משנה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. כֵּיצַד אָמַר שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִבֵּיתִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְיָצָא לָבָן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. דֵּינָר זָהָב שֶׁיַּעֲלֵה בְיָדִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְעָלָה שֶׁלְּכֶסֶף בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. חָבִית שֶׁלְּיַיִן שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְיָדִי רִאשׁוֹנָה הְרֵי הִיא הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְעָֽלְתָה שֶׁלְּשֶׁמֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. MISHNAH: The house of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication, but the House of Hillel say, dedication in error is not dedication. How? If one said, the black ox which comes out of my house first shall be dedicated, and a white one came out; the house of Shammai say, it is dedicated1We assume that he simply wanted to dedicate one of his animals as a sacrifice and since most of his animals were black, he mentioned black. If he had said explicitly, “the first ox which comes out of my house shall be dedicated if it be black,” the House of Shammai will agree that there is no dedication. Since oxen are possible as sacrifices, the dedication mentioned here is dedication as sacrifice., but the House of Hillel say, it is not dedicated.
The gold denar which first comes into my hand shall be dedicated, but it was a silver one; the house of Shammai say, it is dedicated, but the House of Hillel say, it is not dedicated.
The wine amphora which first comes into my hand shall be dedicated, but it was a one of oil; the house of Shammai say, it is dedicated, but the House of Hillel say, it is not dedicated2Even though all three Mishnaiot illustrate the same principle, the statements imply that the positions of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai apply to all kinds of dedications. Nazir 5:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.1.1">Mishnah 1 exemplifies dedications for the altar, Nazir 5:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.1.1">Mishnah 2 money donations, and Nazir 5:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.1.1">Mishnah 3 things which could be brought to the altar as accessories but never are sacrifices on their own. The three Mishnaiot are an introduction to the nazir vow made in error treated in Nazir 5:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.2.1">Mishnah 4..
הלכה: בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ כול׳. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין לוֹמַר תְּרוּמָה וְאָמַר מַעֲשֵׂר. מַעֲשֵׂר וְאָמַר תְּרוּמָה. עוֹלָה וְאָמַר שְּׁלָמִים. שְּׁלָמִים וְאָמַר עוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. בָּא לוֹמַר חוּלִין וְאָמַר עוֹלָה. קִדְּשָׁהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לְהַקְדִּישׁ אֲנָן קַייָמִין אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא טוֹעֶה מִשׁוּם דָּבָר אחת. הִיא מַתְנִיתָא מַה הִיא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְמַחְלוֹקֶת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.” There4Mishnah Terumot 3:8. The following two paragraphs are Halakhah Terumot 3:8, explained there in Nazir 5:2:1-2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.2.1-2">Notes 85–92., we have stated: “If somebody intends to say heave but says tithe, tithe but says heave, fire offering but says well-being offering, well-being offering but says fire offering.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if he intends to say “profane” and says “fire sacrifice”, he dedicated it. Rebbi Yose said, we consider only whether he intended to dedicate but erred because of something else. What is the status of this Mishnah? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose it is everybody’s opinion.
בִּשְׂפָתַיִם. לֹא בַּלֵּב. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא אֶת הַגּוֹמֵר בַּלֵּב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לְבַטֵּא. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. הַגּוֹמֵר בְּלֵב אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא בִשְׂפָתָיו. וְהָתַנֵּי. כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב. זֶה הַגּוֹמֵר בַּלֵּב. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר. זֶה הַגּוֹמֵר בַּלֵּב. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הַמּוֹצִיא בִשְׂפָתָיו. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ תִשְׁמוֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ הֲרֵי הַמּוֹצִיא בִשְׂפָתָיו אָמוּר. הָא מַה אֲנִי מְקַייֵם כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב. זֶה הַגּוֹמֵר בַּלֵּב. מָאן דָּמַר שְׁמוּאֵל לְקָרְבַּן. “With his lips but not in his mind.” I could think that I exclude him who decides in his mind; the verse says (Leviticus.5.4">Lev. 5:4): “To articulate”. But Samuel said, he who decides in his mind is not obligated until he pronounces with his lips. But did we not state: “(Exodus.35.5">Ex. 35:5) Everyone who volunteers in his mind,” that is he who decides in his mind. You say, that is he who decides in his mind, but maybe that is he who pronounces with his lips? When he says (Deuteronomy.23.24">Deut. 23:24): “What comes out from your lips you have to keep,” that speaks about him who pronounces with his lips. Therefore, how can I confirm “every one who volunteers in his mind?” That is he who decides in his mind. What Samuel said refers to a sacrifice.
תַּמָּן תַּנִינָן. הַמְּכַנֵּס מָעוֹת וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ לְשִׁקְלִי. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. מוֹתָרָן חוּלִין. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן שִׁקְלִי. שָׁוִין שֶׁמּוֹתָרָן חוּלִין. אֵילּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי. שָׁוִין שֶׁמּוֹתָרֵיהֶן נְדָבָה. מֵהֶן חַטָּאתִי. שָׁוִין שֶׁמּוֹתָרֵיהֶן חוּלִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט. אֲבָל בְּאוֹמֵר. אֵילּוּ. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי בֵּיבַי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט. אֲבָל בְּאוֹמֵר. אֵילּוּ. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חוּלִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי בֵּיבַי. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מַה בֵין שְׁקָלִים לַחַטָּאת. אֶלָּא שֶׁהַשְּׁקָלִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן קִיצְבָּה. מָה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּאוֹמֵר. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן שְׁקָלִים. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה. אִם בְּאוֹמֵר. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶם חַטָּאתִי. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חוּלִין. אֶלָּא כֵּן אֲנָן קַייָמִין בְּאוֹמֵר. אֵילּוּ. שְׁקָלִים עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקִּצְבָּתָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה מוֹתָרָן חוּלִין. חַטָּאת עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵין קִצְבָּתָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה מוֹתָרָהּ נְדָבָה. מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. פָּתַר לָהּ בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. There6Mishnah Šeqalim 2:3., we have stated: “If somebody collects coins and says, ‘these are for my Temple tax15Half a biblical šeqel (Exodus.30.13">Ex. 30:13). While the relation of the biblical ŝeqel to currency in circulation may have varied from time to time, at the beginning of the tax season the amount was clearly stated and known to everybody (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:4). Therefore, nobody who mentions the Temple tax will intend to dedicate more than the stated amount. In contrast, a purification sacrifice can be a sheep or a goat (Leviticus.4">Lev. 4), in special circumstances also a couple of birds or a flour offering (Leviticus.5">Lev. 5).,’ the House of Shammai say, the excess should be given as a donation7They hold that the entire amount was dedicated even if only part can be used for the purpose stated., but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane8Explained in Nazir 2:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.4.1">Mishnah 2:4; Nazir 5:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.1.4">Note 13.. ‘That I shall be able to pay my Temple tax,’ they agree that the excess is profane9The formulation makes it clear that the amount in excess of the required tax is not dedicated.. ‘These [monies] are for my purification offering’, they agree that the excess is profane.10The text is shortened so much as to be unintelligible. The Mishnah reads: “ ‘These are for a purification sacrifice,’ they agree that the excess should be a donation (cf. Nazir 4:4:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.4.4.6">Chapter 4, Note 90). ‘That I shall be able to bring a purification sacrifice,’ the excess is profane (Nazir 5:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.1.4">Note 8).”” 11From here to the end of the next paragraph, the text is Halakhah Šeqalim 2:3. The Yerushalmi text reproduced in the Babli (editio princeps) is too closely adapted to Babylonian spelling to be useful for variant readings. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When do they disagree? If he collects little by little12He starts a cache of small coins with the declared intention of collecting money for either his future Temple tax or purification sacrifice.. But if he says “these13He declares that all his coins shall be dedicated to the stated purpose. The House of Hillel will agree that everything is dedicated and if it cannot be used for the stated purpose, it should be given to the Temple’s donation account.,” everybody agrees that the excess should be given as a donation. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When do they disagree? If he collects little by little. But if he says “these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah14Šeqalim 2:4. supports Rebbi Bevai: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between Temple tax and purification sacrifices? Only that the Temple tax is a fixed amount15Half a biblical šeqel (Exodus.30.13">Ex. 30:13). While the relation of the biblical ŝeqel to currency in circulation may have varied from time to time, at the beginning of the tax season the amount was clearly stated and known to everybody (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:4). Therefore, nobody who mentions the Temple tax will intend to dedicate more than the stated amount. In contrast, a purification sacrifice can be a sheep or a goat (Leviticus.4">Lev. 4), in special circumstances also a couple of birds or a flour offering (Leviticus.5">Lev. 5)..” Where do we hold? If he says, “that I shall use it for the Temple tax,” everybody agrees that the excess should be given as a donation16Read with the Šeqalim text: “Is profane” (as explained in Nazir 5:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.1.4">Note 13).. If he says, “that I shall use it for my purification offering,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane17Read with the Šeqalim text: “Should be given as a donation” (as explained in Nazir 5:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.1.4">Note 13).. But we are considering one who says “these18The monies are already collected; he declares them dedicated for a given purpose..” Since the Temple tax has a fixed rate from the Torah, the excess is profane. Since purification offerings do not have a fixed rate from the Torah, the excess should be given as a donation19Cf. Nazir 4:4:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.4.4.6">Chapter 4, Note 90.. How does Rebbi Yose handle this? He explains it if he collects little by little20The argument of R. Simeon applies only if the stated intent is to collect money for the Temple tax, not if the declaration is made on monies already available. In the latter case, R. Simeon may agree that the excess is earmarked for donation., following the House of Hillel.
הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ. סָבוּר הוּא שֶׁהוּא חַייָב וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב. לֹא קָדַשׁ. הִפְרִישׁ שְׁנַיִם. סָבוּר שֶׁחַייָב שְׁנַיִם וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁינִי מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לֵיהּ. סָבַר שֶׁהוּא חַייָב וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב. בְּאוֹמֵר. אֵילּוּ. הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ. סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַייָב וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב. לֹא קָֽדְשָׁה. הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתַּיִם. סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אוֹתָהּ הַשְּׁנִייָה מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ. סָבוּר שֶׁחַייָב וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב. אוֹ בְאוֹמֵר. אֵילּוּ. If somebody put aside his Temple tax in the belief that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe21After the dedication he remembered that he already had paid., it was not dedicated22In the next paragraph, it will be determined that this is the opinion of the House of Hillel.. If he put aside two in the belief that he owed twice and it turned out that he owed only once, how do you treat the second23In the first case, the entire dedication was in error; it is invalid. But in the second case, there is a valid dedication. In order to be able to speak of a second, the amounts must have been dedicated one after the other. But if two animals were dedicated simultaneously, it is clear that a choice of one over the other in this case would be an act of retroactive validation, which is not accepted in biblical law; both coins certainly remain dedicated.? If he believed that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe24In that case, the dedication is removed as being made in error., [or as] if he said: “these”25Referring to R. Yose’s opinion in the preceding paragraph, implying that the money should be donated to the Temple.? 26In Šeqalim, this is introduced with a referral clause, “let us hear from the following.” That clause is correctly missing in the present text since the argument from Šeqalim is not presented here. If somebody put aside a purification sacrifice in the belief that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, it was not dedicated. If he put aside two in the belief that he owed two and it turned out that he owed only one, how do you treat the second? As if he believed that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, or as if he had said “these”27By contrast, in Šeqalim it is stated that the dedication is not removed automatically, that the second animal has to be sent to graze until it develops a defect or becomes too old to be an acceptable sacrifice. The implied conclusion seems to be that the redemption money for that animal is a donation to the Temple.?
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הָאוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי עָלַי בַּמַּחֲבַת. וְהֵבִיא בַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת. בַּמַּרְחֶשֶׁת. וְהֵבִיא בַּמַּחֲבַת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי הִיא. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. רִבִּי זְעִירָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לֵי נָן פָּֽתְרִין לָהּ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּאוֹמֵר בַּמַּחֲבַת אָמַרְתִּי. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי בַּמַּחֲבַת. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. בַּמַּרְחֶשֶׁת. יָצָא. אָתָא רִבִּי חֲנִינָא וְרִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. אָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי אוֹ בַמַּחֲבַת אוֹ בַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. בַּמַּחֲבַת. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. בַּמַּרְחֶשֶׁת. רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חָמָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. קוֹבְעָן אֲפִילוּ בְפֶה. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. אֲפִילוּ יָמִים טוֹבִים קוֹבְעִין. אֲפִילוּ כֵלִים קוֹבְעִין. There28Menachot 12:2" href="/Mishnah_Menachot.12.2">Mishnah Menaḥot 12:2., we have stated: “If somebody says, ‘I undertake [to bring] on a pan29A cereal offering fried in oil on a flat clay pan, Leviticus.2.5-6">Lev. 2:5–6.’ and he brought in a deep vessel30A cereal offering cooked in boiling oil in a deep clay vessel, Leviticus.2.7">Lev. 2:7., in a deep vessel and he brought on a pan.31“What he brought is acceptable but he did not fulfill his vow.”” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is the House of Shammai’s32Why should a flour offering be acceptable if it was not properly dedicated? Since it is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple precinct (Deuteronomy.12.26">Deut. 12:26), the House of Hillel should hold that an offering which does not fulfill the specification of the donor’s vow has to be rejected by the officiating priests. But for the House of Shammai, who hold that a dedication is always valid, even if made in error, the nonconforming offering is not profane., since the House of Shammai say, “dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yose33Since R. Yose was R. Ze‘ira’s student’s student, one has to read: R. Yasa (Assi).: Why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he said, “I said, on a pan”?34If the person who made the vow agrees that the present offering does not satisfy his vow, there is no reason why it should not be accepted as a separate offering. But if he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan,” and then he changed his mind35Immediately. and said, “in a deep vessel”, he fulfilled his duty. Rebbi Ḥanina36It seems that one has to read “R. Ḥinena”. and Rebbi Yasa came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan or in a deep vessel,” turned around35Immediately. and said, “on a pan”, and turned around and said, “in a deep vessel”?37Since he demonstrates that he did not make up his mind, do we hold him to his last statement or can he satisfy his vow with any of the kinds mentioned as possibilities? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Hama in the name of Rebbi Yose: He determines even orally38This is an independent statement. From the Mishnah in Menaḥot it follows that the donor’s statement determines the kind of cereal sacrifice he is required to bring, even if as yet he owes no flour.. They thought to say, even holidays determine39If he vows the sacrifice for a holiday, he cannot satisfy his vow on a workday., even vessels determine40If he vowed a cereal sacrifice without specifying its kind and then put the flour into one of the acceptable vessels without saying a word, the vessel determines the kind of offering he vowed and he cannot change it any longer..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בִּתְמוּרָה. וְלֹא עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. לְשׁוֹגֵג בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וּלְמֵמִיר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. אֲבָל אִם בָּא לוֹמַר חוּלִין וְאָמַר עוֹלָה. קָֽדְשָׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בָּא לוֹמַר חוּלִין וְאָמַר עוֹלָה. קָֽדְשָׁה. אֲבָל אִם בָּא לוֹמַר עוֹלָה וְאָמַר חוּלִין לֹא קָֽדְשָׁה. וַתְייָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה בִּתְמוּרָה כפרתה דְּרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא. עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בִּתְמוּרָה. וְלֹא עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין. בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּכוֹר. וּמִי קָדַשׁ. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה וְרִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִקְדִּישׁ בְּכוֹר וְעָלָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲפִילוּ לְדָמִים לֹא קָדַשׁ. הִקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲפִילוּ בִתְמוּרָה לֹא קָֽדְשָׁה. אֶלָּא הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר. וּמְחוּבָּר הוּא לְמַכּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְּרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. תִּיפְתָּר בִּמְקַדֵּשׁ תְּמִימִין לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. There42Temurah 2:3" href="/Mishnah_Temurah.2.3">Mishnah Temurah 2:3., we have stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, He43God, in instituting the rules of Leviticus.27.10">Lev. 27:10 ff. made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices.” Ḥizqiah said, in error: a prohibition, the one who substitutes: a prohibition44He explains the Mishnah. Once an animal has been dedicated, it cannot be exchanged for another animal as long as it did not develop a blemish (Leviticus.27.10">Lev. 27:10). A person who intentionally violates this prohibition is whipped. It is asserted that a person who unintentionally violates the prohibition is also whipped (see the next paragraph). But a dedication in error is not a dedication for the House of Hillel.. If he wants to say “profane” but said “an elevation sacrifice”, it is sanctified45While for vows one requires that “his heart and mouth be in unison”, for Temple dedications only the pronouncement counts (Deuteronomy.23.24">Deut. 23:24).. If he wants to say “an elevation sacrifice” but said “profane”, it is not sanctified. It follows that Rebbi Joḥanan, interpreting Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, parallels Rebbi Jeremiah’s explanation46In the first paragraph of this Terumot 3:4:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.3.4.2">Halakhah (Terumot 3:8, Note 86). regarding the House of Shammai on sacrifices. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, may one understand that “He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices,” if somebody dedicates a firstling?47This is a question for Ḥizqiah. Without his comment, we would have read the Mishnah in Temurah to state that substitution in error is substitution, dedication in error is not dedication. But he insists that for R. Yose ben R. Jehudah, substitution in error is criminally punishable. Now everybody agrees that dedication in error is not punishable, but where do we find that intentional dedication should be punishable, to justify R. Yose ben R. Jehudah’s formulation? The answer is that the dedication of a firstling (which must be given to a Cohen) for any other sacrifice is forbidden (Leviticus.27.26">Lev. 27:26) and, therefore, should be subject to criminal prosecution. Can it be dedicated? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa, and Rebbi Yasa say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicated a firstling and it was brought to the altar, it is not sanctified even for its money’s worth48The firstling is sanctified at birth and never becomes the rancher’s property. The rancher has to raise the calf or lamb for 30 days and then is obligated to deliver it to a Cohen. Since nobody can dedicate what is not his, any dedication of a firstling by the rancher is void, not only invalid. In the case described, any Cohen can come and take the firstling from the altar and eat it (since only the blood of a firstling is given to the altar but nothing of its meat). There can be no prosecution for a nonexisting act.. If somebody dedicated a blemished animal for the altar, even as a substitute it is not sanctified49The example of dedication of a blemished animal cannot be used as illustration of R. Yose ben Jehudah’s statement. A blemished animal cannot be dedicated; therefore, it neither can become a substitute sacrifice. The rules of substitutions and dedications are identical for blemished animals.. But if somebody dedicated an animal with a temporary blemish. Is that consistent50(Logically) connected. This technical term appears as מְחֻוָּר “whitish, clear” in the Babli, pointing to differences in the pronunciation of ב, β in Galilee and ب in Babylonia. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Die Aussprache des “Bet” in talmudischer Zeit, Bulletin, Verband jüdischer Lehrer und Kantoren der Schweiz Nr. 21, 1977, pp. 4–5. with whipping51Since a temporary blemish does not permanently disqualify the animal from the altar, the dedication cannot be a crime. Again, there is no difference between dedication and substitution; R. Yose ben R. Jehudah cannot refer to this case.? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, explain it if he gave unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple52Donating unblemished cattle, sheep, or goats for the upkeep of the Temple clearly violates the injunction of Leviticus.27.9">Lev. 27:9 to reserve such animals for the altar. However, that rule is formulated as an obligation, not as a prohibition and, therefore, involves no prosecutable offense. In the next paragraph it is established that R. Jehudah and his son found a biblical source which allows one to find a prohibition in Leviticus.27.9">Lev. 27:9. The rule of R. Yose ben Jehudah is valid only for him and his father, not for most other Sages..
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה בְּשִׁיטַּת אָבִיו. הִקְדִּישׁ תְּמִימִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה. מְנַיִין בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וִיְדַבֵּר יי֨ אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵאמוֹר. לָאו אָמוּר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי הֲוָה יְתִיב מַתְנֵי בְפָרָשַׁת אֵין מֵמִירִין בִּבְכוֹר וְחוֹלִין אָבוֹי דְּבַר פְּדָייָה. חַמְתֵּיהּ רִבִּי. אָמַר. אֲנָא יְדַע מָה אֲנָא אֲמַר כְּדוֹן אֲנָא מֵימַר וַיְדַבֵּר יי֨ אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמוֹר. לֹא יֵימַר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה. וּכְתִיב כֵּן. דָּמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. גּוֹרְעִין לִדְרוֹשׁ מִתְּחִילַּת הַפָּרָשָׁה לְסוֹפָהּ. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וַאֲפִילוּ בְאֶמְצַע הַתֵּיבָה. וְיָצַקְתָּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן מִנְחָה הִיא. וְיָצַקְתָּ מִשֶׁמֶן מִשחָה. לְרַבּוֹת כָּל־הַמְנָחוֹת לִיצִיקָה. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s method: If somebody dedicated unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple, he violates a positive commandment53Leviticus.27.9">Lev. 27:9.. Why also a prohibition? The verse says: “The Eternal spoke to Moses לאמר”54Leviticus.27.1">Lev. 27:1. It is assumed that this heading applies also to the paragraph Leviticus.27.9-34">Lev. 27:9–34 since v. 9 starts with a connecting ו.: a prohibition was pronounced55“He said ‘no’ ”. The underlying pronunciation of לאמר cannot be recovered from the indications given here., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi was sitting and studying the rule that “a firstling cannot be substituted” when Bar Pedaiah’s father was passing by. Rebbi saw him, and said, do I know what I should say here, “the Eternal spoke to Moses לאמר,” could one explain the words of Rebbi Jehudah? Is it written thus? 56Sotah 5:1:2-5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.5.1.2-5">Soṭah 5:1 (ס), explained there in Nazir 5:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.1.4">Notes 8–10, Horayot 1:3:2-3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.1.3.2-3">Horaiot 1:3 (ה). It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word57In the application here, the word is split by duplication of a letter, לאמר as אמר לא.. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. שׁוֹם הַיְתוֹמִין שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. שׁוֹם הֶקְדֵּשׁ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וּמַכְרִיזִין בַּבּוֹקֶר וּבָעֶרֶב. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר חָשַׁשׁ עַל הַעֲרָמָה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֹא חָשַׁשׁ עַל הַעֲרָמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ. וְהוּא דַהֲוָה אָמַר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. אֵין אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ. וְהוּא דַהֲוָה אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. תְּהֵא בוֹ הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה שֶׁיִּשְׁאַל עַל הֲנָייָתוֹ. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּעָרֵב שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְהַדִּיר הֲנָייָה. מָה אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּמַתָּנָה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה בְּעַיִן יָפָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַדִּיר הֲנָייָה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוֹרַע כּוֹחוֹ וְהוּא חוֹזֵר בּוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַדִּיר הֲנָייָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. קְרֵיבָתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חַגַּיי הֲוָה בַּעַל חַייָב קַרְטֵס. אָתָא מָרֵי חוֹבָא וְטָרַף. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי דְרִבִּי אָחָא. אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. אָֽמְרִין חֲבֵרַייָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. דְּאִין חָזַר הוּא עָלֶיהָ לֹא אָתֵי מָרֵי חוֹבָה וְטָרַף. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עַבְדָּה לוֹן תַכְשִׁיטִין עַבְדָּה לוֹן פָּרָה פֶרְנוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. מֹשֶׁה. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּנְפַק עוֹבְדָא כְרִבִּי אָחָא. There, we have stated58Mishnah ‘Arakhin 6:1. The argument refers to the part of the Mishnah which is not quoted: “The public sale of orphans’ property goes on for 30 days, the public sale of Temple property goes on for 30 days, and one publicly announces mornings and evenings. If somebody dedicates his property while the lien if favor of a wife’s ketubah was in effect, Rebbi Eliezer says, if he would divorce her, he has to make her vow not to have any usufruct from him; Rebbi Joshua says, it is not necessary. Similarly, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says regarding a guarantor of a woman’s ketubah whose husband divorces her, that he shall make him execute a vow of usufruct lest he could plot against his property and take his wife back.”: “The public sale of orphans’ property59The administrator of an estate whose beneficiaries are underage can sell real estate to satisfy claims against the estate only under supervision by the court. There has to be a 30 day public notice of the land being up for sale; at the end of the period the parcel is sold to the highest bidder. goes on for 30 days, the public sale of Temple property60Sale of real estate donated to the Temple. goes on for 30 days, and they are publicly announed mornings and evenings.” Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Eliezer is afraid of trickery61If the wife has to vow not to have any future usufruct from her past husband in order to collect her ketubah from the Temple, she cannot remarry him. R. Eliezer suspects that a husband who donates his property to the Temple might want to get it back by divorcing his wife, waiting until she has collected her ketubah, then remarrying her and receiving the ketubah money as dowry., Rebbi Joshua is not afraid of trickery. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel62He disagrees with R. Mana and holds that their differences are systemic. This is the only opinion quoted in the Babli, Arakhin.23a">‘Arakhin 23a.. Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, a person may ask about his dedication; could he say that he does not have to vow usufruct?63This text seems to be corrupt. Since in our Mishnah, the House of Shammai hold that dedication in error is valid, it is clear that they must hold that a vow of dedication cannot be abrogated by an Elder (cf. Nedarim, Introduction p. 422, Chapter 9). Therefore, the text must read: דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. אֵיו אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ. וְהוּא דַהֲוָה אָמַר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ. וְהוּא דַהֲוָה אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. “Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, a person may not ask about his dedication; could he say that he does not have to vow ususfruct? Rebbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel, since the House of Hillel say, a person may ask about his dedication; could he say that he has to vow usufruct?” The “vow of usufruct” is a vow never to have any usufruct from the person designated in the vow. Rebbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel, since the House of Hillel say, a person may not ask about his dedication; could he say that he has to vow usufruct64Since he could ask an Elder about his vow, he does not need any tricks.? In any case, could not a man ask about his vow of usufruct?65R. Eliezer should agree that a man who cannot have his dedication annulled may try to have his vow of usufruct annulled. Rebbi Joshua agrees that a guarantor must execute a vow of usufruct66R. Joshua will agree that the husband of a woman whose ketubah is collected from a third party has to promise never to take her back. It is not that the guarantor has to vow; he has to ask the divorcing couple for their vows.. What does Rebbi Joshua say about a gift? Since he gives voluntarily, he does not have to vow usufruct, or since [the recipient’s] power is small and [the donor] may change his mind, does he have to vow usufruct? Let us hear from the following: The husband of a relative of Rebbi Ḥaggai owed on a document67Greek χάρτης, Latin charta, “papyrus, roll of papyrus”.. The creditor came and foreclosed. The case68After the foreclosure, the husband divorced his wife and she went to court to foreclose on the foreclosed parcel since the lien of her ketubah preceded the creditor’s loan document. came before Rebbi Aḥa, who said, he69The husband owes a vow of usufruct which will forbid him to remarry his wife in order to permit the wife to collect her ketubah. owes a vow of usufruct. Rebbi Yose said, he does not have to vow usufruct. The colleagues said before Rebbi Aḥa [and] Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Aḥa say it correctly? Since if he takes her back, does not the creditor come and foreclose70If the husband should remarry his divorcee, would not her property become the husband’s property as dowry, and could not the creditor then foreclose it for his claim? It seems that the creditor loses nothing if there is no vow.? Rebbi Yose said to them, she turns it into jewelry or keeps it as additions to her dowry71Cf. Ketubot 5:8:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.8.3">Ketubot 5:10, Note 218. Before the marriage, they sign a stipulation that the husband shall have no rights to the property. Then the creditor would be left without recourse.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! Rebbi Yose says it correctly. It was executed following Rebbi Aḥa72In this and similar cases, the husband has to deliver a vow which forbids him any future usufruct from his divorcee..
תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר. תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. וָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תַּמָּן לִנְזִירוּתוֹ נִשְׁאַל. מִכֹּחַ נְזִירוּת יָֽצְאוּ קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו לַחוּלִין. There73Nazir 5:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.2.1">Mishnah 4. If a person makes a vow of nazir, designates an animal as his sacrifice at completion, and then asks about his vow and has it annulled, the animal becomes profane., you say: “It shall leave and graze with the herd.” And here, you say so74Should not the House of Shammai hold that the animal must remain dedicated if it was designated even in error?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there he asked about his vow of nazir. Because of the vow of nazir75There never was a direct dedication of the animal, only a designation as nazir sacrifice. If there is no nazir, there is no sacrifice. The Babli rejects this argument and holds (9a) either that for the House of Shammai there can be no dissolution of a vow of nazir because there can be no dissolution of a dedication, or (32a) for the House of Hillel substitutions can be revoked. did his sacrifices become profane.
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנָה רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁאַל עַל תְּמוּרָתוֹ. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּהֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל תְּמוּרָתוֹ כָּךְ אֵין נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ וְאֵין נִשְׁאַל עַל תְּמוּרָתוֹ. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that nobody can ask about his substitution75,There never was a direct dedication of the animal, only a designation as nazir sacrifice. If there is no nazir, there is no sacrifice. The Babli rejects this argument and holds (9a) either that for the House of Shammai there can be no dissolution of a vow of nazir because there can be no dissolution of a dedication, or (32a) for the House of Hillel substitutions can be revoked.76No Elder has the power to annul a (forbidden) substitution.. Where do they disagree? About his dedication; for the House of Shammai say, since a person cannot ask about his substitution, he cannot ask about his dedication, but the House of Hillel say, a person can ask about his dedication but not about his substitution77It is difficult to read Leviticus.27.10">Lev. 27:10 according to the House of Hillel but the interpretation is confirmed by the Nazir.31a">Babli, 31a..
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא. אִם תּוֹפְשׂוֹ מִשֵּׁם שׁוֹר מִשֵּׁם רִאשׁוֹן. שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִבַּיִת רִאשׁוֹן. וְיָצָא לָבָן וְיָֽצְאוּ שְׁחוֹרִין אַחֲרָיו. אַתְּ תּוֹפְשׂוֹ מִשּׁוּם רֹאשׁ לַשְּׁחוֹרִים. שׁוֹר לָבָן שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִבֵּיתִי רִאשׁוֹן. וְיָצָא שָׁחוֹר וְיָֽצְאוּ לְבָנִים אַחֲרָיו. אַתְּ תּוֹפְשׂוֹ מִשּׁוּם רֹאשׁ לַלְּבָנִים. שׁוֹר שֶׁעָמַד עַל הָאֵבוּס. וְנִמְצָא רָבוּץ. רָבוּץ. וְנִמְצָא עוֹמֵד. יְהֵא בָהּ כְּהָדָא דָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִתְכַּװֵן לִתְרוֹם כְּרִי חִיטִּין וְתָרַם שְׂעוֹרִים. בַּלַּיְלָה לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. בַּיּוֹם מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. שְׁחַמְתִּית. וְנִמְצֵאת אַגְרוֹן. אֲפִילוּ בַּיּוֹם לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. אַיִל. לֹא כְּלוּם. עֵגֶל. אִין. דִּכְתִיב וְעֵגֶל בֶּן בָּקָר לְחַטָּאת. כֶּבֶשׂ. לֹא כְּלוּם. סְלָעִים. לֹא כְּלוּם. פּרוֹטְרוֹט. לֹא כְּלוּם. דֵּינָר זָהָב. קָדַשׁ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: You catch him at the mention of “ox”, at the mention of “first”78He denies that the reason of the House of Shammai be a comparison with the rules of substitutions but holds that they interpret any statement of dedication for the maximum benefit of the Temple (similar to the position of Rav Papa in the Nazir.32a">Babli, 32a).. “The black ox which comes out of my house first,” if a white one came out and the black followed him, you catch him because he is the leader of the black ones. “The white ox which comes out of my house first,” if a black one came out and the white followed him, you catch him because he is the leader of the white ones. “The ox which stands at the manger” and it was lying down, “lying down” and it was standing, should be like what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he wanted to give heave from wheat and he gave from barley, during nighttime he did not do anything, during daytime, what he did is done79Since at night he could not see what he did, we have to take his word as expressing his intent. Therefore, the heave designated during nighttime is not sanctified. But during daytime, his action overrides his words and the heave from barley is sanctified. Similarly, the House of Shammai will sanctify the ox if the dedication was made under circumstances in which his action can override his words.. Brown grain and it turned out to be white80For the spelling and definition of these words, cf. Peah 2:4:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.2.4.2">Peah 2:5, Notes 85–86. אגרו, אגדו is human food, שחמתית שמתית usually is animal feed., even during daytime he did not do anything. “A ram” is nothing81If he dedicated some kind of cattle but the animal coming out of his house was a goat or sheep, even the House of Shammai will agree that there was no dedication.. “A calf” yes, since it is written: “A calf of cattle as purification offering.” “A sheep” is nothing. “Tetradrachmas” is nothing. “Change” is nothing82This refers to Nazir 5:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.1.1">Mishnah 2. If he dedicated the first “denar” which he takes out of his wallet, the House of Shammai will agree that if he takes out only small change, none of which carries the denomination “denar”, it is not dedicated. Also tetradrachmas are never called “denar”. {Denar might mean “money” or “coin” in general. Denominations in late provincial usage may not correspond to standard values.}. “A gold denar”83Even though an unspecified "denar" in normal speech means "silver denar", the House of Hillel might agree that in a dedication it does apply to an aureus, a gold denar (in honest coin worth 25 silver denars) even though it is always referred to as "gold denar", not simply "denar". was sanctified.