Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 5, 2016 | 讻状讝 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Kiddushin 55

The gemara quotes a mishna in Shekalim: a random animal found near Jerusalem is suspected to have been designated for a sacrifice and then ran away. Therefore one who finds it must bring it as a sacrifice – if the animal is male, a burnt offering and if female, a peace offering. 聽Rabbi Oshaya has trouble understanding the mishna as the male could also have been a peace offering. 聽Therefore he assumes that the mishna is referring to a case where the owner wants to redeem the animal. 聽The gemara concludes that according to this, in order to redeem, one must bring money for a聽burnt offering, a peace offering and a thanksgiving offering (including bringing 40 loaves of bread that are brought with a thanksgiving offering). 聽The gemara then shows that this fits in with Rabbi Meir’s statement that if one purposely used hekdesh for his own means, he could turn it into chulin. 聽A discussion is held about how one can do that with an animal whose body is sanctified. 聽Rabbi Yochanan is troubled by the problem of how can we tell someone to sin聽(use the animal for regular use)聽in order to fix something (the lost animal that was probably designated as a sacrifice). 聽He therefore says one must wait until the animal becomes blemished.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘讛诪讛 砖谞诪爪讗转 诪讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇诪讙讚诇 注讚专 讜讻诪讚转讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讝讻专讬诐 注讜诇讜转 谞拽讘讜转 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐

The Gemara continues its discussion of the desacralizing of consecrated property. We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 20a): If there was an animal fit for the altar that was found straying, from Jerusalem and as far as Migdal Eder, and similarly if it was found within that distance from Jerusalem in any other direction, it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. Males are presumed to be burnt-offerings, as only males can be brought as burnt-offerings. Females are presumed to be peace-offerings, as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering.

讗诇讗 讝讻专讬诐 注讜诇讜转 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讜 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛讻讗 讘讘讗 诇讞讜讘 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 注讜诇讜转 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛拽讚砖 讘诪讝讬讚 诪转讞诇诇

The Gemara questions this: But are males only burnt-offerings and not also peace-offerings? As peace-offerings can be male or female, a male animal that was found might have been designated as a peace-offering. Rabbi Oshaya said: We are not speaking here of bringing the animals themselves as offerings. Rather, we are dealing with one who comes to obligate himself to consecrate their value. The finder wants to consecrate the value of the animal in case it had been designated as an offering, thereby redeeming the animal and desacralizing it, and this is what the mishna is saying: In the case of males we are concerned that perhaps they are burnt-offerings, so the money must be consecrated for the purpose of burnt-offerings as well as peace-offerings. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Consecrated property is desacralized if it is misused intentionally. Therefore, he may redeem the animal and must use the money to purchase both a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, thereby avoiding all uncertainty.

讜拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 诪讬 诪转讞诇诇 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇 讗讞专 诪讜注诇 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara asks: And can something that has inherent sanctity, such as an animal that has been designated as an offering, be desacralized? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 19b): There is no misuse after misuse with regard to consecrated property? This means that if one misuses consecrated property, the item is immediately desacralized and the prohibition of misuse no longer applies to it. This is so apart from the case of the misuse of an animal designated as an offering and apart from the case of the misuse of service vessels alone. These do not become desacralized when misused, because they have inherent sanctity.

讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 专讜讻讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜专讻讘 讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜专讻讘 讻讜诇诐 诪注诇讜 讛讬讛 砖讜转讛 讘讻讜住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜砖转讛 讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜砖转讛 讻讜诇诐 诪注诇讜 讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

That mishna continues: How so? If someone was riding on a consecrated animal, and another came after him and also rode on it, and yet another came and rode on it, they have all misused consecrated property. Similarly, if one was drinking from a golden cup used in the Temple service, and another came and drank from it, and yet another came and drank from it, they have all misused consecrated property. The Gemara asks: As this indicates that an item that has inherent sanctity is never desacralized, how can it be redeemed? The Gemara answers: That mishna, from tractate Me鈥檌la, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas this mishna, from tractate Shekalim, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖诪注 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛拽讚砖 讘砖讜讙讙 诪转讞诇诇 讜拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 诇讗 诪转讞诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛拽讚砖 讘诪讝讬讚 诪转讞诇诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 诇讗 诪转讞诇讗 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛讻讗 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: Let us hear, i.e., infer, from the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda to the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda say that consecrated property is desacralized if used unwittingly, and yet those items that have inherent sanctity are not desacralized. According to Rabbi Meir as well, although consecrated property is desacralized if used intentionally, items that have inherent sanctity should not be desacralized. The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two opinions. There, in the case underlying Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, the one who misuses the consecrated item unwittingly does not intend to withdraw it to a non-sacred state but merely to use it, which is why an item that has inherent sanctity is not desacralized; whereas here, in the case underlying Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion, one who acts intentionally does intend to withdraw it to a non-sacred state, so even an item that has inherent sanctity can be desacralized.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪转讞诇诇讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara questions Rav Oshaya鈥檚 explanation of the mishna: Say that you have heard Rabbi Meir express the opinion that one can desacralize a consecrated item in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, but did you hear him express this opinion in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., a peace-offering? If Rabbi Meir holds that offerings of lesser sanctity cannot be desacralized, the explanation of Rabbi Oshaya would be insufficient, as it does not account for the possibility that the animal is a peace-offering. One of the Sages, and his name was Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, said to him: This is learned by means of an a fortiori inference: If offerings of the most sacred order can be desacralized, is it not all the more so the case that this halakha would apply to offerings of lesser sanctity?

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛拽讚砖 讘诪讝讬讚 诪转讞诇诇 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谉 诪转讞诇诇 讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪转讞诇诇讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

It was also stated: Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi Akiva, says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says that Rabbi Meir would say: Consecrated property is desacralized when misused intentionally, but it is not desacralized when misused unwittingly. This applies both to offerings of the most sacred order and to offerings of lesser sanctity, by means of an a fortiori inference: If offerings of the most sacred order can be desacralized, is it not all the more so the case that this halakha would apply to offerings of lesser sanctity?

转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 注诪讜讚 讜讞讟讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 砖转讜诪诐 讜诪讬讬转讬 砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 讜诪转谞讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan wondered about Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 explanation of the mishna: And does one say to a person: Arise and sin in order that you may gain? Even if consecrated property can be desacralized intentionally, one is not allowed to redeem an animal designated to be an offering. Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The mishna does not refer to redeeming an unblemished animal but to a case where the one who found the animal waits for it until it develops a blemish. At that point it would no longer have inherent sanctity but merely sanctity that inheres in its value, so the animal may be redeemed. And he brings two unblemished animals of the same value, and stipulates that if the animal he found was a burnt-offering, the first animal should be a burnt-offering in its stead while the other should be a voluntary peace-offering. And if the animal he found was a peace-offering, the second animal should be a peace-offering in its stead and the first should be a voluntary burnt-offering. After doing so he may eat the animal he found.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讻专讬诐 注讜诇讜转 讚讬诇诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 谞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬讗 诇讞诐 讚诪讬讬转讬 谞诪讬 诇讞诐

The Gemara continues to clarify the mishna. The Master says (55a): Males are presumed to be burnt-offerings, as only males may be brought as burnt-offerings. The Gemara asks: Why should a male necessarily be a burnt-offering; perhaps it is a thanks-offering, which can also be brought from a male animal? The Gemara answers: The mishna means that he must also bring a third animal and make a similar stipulation, that it should be either a thanks-offering in its stead or a voluntary one. The Gemara asks: But if he brings a third animal as a thanks-offering, doesn鈥檛 a thanks-offering require the bringing of bread as well? The Gemara answers: He brings bread as well.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗砖诐 讛讜讗 讗砖诐 讘谉 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬砖转讻讞 讘谉 砖谞讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讛讜讗 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讛讜讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬

The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is a guilt-offering, which is also brought only from male animals? The Gemara answers: The animal for a guilt-offering is in its second year, and the mishna is referring to a case where an animal in its first year was found. The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is the guilt-offering of a leper or the guilt-offering of a nazirite, which are brought from animals in their first year? The Gemara answers: Lepers and nazirites are not common, and there is no need to be concerned about that possibility.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 驻住讞 讛讜讗 驻住讞 讘讝诪谞讜 诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专讬 讘讬讛 讜砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is a Paschal offering, which is also brought from male animals? The Gemara answers: That is not likely, because with regard to a Paschal offering, if it is up to or in its time to be slaughtered, the owners carefully guard it to prevent it from going missing. And if it is a Paschal offering that is not offered in its proper time, but was left over and is offered later, it has the same halakha as a peace-offering.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 谞讬谞讛讜 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇诪讬讻诇讬谞讛讜 讘诪讜诪谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘诪讜诪谉 诪转讗讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: And perhaps the animal he found is a firstborn animal, which can only be brought from male animals, or animal tithe, which can brought from male animals? The Gemara answers: With regard to which halakha would the possibility that it is a firstborn or animal tithe need to be taken into account? It is with regard to the halakha that one is permitted to eat them in their blemished state, as firstborns and animal tithes do not need to be redeemed if they develop a blemish, but are eaten as such. These found animals as well are eaten only in their blemished state, as one may not redeem and eat them until they develop a blemish, as explained previously.

讗诪专 诪专 谞拽讘讜转 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讚讬诇诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬讗 诇讞诐 讚诪讬讬转讬 谞诪讬 诇讞诐

The Master says above: Females are presumed to be peace-offerings, as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering. The Gemara asks: Perhaps it is a thanks-offering, which can also be brought from female animals? The Gemara answers: The mishna means that he must also bring a third animal and make a similar stipulation, that it is either a thanks-offering in the stead of the found animal, or a gift offering. The Gemara asks: But if he brings a third animal as a thanks-offering, doesn鈥檛 a thanks-offering require the bringing of bread as well? The Gemara answers: He brings bread as well.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讞讟讗转 讘转 砖谞转讛 讜讗讬砖转讻讞 讘转 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is a sin-offering, as it is permitted to bring a female sin-offering? The Gemara answers: The animal for a sin-offering is always in its first year, and the mishna is referring to a case where an animal in its second year was found. The Gemara asks: But perhaps it was a sin-offering whose year had passed without having been sacrificed? The halakha in such a case is that the animal is left to die. The Gemara answers: Such a case is not common, and there is no need to be concerned about such a possibility.

讗砖转讻讞 讘转 砖谞转讛 诪讗讬 转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 讞讻讬谞讗讬 讗讜诪专 注讝 讘转 砖谞转讛 诇讞讟讗转 诇讞讟讗转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讞讟讗转 讻讜谞住讛 诇讻讬驻讛 讜讛讬讗 诪转讛 诪讗诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: This is the case if the animal was in its second year, but what is the halakha if it was found when it was in its first year? The Gemara answers: It is taught in a baraita: 岣nanya ben 岣khinai says: If one found a goat in its first year, it is brought as a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that it is brought as a sinoffering? How can he sacrifice the animal as a sin-offering due to a mere possibility that it had been designated as a sin-offering? One cannot bring a voluntary sin-offering. Rather, Abaye says: He treats it as though it were a sin-offering, i.e., he conveys it into a cell and it dies on its own. Since it might be a lost sin-offering, it must be left to die.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬诐 讘讛诪讛 讘诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬

The Sages taught (Tosefta, Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 1:15): One may not purchase an animal with second-tithe money outside of Jerusalem,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 55

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘讛诪讛 砖谞诪爪讗转 诪讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇诪讙讚诇 注讚专 讜讻诪讚转讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讝讻专讬诐 注讜诇讜转 谞拽讘讜转 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐

The Gemara continues its discussion of the desacralizing of consecrated property. We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 20a): If there was an animal fit for the altar that was found straying, from Jerusalem and as far as Migdal Eder, and similarly if it was found within that distance from Jerusalem in any other direction, it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. Males are presumed to be burnt-offerings, as only males can be brought as burnt-offerings. Females are presumed to be peace-offerings, as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering.

讗诇讗 讝讻专讬诐 注讜诇讜转 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讜 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛讻讗 讘讘讗 诇讞讜讘 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 注讜诇讜转 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛拽讚砖 讘诪讝讬讚 诪转讞诇诇

The Gemara questions this: But are males only burnt-offerings and not also peace-offerings? As peace-offerings can be male or female, a male animal that was found might have been designated as a peace-offering. Rabbi Oshaya said: We are not speaking here of bringing the animals themselves as offerings. Rather, we are dealing with one who comes to obligate himself to consecrate their value. The finder wants to consecrate the value of the animal in case it had been designated as an offering, thereby redeeming the animal and desacralizing it, and this is what the mishna is saying: In the case of males we are concerned that perhaps they are burnt-offerings, so the money must be consecrated for the purpose of burnt-offerings as well as peace-offerings. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Consecrated property is desacralized if it is misused intentionally. Therefore, he may redeem the animal and must use the money to purchase both a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, thereby avoiding all uncertainty.

讜拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 诪讬 诪转讞诇诇 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇 讗讞专 诪讜注诇 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara asks: And can something that has inherent sanctity, such as an animal that has been designated as an offering, be desacralized? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 19b): There is no misuse after misuse with regard to consecrated property? This means that if one misuses consecrated property, the item is immediately desacralized and the prohibition of misuse no longer applies to it. This is so apart from the case of the misuse of an animal designated as an offering and apart from the case of the misuse of service vessels alone. These do not become desacralized when misused, because they have inherent sanctity.

讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 专讜讻讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜专讻讘 讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜专讻讘 讻讜诇诐 诪注诇讜 讛讬讛 砖讜转讛 讘讻讜住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜砖转讛 讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜砖转讛 讻讜诇诐 诪注诇讜 讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

That mishna continues: How so? If someone was riding on a consecrated animal, and another came after him and also rode on it, and yet another came and rode on it, they have all misused consecrated property. Similarly, if one was drinking from a golden cup used in the Temple service, and another came and drank from it, and yet another came and drank from it, they have all misused consecrated property. The Gemara asks: As this indicates that an item that has inherent sanctity is never desacralized, how can it be redeemed? The Gemara answers: That mishna, from tractate Me鈥檌la, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas this mishna, from tractate Shekalim, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖诪注 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛拽讚砖 讘砖讜讙讙 诪转讞诇诇 讜拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 诇讗 诪转讞诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛拽讚砖 讘诪讝讬讚 诪转讞诇诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 诇讗 诪转讞诇讗 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛讻讗 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: Let us hear, i.e., infer, from the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda to the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda say that consecrated property is desacralized if used unwittingly, and yet those items that have inherent sanctity are not desacralized. According to Rabbi Meir as well, although consecrated property is desacralized if used intentionally, items that have inherent sanctity should not be desacralized. The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two opinions. There, in the case underlying Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, the one who misuses the consecrated item unwittingly does not intend to withdraw it to a non-sacred state but merely to use it, which is why an item that has inherent sanctity is not desacralized; whereas here, in the case underlying Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion, one who acts intentionally does intend to withdraw it to a non-sacred state, so even an item that has inherent sanctity can be desacralized.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪转讞诇诇讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara questions Rav Oshaya鈥檚 explanation of the mishna: Say that you have heard Rabbi Meir express the opinion that one can desacralize a consecrated item in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, but did you hear him express this opinion in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., a peace-offering? If Rabbi Meir holds that offerings of lesser sanctity cannot be desacralized, the explanation of Rabbi Oshaya would be insufficient, as it does not account for the possibility that the animal is a peace-offering. One of the Sages, and his name was Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, said to him: This is learned by means of an a fortiori inference: If offerings of the most sacred order can be desacralized, is it not all the more so the case that this halakha would apply to offerings of lesser sanctity?

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛拽讚砖 讘诪讝讬讚 诪转讞诇诇 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谉 诪转讞诇诇 讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪转讞诇诇讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

It was also stated: Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi Akiva, says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says that Rabbi Meir would say: Consecrated property is desacralized when misused intentionally, but it is not desacralized when misused unwittingly. This applies both to offerings of the most sacred order and to offerings of lesser sanctity, by means of an a fortiori inference: If offerings of the most sacred order can be desacralized, is it not all the more so the case that this halakha would apply to offerings of lesser sanctity?

转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 注诪讜讚 讜讞讟讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 砖转讜诪诐 讜诪讬讬转讬 砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 讜诪转谞讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan wondered about Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 explanation of the mishna: And does one say to a person: Arise and sin in order that you may gain? Even if consecrated property can be desacralized intentionally, one is not allowed to redeem an animal designated to be an offering. Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The mishna does not refer to redeeming an unblemished animal but to a case where the one who found the animal waits for it until it develops a blemish. At that point it would no longer have inherent sanctity but merely sanctity that inheres in its value, so the animal may be redeemed. And he brings two unblemished animals of the same value, and stipulates that if the animal he found was a burnt-offering, the first animal should be a burnt-offering in its stead while the other should be a voluntary peace-offering. And if the animal he found was a peace-offering, the second animal should be a peace-offering in its stead and the first should be a voluntary burnt-offering. After doing so he may eat the animal he found.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讻专讬诐 注讜诇讜转 讚讬诇诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 谞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬讗 诇讞诐 讚诪讬讬转讬 谞诪讬 诇讞诐

The Gemara continues to clarify the mishna. The Master says (55a): Males are presumed to be burnt-offerings, as only males may be brought as burnt-offerings. The Gemara asks: Why should a male necessarily be a burnt-offering; perhaps it is a thanks-offering, which can also be brought from a male animal? The Gemara answers: The mishna means that he must also bring a third animal and make a similar stipulation, that it should be either a thanks-offering in its stead or a voluntary one. The Gemara asks: But if he brings a third animal as a thanks-offering, doesn鈥檛 a thanks-offering require the bringing of bread as well? The Gemara answers: He brings bread as well.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗砖诐 讛讜讗 讗砖诐 讘谉 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬砖转讻讞 讘谉 砖谞讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讛讜讗 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讛讜讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬

The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is a guilt-offering, which is also brought only from male animals? The Gemara answers: The animal for a guilt-offering is in its second year, and the mishna is referring to a case where an animal in its first year was found. The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is the guilt-offering of a leper or the guilt-offering of a nazirite, which are brought from animals in their first year? The Gemara answers: Lepers and nazirites are not common, and there is no need to be concerned about that possibility.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 驻住讞 讛讜讗 驻住讞 讘讝诪谞讜 诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专讬 讘讬讛 讜砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is a Paschal offering, which is also brought from male animals? The Gemara answers: That is not likely, because with regard to a Paschal offering, if it is up to or in its time to be slaughtered, the owners carefully guard it to prevent it from going missing. And if it is a Paschal offering that is not offered in its proper time, but was left over and is offered later, it has the same halakha as a peace-offering.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 谞讬谞讛讜 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇诪讬讻诇讬谞讛讜 讘诪讜诪谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘诪讜诪谉 诪转讗讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: And perhaps the animal he found is a firstborn animal, which can only be brought from male animals, or animal tithe, which can brought from male animals? The Gemara answers: With regard to which halakha would the possibility that it is a firstborn or animal tithe need to be taken into account? It is with regard to the halakha that one is permitted to eat them in their blemished state, as firstborns and animal tithes do not need to be redeemed if they develop a blemish, but are eaten as such. These found animals as well are eaten only in their blemished state, as one may not redeem and eat them until they develop a blemish, as explained previously.

讗诪专 诪专 谞拽讘讜转 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讚讬诇诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬讗 诇讞诐 讚诪讬讬转讬 谞诪讬 诇讞诐

The Master says above: Females are presumed to be peace-offerings, as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering. The Gemara asks: Perhaps it is a thanks-offering, which can also be brought from female animals? The Gemara answers: The mishna means that he must also bring a third animal and make a similar stipulation, that it is either a thanks-offering in the stead of the found animal, or a gift offering. The Gemara asks: But if he brings a third animal as a thanks-offering, doesn鈥檛 a thanks-offering require the bringing of bread as well? The Gemara answers: He brings bread as well.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讞讟讗转 讘转 砖谞转讛 讜讗讬砖转讻讞 讘转 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is a sin-offering, as it is permitted to bring a female sin-offering? The Gemara answers: The animal for a sin-offering is always in its first year, and the mishna is referring to a case where an animal in its second year was found. The Gemara asks: But perhaps it was a sin-offering whose year had passed without having been sacrificed? The halakha in such a case is that the animal is left to die. The Gemara answers: Such a case is not common, and there is no need to be concerned about such a possibility.

讗砖转讻讞 讘转 砖谞转讛 诪讗讬 转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 讞讻讬谞讗讬 讗讜诪专 注讝 讘转 砖谞转讛 诇讞讟讗转 诇讞讟讗转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讞讟讗转 讻讜谞住讛 诇讻讬驻讛 讜讛讬讗 诪转讛 诪讗诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: This is the case if the animal was in its second year, but what is the halakha if it was found when it was in its first year? The Gemara answers: It is taught in a baraita: 岣nanya ben 岣khinai says: If one found a goat in its first year, it is brought as a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that it is brought as a sinoffering? How can he sacrifice the animal as a sin-offering due to a mere possibility that it had been designated as a sin-offering? One cannot bring a voluntary sin-offering. Rather, Abaye says: He treats it as though it were a sin-offering, i.e., he conveys it into a cell and it dies on its own. Since it might be a lost sin-offering, it must be left to die.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬诐 讘讛诪讛 讘诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬

The Sages taught (Tosefta, Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 1:15): One may not purchase an animal with second-tithe money outside of Jerusalem,

Scroll To Top