## Menachot Daf 101a

###### Menachot 101a:1
[Menachot 101a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:1)

דְּמִכְּלֵי שָׁרֵת לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּמִיפְּרִיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 101a:2
[Menachot 101a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:2)

וּבַעַל מוּם הֵיכָא אִיקְּרִי ״טָמֵא״? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאִם כׇּל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״ – בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁנִּפְדִּין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 101a:3
[Menachot 101a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:3)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מַמָּשׁ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְאִם בַּבְּהֵמָה הַטְּמֵאָה וּפָדָה בְעֶרְכֶּךָ״, הֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲמוּרָה. הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְאִם כׇּל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה״? בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 101a:4
[Menachot 101a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:4)

יָכוֹל יִפָּדוּ עַל מוּם עוֹבֵר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״ – מִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה לַה׳ כׇּל עִיקָּר, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה הַיּוֹם וּקְרֵיבָה לְמָחָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 101a:5
[Menachot 101a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:5)

מוֹתֵיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ: הָעוֹפוֹת וְהָעֵצִים וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ, אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן, שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר פִּדְיוֹן אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא עוֹפוֹת – קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף נִינְהוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 101a:6
[Menachot 101a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:6)

אֶלָּא עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת – לִיפַּרְקוּ? אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּטְהוֹרִין בְּעָלְמָא אֵין נִפְדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Menachot 101a:7
[Menachot 101a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:7)

וְהָנֵי נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּנִטְמְאוּ – כִּטְהוֹרִים דָּמוּ, דְּעֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה לָאו בְּנֵי אַשְׁוֹיֵי אוּכְלָא נִינְהוּ, אֶלָּא חִיבַּת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מַשְׁוֵה לְהוּ אוּכְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 101a:8
[Menachot 101a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:8)

דְּעֵצִים, כַּמָּה דְּלָא מְשַׁפֵּי לְהוּ לִגְזִירִין – לָא מִיתַּכְשְׁרִי. לְבוֹנָה נָמֵי, כַּמָּה דְּלָא קָידְשָׁה בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת – לָא מִיתַּכְשְׁרָה. כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת נָמֵי, הוֹאִיל וְאִית לְהוּ טׇהֳרָה בְּמִקְוֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 101a:9
[Menachot 101a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:9)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: טְהוֹרִין בְּעָלְמָא נִפְדִּין, וְהָנֵי – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 101a:10
[Menachot 101a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:10)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְבוֹנָה וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת – לָא שְׁכִיחִי, אֶלָּא עֵצִים – מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי! עֵצִים נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: כׇּל עֵץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בּוֹ תּוֹלַעַת פָּסוּל לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, הִילְכָּךְ לָא שְׁכִיחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 101a:11
[Menachot 101a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:11)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל הָא דְּתַנְיָא, הַמַּתְפִּיס תְּמִימִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת – אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, שֶׁכׇּל הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִידֵי מִזְבֵּחַ לְעוֹלָם, וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים נִינְהוּ – אֵין נִפְדִּין הוֹאִיל וּטְהוֹרִים הֵם, הֲוָה הָדַר בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 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.


###### Menachot 101a:12
[Menachot 101a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:12)

וְלָא הִיא, שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ וְלָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ. לָאו אָמְרַתְּ הָתָם: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי – לָא מִיפַּרְקִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Menachot 101a:13
[Menachot 101a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:13)

הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁכִיחִי מוּמִין דְּפָסְלִי בִּבְהֵמָה, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן נָמֵי פָּסְלִי, הִילְכָּךְ לָא שְׁכִיחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 101a:14
[Menachot 101a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:14)

רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: טְמֵאִין – נִפְדִּין, טְהוֹרִין – אֵין נִפְדִּין. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: טְמֵאִין – נִפְדִּין, טְהוֹרִין – אֵין נִפְדִּין. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אֲפִילּוּ טְהוֹרִין – נִפְדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Menachot 101a:15
[Menachot 101a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:15)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּן טְמֵאִין – נִפְדִּין, טְהוֹרִין – אֵין נִפְדִּין, חוּץ מֵעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁל מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 101a:16
[Menachot 101a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:16)

שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״מֵחַטָּאתוֹ״ ״עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 101a:17
[Menachot 101a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/101a:17)

אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: שָׁמַעְתִּי פִּיגֵּל בְּמִנְחָה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, דִּתְנַן: הָעׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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,**