Kiddushin 54a — the Talmud in English

What Rabbi Meir said in our Mishna, that if he acted unwittingly he did not betroth, is not because Rabbi Meir holds that consecrated property is not desecrated through unwitting sacrilege, and because, had he known that it was consecrated property, he would not have betrothed with it or sold it [and not in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, who explains it in this manner], for:

We have gone back over all the aspects of Rabbi Meir,

that is: we examined every place where Rabbi Meir spoke concerning the laws of consecrated property,

and we did not find

him saying:

Consecrated property used unwittingly is not desecrated,

and only

deliberately

is it

desecrated.

And

if you say: If so, why did Rabbi Meir say in our Mishna that when he acted unwittingly he did not betroth? This is the reason: because

our Mishna is dealing with

a case in which he betrothed with

priestly garments [

priestly vestments]

that

were still

not worn out

and were fit for service in them, for these are not desecrated through unwitting sacrilege, and since they were not desecrated, he did not betroth, for she did not acquire consecrated property—

And the reason that these are not desecrated through unwitting sacrilege is:

since they were given

priestly vestments

for benefit to be derived from them

unwittingly, provided that he does not intend to desecrate them,

because the Torah was not given to ministering angels,

and the Torah did not say that the kohanim should be as swift as ministering angels, to remove them immediately at the completion of the service, and not leave them upon themselves after the service even for the blink of an eye; and since they were given for benefit to be derived from them unwittingly, they are not desecrated through his betrothing with them, and therefore she is not betrothed through them.

Ta shma

to raise an objection against Rav’s words, from what was taught in a beraita:

With regard to priestly garments that were worn out, one commits sacrilege with them; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And

is it not

even if they were not worn out? And what we taught, “that were worn out,” is stated to teach a greater novelty: even if they were worn out, one commits sacrilege with them; and this is a difficulty against Rav, who said: There is no sacrilege with priestly garments!?

And we answer:

No; specifically when they are worn out,

for since they are not designated for service, they are like other consecrated property that was not given for benefit to be derived from it, and one commits sacrilege with them, and they are desecrated through the sacrilege.

Ta shma

to raise another objection against Rav’s words, from what was taught in a beraita:

All Israel were commanded to give a half-shekel every year, and from the first of Adar until the first of Nisan they would collect their shekels into the special “chamber” designated for this.

There were two boxes made in the form of a shofar [“shofarot”] in the Temple; on one was written “new shekels,” and into it they would place the shekels of that year beginning on the first of Nisan; and on the other was written “old shekels,” and into it were placed the shekels of the previous year, which were brought by people who had not weighed their shekels in the previous year.

The shekels that were in the “new shekels” box the treasurers would transfer to the “chamber,” and from this chamber they would make collections into three boxes [in a known measure] three times a year [“the collection of the chamber”], and with them they would purchase the communal offerings; and what remained in the chamber was called “the remainder of the chamber,” and from it they would take money for the wall of the city of Jerusalem and its towers, and for every repair of the city.

The shekels that were in the “old shekels” box, the treasurers would transfer to “the remainder of the chamber” of the previous year.

One commits sacrilege with the new shekels,

that is: one who removes money that was in the box upon which “new shekels” was written, or derives benefit from it unwittingly, is liable for a sacrilege offering, for they are designated for communal offerings.

But one does not commit sacrilege with the

old

shekels,

for the status of “the remainder of the chamber” applies to them, and the first tanna holds that one does not commit sacrilege with “the remainder of the chamber.”

Rabbi Meir says: One commits sacrilege even with the old shekels, for Rabbi Meir used to say: One commits sacrilege with

“the remainder of the chamber.”

And we raise a difficulty against Rav, who holds according to Rabbi Meir that one does not commit sacrilege unwittingly with priestly vestments at all, since benefit to be derived from them was necessarily permitted to the kohanim, because the Torah was not given to ministering angels:

And why

does Rabbi Meir hold that one commits sacrilege with the remainder of the chamber?

Let us say

that with these too there should be no sacrilege at all,

since they were given for benefit to be derived from them, because the Torah was not given to ministering angels—

For the wall of the city and its towers come from the remainder of the chamber [

for the wall of the city and its towers came from the remainder of the chamber], and

as we learned: The wall of the city

of

Jerusalem and its towers, and all the needs of the city, come from the remainder of the chamber,

and it is impossible that people not derive benefit from them by sitting in their shade and upon them, and if so—for Rav’s view according to Rabbi Meir—there is again no unwitting sacrilege at all with “the remainder of the chamber,” since the money is designated for this purpose!?

Rather, necessarily Rabbi Meir agrees that although that benefit of sitting in the shade of the city wall was permitted, this does not remove from them the status of sacrilege in other ways, even unwittingly; if so, the same should be said with regard to priestly garments!?

And we answer:

Do not say: Rabbi Meir

is the one who said: One commits sacrilege even with the old shekels;

rather, say: Rabbi Judah

says: One commits sacrilege even with the old shekels.

And Rabbi Judah follows his own position, for he holds in our Mishna that one commits sacrilege even with priestly garments, and for this reason he disagreed and said that one who betroths with consecrated property unwittingly has betrothed.

Ta shma, for it was taught: Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yitzhak said: With regard to stones of Jerusalem that fell, one commits sacrilege with them [

one is liable for a sacrilege offering when one used them unwittingly],

the words of Rabbi Meir!

And why!? Let us say: Since the Torah was not given to ministering angels, there is again no unwitting sacrilege in Jerusalem at all, just as Rav said according to Rabbi Meir with regard to priestly garments!?

And we answer:

Do not say [

do not teach]: “The words of

Rabbi Meir,”

but rather say [

teach as follows]: “The words of

Rabbi Judah.”

And we are astonished at this:

If it is Rabbi Judah,

is

Jerusalem consecrated

[and does Rabbi Judah indeed hold that there is sanctity in the wall of the city of Jerusalem], such that he says that one commits sacrilege with stones of Jerusalem that fell?

But we learned

in tractate Nedarim [10b]:

One who says: “This loaf is upon me

like the lamb [

like the daily offering],” or says: “This loaf is upon me

like the pens [

like the animals in the animal pen of consecrated animals that was in the Temple, and like the wood in the wood pen],” or says: “

Like the wood,” or

“

like the fires [

like the flames of fire upon the altar],” “

like the Sanctuary,” “

like the altar,”

“like Jerusalem,”

this is a vow, for anyone who makes something dependent upon something that is sacred through a person [“a vowed object”], that object is forbidden.

Rabbi Judah says: Anyone who says “

Jerusalem”

has

said nothing,

because Jerusalem is not consecrated; and if so, how can we say that Rabbi Judah holds: One commits sacrilege with stones of Jerusalem that fell!?

And if you would say

to resolve this: The reason that one who says “Jerusalem” has said nothing according to Rabbi Judah is

because he did not say “like Jerusalem”

[with the letter kaf of comparison], and not because Jerusalem is not consecrated according to his view—

this likewise cannot resolve it, for

but it was taught: Rabbi Judah says: Anyone who says “

like Jerusalem”

has said nothing, until he makes a vow concerning something offered in Jerusalem;

for although he said “like Jerusalem,” he nevertheless has said nothing, and necessarily his reason is that Jerusalem was not consecrated.