In connection with the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara quotes a mishna in Shekalim 7:4 regarding what one can do if one finds an animal near Jerusalem as it is suspected to have been designated for a sacrifice. The Mishna offers a suggestion of what one can do if the finder wants to keep the animal. However, Rabbi Oshaya has trouble understanding this solution. He and Rabbi Yochanan each offer different suggestions as to how to understand the Mishna. Rabbi Oshaya’s explanation works with Rabbi Meir’s opinion that if one purposely used hekdesh for his own means, he could turn it into chulin. However, a difficulty is raised against that, yet is resolved. Several other questions are raised about the Mishna until a proper understanding of the Mishna is brought.
Kiddushin 55
Share this shiur:
Kiddushin
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Kiddushin
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Kiddushin 55
תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְמִגְדַּל עֵדֶר וּכְמִדָּתָהּ לְכׇל רוּחַ, זְכָרִים – עוֹלוֹת, נְקֵבוֹת – זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים.
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.
אֶלָּא זְכָרִים, עוֹלוֹת הוּא דְּהָווּ, זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים לָא הָווּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכָא בָּבָא לָחוּב בִּדְמֵיהֶן עָסְקִינַן, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא עוֹלוֹת, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד מִתְחַלֵּל.
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.
וּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף מִי מִתְחַלֵּל? וְהָתְנַן: אֵין מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה וּבִכְלִי שָׁרֵת בִּלְבַד.
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’t we learn in a mishna (Me’ila 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.
כֵּיצַד? הָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְרָכַב, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְרָכַב – כּוּלָּם מָעֲלוּ. הָיָה שׁוֹתֶה בְּכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְשָׁתָה, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְשָׁתָה – כּוּלָּם מָעֲלוּ! הָהִיא – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
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’ila, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas this mishna, from tractate Shekalim, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נִשְׁמַע לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּשׁוֹגֵג מִתְחַלֵּל וּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף לָא מִתַּחֲלָא. לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד מִתְחַלֵּל קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף לָא מִתַּחֲלָא! הָתָם לָא קָא מְכַוֵּין לְאַפּוֹקִינְהוּ לְחוּלִּין. הָכָא – קָא מְכַוֵּין לְאַפּוֹקִינְהוּ לְחוּלִּין.
The Gemara asks: Let us hear, i.e., infer, from the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda to the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Didn’t 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’s 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’s 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.
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים, בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? – אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שְׁמֵיהּ: קַל וָחוֹמֶר: קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים מִתְחַלְּלִים – קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
The Gemara questions Rav Oshaya’s 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’akov, 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?
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד – מִתְחַלֵּל, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – אֵין מִתְחַלֵּל, אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים וְאֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים. קַל וָחוֹמֶר: קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים מִתְחַלְּלִים – קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Akiva, says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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?
תָּהֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְכִי אוֹמְרִים לוֹ לָאָדָם: עֲמוֹד וַחֲטָא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַמְתִּין לַהּ עַד שֶׁתּוּמַם, וּמַיְיתֵי שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת וּמַתְנֶה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan wondered about Rabbi Oshaya’s 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 Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר מָר: זְכָרִים – עוֹלוֹת. דִּילְמָא תּוֹדָה הִיא? דְּמַיְיתֵי נָמֵי תּוֹדָה. וְהָא בָּעֲיָא לֶחֶם! דְּמַיְיתֵי נָמֵי לֶחֶם.
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’t a thanks-offering require the bringing of bread as well? The Gemara answers: He brings bread as well.
וְדִילְמָא אָשָׁם הוּא? אָשָׁם בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח בֶּן שָׁנָה. וְדִילְמָא אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע הוּא, אֲשַׁם נָזִיר הוּא? לָא שְׁכִיחִי.
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.
וְדִילְמָא פֶּסַח הוּא? פֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, מִזְהָר זְהִירִי בֵּיהּ, וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ – שְׁלָמִים הוּא.
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.
וְדִילְמָא בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר נִינְהוּ? לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא, לְמֵיכְלִינְהוּ בְּמוּמָן? הָכִי נָמֵי בְּמוּמָן מִתְאַכְלִי!
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.
אָמַר מָר: נְקֵבוֹת – זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. דִּילְמָא תּוֹדָה הִיא? דְּמַיְיתֵי תּוֹדָה. וְהָא בָּעֲיָא לֶחֶם! דְּמַיְיתֵי נָמֵי לֶחֶם.
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’t a thanks-offering require the bringing of bread as well? The Gemara answers: He brings bread as well.
וְדִילְמָא חַטָּאת הִיא? חַטָּאת בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח בַּת שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. וְדִילְמָא חַטָּאת שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ! לָא שְׁכִיחַ.
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.
אִשְׁתְּכַח בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ, מַאי? תַּנְיָא, חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן חֲכִינַאי אוֹמֵר: עֵז בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ לְחַטָּאת. לְחַטָּאת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּחַטָּאת – כּוֹנְסָהּ לְכִיפָּה וְהִיא מֵתָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ.
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: Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai 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 sin–offering? 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹקְחִים בְּהֵמָה בִּמְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי,
The Sages taught (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 1:15): One may not purchase an animal with second-tithe money outside of Jerusalem,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
Tel Aviv, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
Bronx, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Kiddushin 55
תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְמִגְדַּל עֵדֶר וּכְמִדָּתָהּ לְכׇל רוּחַ, זְכָרִים – עוֹלוֹת, נְקֵבוֹת – זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים.
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.
אֶלָּא זְכָרִים, עוֹלוֹת הוּא דְּהָווּ, זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים לָא הָווּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכָא בָּבָא לָחוּב בִּדְמֵיהֶן עָסְקִינַן, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא עוֹלוֹת, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד מִתְחַלֵּל.
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.
וּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף מִי מִתְחַלֵּל? וְהָתְנַן: אֵין מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה וּבִכְלִי שָׁרֵת בִּלְבַד.
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’t we learn in a mishna (Me’ila 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.
כֵּיצַד? הָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְרָכַב, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְרָכַב – כּוּלָּם מָעֲלוּ. הָיָה שׁוֹתֶה בְּכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְשָׁתָה, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְשָׁתָה – כּוּלָּם מָעֲלוּ! הָהִיא – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
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’ila, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas this mishna, from tractate Shekalim, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נִשְׁמַע לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּשׁוֹגֵג מִתְחַלֵּל וּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף לָא מִתַּחֲלָא. לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד מִתְחַלֵּל קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף לָא מִתַּחֲלָא! הָתָם לָא קָא מְכַוֵּין לְאַפּוֹקִינְהוּ לְחוּלִּין. הָכָא – קָא מְכַוֵּין לְאַפּוֹקִינְהוּ לְחוּלִּין.
The Gemara asks: Let us hear, i.e., infer, from the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda to the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Didn’t 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’s 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’s 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.
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים, בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? – אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שְׁמֵיהּ: קַל וָחוֹמֶר: קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים מִתְחַלְּלִים – קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
The Gemara questions Rav Oshaya’s 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’akov, 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?
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד – מִתְחַלֵּל, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – אֵין מִתְחַלֵּל, אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים וְאֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים. קַל וָחוֹמֶר: קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים מִתְחַלְּלִים – קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Akiva, says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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?
תָּהֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְכִי אוֹמְרִים לוֹ לָאָדָם: עֲמוֹד וַחֲטָא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַמְתִּין לַהּ עַד שֶׁתּוּמַם, וּמַיְיתֵי שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת וּמַתְנֶה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan wondered about Rabbi Oshaya’s 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 Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר מָר: זְכָרִים – עוֹלוֹת. דִּילְמָא תּוֹדָה הִיא? דְּמַיְיתֵי נָמֵי תּוֹדָה. וְהָא בָּעֲיָא לֶחֶם! דְּמַיְיתֵי נָמֵי לֶחֶם.
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’t a thanks-offering require the bringing of bread as well? The Gemara answers: He brings bread as well.
וְדִילְמָא אָשָׁם הוּא? אָשָׁם בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח בֶּן שָׁנָה. וְדִילְמָא אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע הוּא, אֲשַׁם נָזִיר הוּא? לָא שְׁכִיחִי.
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.
וְדִילְמָא פֶּסַח הוּא? פֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, מִזְהָר זְהִירִי בֵּיהּ, וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ – שְׁלָמִים הוּא.
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.
וְדִילְמָא בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר נִינְהוּ? לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא, לְמֵיכְלִינְהוּ בְּמוּמָן? הָכִי נָמֵי בְּמוּמָן מִתְאַכְלִי!
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.
אָמַר מָר: נְקֵבוֹת – זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. דִּילְמָא תּוֹדָה הִיא? דְּמַיְיתֵי תּוֹדָה. וְהָא בָּעֲיָא לֶחֶם! דְּמַיְיתֵי נָמֵי לֶחֶם.
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’t a thanks-offering require the bringing of bread as well? The Gemara answers: He brings bread as well.
וְדִילְמָא חַטָּאת הִיא? חַטָּאת בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח בַּת שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. וְדִילְמָא חַטָּאת שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ! לָא שְׁכִיחַ.
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.
אִשְׁתְּכַח בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ, מַאי? תַּנְיָא, חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן חֲכִינַאי אוֹמֵר: עֵז בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ לְחַטָּאת. לְחַטָּאת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּחַטָּאת – כּוֹנְסָהּ לְכִיפָּה וְהִיא מֵתָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ.
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: Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai 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 sin–offering? 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹקְחִים בְּהֵמָה בִּמְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי,
The Sages taught (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 1:15): One may not purchase an animal with second-tithe money outside of Jerusalem,
