קידושין נה

קידושין נה

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,