Kiddushin 55a (נה.) — the Talmud in English

We learned there

in tractate Shekalim:

An animal found from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder—

between Jerusalem and the place called “Migdal Eder,”

and at the same distance—

at a distance equal to that from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder—

in every direction

from the directions of Jerusalem:

We assume that this animal is a sacrificial animal, because most animals leaving Jerusalem are sacrifices, although we do not know for which sacrifice it was consecrated. Therefore, if one found

males

that are fit to be burnt offerings, they shall be brought as

burnt offerings,

as we assume that they are burnt offerings, as the Mishna proceeds to explain.

And if one found

females,

they shall be brought as

peace offerings,

which are brought from females, as the Mishna explains below.

And we raise an objection to what we learned: “Males—burnt offerings”:

Is it only males that are burnt offerings—

are males necessarily burnt offerings? Whereas

are they not peace offerings as well!?

After all, peace offerings are also brought from males.

Rabbi Oshaya said

he answered:

Rabbi Oshaya:

The Mishna does not mean that males shall be brought as burnt offerings and females shall be brought as peace offerings. Rather,

here we are dealing with a case where he comes to undertake liability for their value—

that is, our Mishna concerns one who comes to arrange for the found animal by redeeming it and bringing its value for whichever sacrifice it was. Since it is uncertain whether the animal is a burnt offering or a peace offering, he can make an arrangement to resolve the uncertainty.

And this is what it is saying:

If one found males,

we are concerned that perhaps they are burnt offerings

and he must bring, in addition to a peace offering, a burnt offering equivalent in value to the animal. [If he found females, however, there is no concern that they are burnt offerings, and he brings only a peace offering with their value.] He brings two bundles of money corresponding to the value of the sacrifice, and says: If this animal is a burnt offering, it shall be redeemed onto this bundle of money, and the money in the second bundle shall be for a voluntary peace offering; and if it is a peace offering, the animal shall be redeemed onto the second bundle of money, and the money in the first bundle shall be for a voluntary burnt offering. He then brings a burnt offering with one bundle and a peace offering with the other.

And

the fact that this Mishna establishes that one may redeem sacrifices with money even when they have no blemish indicates that it is

Rabbi Meir’s

view, who says: Consecrated property is desacralized through

intentional misuse,

and likewise it is desacralized through intentional redemption with money. And we challenge this:

And

even if there is misuse and desacralization intentionally, this applies only to an item consecrated with the sanctity of Temple maintenance; but an animal consecrated with

intrinsic sanctity,

such as the sanctity of sacrifices [and the sanctity of sacred vessels],

is it desacralized

when it has no blemish!?

And we also learned in tractate Me’ila [19b]: There is no misuse after misuse with regard to consecrated property,

there are not two acts of misuse involving a single consecrated object, because through the first misuse the object has already become non-sacred,

and the second person is therefore no longer liable for misuse if he derives benefit from it unwittingly—

Rather, with an animal of the sacrifices that is fit to be offered,

and only with a sacred vessel,

as these do not become non-sacred through misuse,

how:

If

one person

was riding upon an animal

of a sacrifice,

and

his fellow came

after him

and rode

as well, and

his fellow came

and rode

as well,

then

all of them committed misuse,

and they bring a sacrifice for misuse. Likewise, if

one

person

was drinking from a golden cup,

which is a sacred vessel, and

his fellow came

after him and

drank

from that same sacred vessel, and

his fellow came

after him and

drank

from it as well,

all of them committed misuse.

This demonstrates that a sacrificial animal does not become non-sacred through misuse, and likewise not through redemption with money!?

And we answer: That Mishna—the Mishna stating “there is no misuse after misuse” —is Rabbi Yehuda’s

view,

and according to his view, indeed a sacrificial animal does not become non-sacred—

But this—the Mishna of “the animal that was found”—is

is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda

, and according to his view, a sacrificial animal indeed does not become unconsecrated—

Rabbi Meir’s

view, who holds that it becomes non-sacred even intentionally. One can say that through intentional misuse even a sacrificial animal becomes non-sacred, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

We nevertheless ask:

Can it not be inferred from Rabbi Yehuda for Rabbi Meir!?

Did Rabbi Yehuda

not say: Consecrated property is desacralized unwittingly, yet

intrinsic sanctity is not desacralized

[it is not desacralized] even unwittingly

?

So too, according to Rabbi Meir,

although consecrated property is desacralized intentionally,

nevertheless

intrinsic sanctity is not desacralized!?

And we answer: You cannot infer from the unwitting misuse concerning which Rabbi Yehuda said that intrinsic sanctity is not desacralized, to intentional misuse of intrinsic sanctity according to Rabbi Meir, because:

There,

in the case of unwitting misuse with which Rabbi Yehuda is dealing,

he

does not intend to render it non-sacred

[he does not intend to remove it from the domain of consecrated property], since the case concerns unwitting misuse, and the fact that the consecrated property becomes non-sacred is a decree of the Torah, based on the fact that the Torah obligates him to bring a sacrifice for misuse.

there—in the case of unintentional misuse discussed by Rabbi Yehuda—he

But here,

in the case of intentional misuse according to Rabbi Meir, or intentional redemption with money,

he

does intend to render it non-sacred, [he intends to remove the consecrated property and make it non-sacred], since he knows that it is consecrated property. Therefore, through the misuse or redemption with money, the consecrated property becomes non-sacred.

The Gemara now returns to Rabbi Oshaya’s statement, in which he explained the Mishna in Shekalim concerning the found animal as following Rabbi Meir, who holds that consecrated property becomes non-sacred intentionally. The Gemara raises the following objection:

here—in the case of deliberate misuse according to Rabbi Meir, or deliberate transfer of sanctity to money—

he

does intend to cause it to become unconsecrated

[he intends to cause the consecrated property to become unconsecrated], since he knows that it is consecrated property. Therefore, through the misuse or the transfer of its sanctity to money, the consecrated property becomes unconsecrated.

The Gemara now returns to Rabbi Oshaya’s explanation that the Mishna in tractate Shekalim concerning a found animal follows Rabbi Meir, who holds that consecrated property becomes unconsecrated through deliberate misuse, and the Gemara raises the following difficulty:

Granted that you heard him say this

up to this point we have heard

Rabbi Meir

that consecrated property loses its sanctity when used intentionally,

with regard to

the consecrated property of our Mishna, which was consecrated for the Temple maintenance which is

most sacred offerings

and is entirely for the Most High; and the same applies to other most sacred offerings that are entirely for the Most High. But

with regard to lesser sanctity offerings

which are not entirely for the Most High, since the owners also have a share in them,

did you hear him say

that consecrated property loses its sanctity when used intentionally? Before you interpret the Mishna concerning shekels—which also deals with peace offerings, which are lesser sanctity offerings—as referring to Rabbi Meir!?

A certain one of the Sages, whose name was Rabbi Yaakov, said to him:

And the matter follows by

kal va-chomer:

If

most sacred offerings lose their sanctity

when used intentionally, according to Rabbi Meir,

is it not all the more so true of lesser sanctity offerings

that they lose their sanctity when used intentionally, according to his view?

It was also stated: Rabbi Hama son of Rabbi Akiva said,

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina:

Rabbi Meir would say: Consecrated property loses its sanctity when used intentionally; when used unintentionally, it does not lose its sanctity—both most sacred offerings and lesser sanctity offerings

, and although we have heard him say this only with regard to most sacred offerings, nevertheless, the matter follows by

kal va-chomer:

If

most sacred offerings lose their sanctity

when used intentionally,

is it not all the more so true of lesser sanctity offerings

that they lose their sanctity when used intentionally?