In a Jewish context, the word redemption is most often connected to the Exodus from Egypt: God redeemed (rescued) the Israelites from slavery. In English, the word redemption can also mean recovery by payment — such as repurchasing an item sold to a pawn shop or even paying off a mortgage. Redemption, in this second sense, is a key concept in the workings of the Temple and its sacrifices.
Once something is consecrated (set aside) for the Temple, it can no longer be put to ordinary use. If you consecrate a sheep, for example, you cannot slaughter and eat it. If you consecrate money, you cannot spend it on a new outfit. Some consecrated items, however, can be redeemed. This means that they are sold and their sanctity, at the time of sale, transfers to the proceeds. This money, in turn, becomes restricted for sacred purposes — freeing the original consecrated item up for non-Temple use.
When the sacred item a person wishes to redeem is an animal, the general rule is that it cannot be redeemed until it naturally develops a blemish which renders it unfit for sacrifice. Only then is it sold and that money used to purchase something for the Temple. But, as we learn on today’s daf, this is not always true:
Ulla says that Rabbi Yohanan says: Lambs consecrated for the daily offerings that were not needed by the public during the fiscal year in which they were purchased are redeemed, even if they are unblemished.
With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
If more lambs were acquired than were needed for the daily offerings, one might think they are treated like any other unusable consecrated animal — put out to pasture until they became blemished, then sold. However, Rabbi Yohanan teaches that the surplus lambs can be redeemed even when they are still fit to be sacrificed.
This is surprising, and it does not go unchallenged. The Talmud relates:
Rabba was sitting and reciting this halakhah. Rav Hisda said to him: Who will listen to you and Rabbi Yohanan, your teacher, with regard to this halakhah? Rav Hisda clarified: The sanctity that was inherent in them, where has it gone?
Rav Hisda rejects the notion that the animal can be redeemed while still physically fit for slaughter. But Rabba sticks to his guns and argues his case from Mishnah Shekalim 4:5, which describes the procedure for dealing with excess incense at the end of the fiscal year:
With regard to the surplus incense that remained unused at the end of the fiscal year, what would the Temple treasurers do with it? They would separate from the Temple treasury the wages for the artisans who worked for the Temple, and those funds would thereby be desacralized. And then they would desacralize the surplus incense by transferring its sanctity to that money that had been set aside for the artisans. Then, they would give the now desacralized incense to the artisans as their wages, and finally, they would repurchase it with funds from the new collection carried out for the coming year.
The mishnah describes an elaborate procedure for ensuring that incense leftover from the year doesn’t go to waste: Money is separated from the treasury to pay the artisans who made the incense. This process desacralized the money. Then, that money is used to redeem the incense — effectively transferring the sanctity back to the money. This frees up the incense to be given as wages to the artisans, and then it is purchased from them once again with the now-sacred funds. In this way, the incense leftover from one year can be used in the next. Key to this process is desacralizing money. That is why Rabba cites it now — as proof that some things can be converted from sacred to mundane status.
But Rav Hisda also sticks to his guns and asserts that commodities and animals are not treated the same. What does Rav Hisda mean? The redemption of commodities is possible because their sanctity is dependent on their value and not their essence. For example, if one dedicates marble to the Temple, the sanctity of the marble is rooted in the value of the marble and not the marble itself. If the Temple is in need of acacia wood instead of marble, the marble can be redeemed and equal value acacia wood can be purchased. The Temple now has resources that it needs and preserved the value of the gift.
But animals, Rav Hisda argues, are different. They are sanctified not for their precise financial value but for their use as offerings. Two sheep that have different financial value might be equally valuable as sacrifices. Therefore, their sanctity becomes embedded within them and can only be released if they become unfit to be offered. In other words, incense can be redeemed, but not unblemished lambs.
Here’s another way to look at it: In the sacrificial system, it is animals who make the ultimate sacrifice — their lives are taken to fulfill the ritual obligations of human beings. The legal position that Rav Hisda adopts appears to take this into account. The sanctity of these animals is on a different plane. If not needed for the altar, these animals merit a redemption-free retirement in the fields.
Read all of Shevuot 10 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on May 11, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
