💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:07:56. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
27 [1] 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 lamb [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. 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, 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].
Version: Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108945/NLI
License: CC-BY