועלים בהן משהוקדשו קדשו בכלי הוכשרו ליפסל בטבול יום ובמחוסר כפורים ובלינה

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.

קדשו בכלי אין לא קדשו בכלי לא

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 been 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.

אמר ליה לינה קאמרת שאני קטורת הואיל וצורתה בכל השנה כולה

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.

מ"מ קשיא וכי קדושה שבהן להיכן הלכה אמר רבה לב בית דין מתנה עליהן אם הוצרכו הוצרכו ואם לאו יהיו לדמיהן

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.

א"ל אביי והא מר הוא דאמר הקדיש זכר לדמיו קדוש קדושת הגוף לא קשיא הא דאמר לדמי עולה הא דאמר לדמי נסכים

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.

איתיביה אביי פר ושעיר של יום הכפורים שאבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהם

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,