Kiddushin 55a — the Talmud in English

We learned there

in tractate Shekalim:

An animal that is found from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder

between Jerusalem and the place called “Migdal Eder,”

and its measure

the measure of the distance from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder—

in every direction

of the directions from Jerusalem:

We presume that this animal is a sacrifice, for most of the animals that leave Jerusalem are sacrifices, but we do not know for which sacrifice it was consecrated; and therefore, if he found

males

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

burnt offerings,

for we presume that they are burnt offerings, and it explains this further.

And if he found

females,

they shall be brought for

peace offerings,

which come from females, and it explains this below.

And we object to what we learned: “Males, burnt offerings”:

Rather, it is only males that are burnt offerings—

and is it so that males are necessarily burnt offerings, whereas

peace offerings are not!?

But peace offerings also come from males.

He said

he resolved,

Rabbi Oshaya:

The Mishna does not mean that males shall be brought as burnt offerings and females shall be brought for peace offerings; rather,

here we are dealing with one who comes to assume liability for their value,

that is to say: our Mishna is dealing with one who comes to make a remedy for the animal that was found, to redeem it and bring its value for the same sacrifice that it was; and, when it is uncertain whether it is a burnt offering or a peace offering, he undertakes to make a remedy for it in order to emerge from the uncertainty.

And this is what it says:

If he found males,

we are concerned that perhaps they are burnt offerings,

and he must bring, corresponding to the value of the animal, also a burnt offering besides a peace offering; whereas if he found females, concerning which there is no concern that they are burnt offerings, he brings only a peace offering with their value. And he brings two bundles of money equal to the value of the sacrifice, and says: “If this animal is a burnt offering, let it be redeemed upon 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 money shall be redeemed upon the second bundle of money, and the money in the first bundle shall be for a voluntary burnt offering”; and with these he brings a burnt offering, and with those he brings a peace offering.

And

What is explained in this Mishna—that he may redeem the sacrifices with money even though they have no blemish—

is Rabbi Meir’s, for he says: consecrated property through

deliberate

misuse is redeemed, and likewise it is redeemed through deliberate redemption with money.

And it is difficult concerning this: and

even if there is misuse and redemption deliberately, this applies only to an object consecrated with the sanctity of the Temple treasury, but an animal consecrated with

the

sanctity of the substance,

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

is it redeemed

without a blemish!?

And we learned in tractate Meila [19b]: There is no misuse after misuse with consecrated property,

there are not two acts of misuse concerning one consecrated object, because through the first misuse the object has already become unconsecrated,

and afterward the second person is not liable for misuse if he benefited from it unwittingly—

Except with an animal of sacrifices of the altar that is fit for a sacrifice,

and only with a sacred vessel,

for these do not become unconsecrated through misuse,

how:

Was

one

riding upon

the back of

an animal

of a sacrifice, and

his fellow came

after him

and rode

also, and

his fellow came

and rode

also:

all of them committed misuse,

and they bring a sacrifice for misuse; and likewise, if

one was

person

drinking from a golden cup,

which is a sacred vessel, and

his fellow came

after him and

drank

also from that sacred vessel, and

his fellow came

after him and

drank

also,

all of them committed misuse.

Thus, a sacrificial animal does not become unconsecrated through misuse, and likewise not through redemption with money!?

And we answer: That Mishna of “there is no misuse after misuse”— it is Rabbi Yehuda,

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

But this—the Mishna of “an animal that is found”—is Rabbi Meir,

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—

who holds that even through deliberate action it becomes unconsecrated; and one may say that through deliberate misuse even a sacrifice becomes unconsecrated, as it explains further.

And we still object:

Is it not possible to infer from Rabbi Yehuda for Rabbi Meir!?

And is it

not that Rabbi Yehuda said: Consecrated property through unwitting action becomes unconsecrated, and

nevertheless

the sanctity of the substance does not become unconsecrated,

[it is not redeemed] even through unwitting action;

according to Rabbi Meir also, e

ven though

consecrated property through deliberate action becomes unconsecrated,

nevertheless

the sanctity of the substance does not become unconsecrated!?

And we answer: You cannot infer from unwitting misuse, concerning which Rabbi Yehuda said that the sanctity of the substance does not become unconsecrated, to deliberate misuse of the sanctity of the substance according to Rabbi Meir, because:

In

that case—in unwitting misuse with which Rabbi Yehuda is dealing—

he

does not intend to make them unconsecrated

[to unconsecrated property],

[he does not intend to make it unconsecrated], for he is dealing with unwitting misuse, and the fact that the consecrated property becomes unconsecrated is a decree of Scripture, because the Torah obligated him to bring a sacrifice for misuse.

does

But

here—in deliberate misuse according to Rabbi Meir, or in deliberate redemption with money—

he

does intend to make them unconsecrated, [he intends to make the consecrated property unconsecrated], for he knows that it is consecrated property; and therefore the consecrated property becomes unconsecrated through the misuse or the redemption with money.

Here the Gemara returns to the words of Rabbi Oshaya, who explained the Mishna concerning an animal that was found in Shekalim as following Rabbi Meir, who holds that consecrated property through deliberate action becomes unconsecrated; and the Gemara is astonished at this:

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 it from him,

up to this point we have not heard,

from Rabbi Meir,

that consecrated property is profaned intentionally,

in

the consecrated property of our Mishna, consecrated for the repair of the Temple, which is

an offering of the highest sanctity,

and all of it is for the Most High—and the same is the case with other offerings of the highest sanctity, all of which are for the Most High; but

with offerings of lesser sanctity,

of which not all belongs to the Most High, but the owners also have a share in it,

did you hear from him

that consecrated property is profaned intentionally, so that you interpret the Mishna concerning shekels—which also deals with peace-offerings, which are offerings of lesser sanctity—as [the view of] Rabbi Meir?!

One of the Sages, whose name was Rabbi Yaakov, said to him:

but surely the matter is

a kal va-homer:

if

offerings of the highest sanctity are profaned

intentionally according to Rabbi Meir,

are offerings of lesser sanctity not all the more so

that they should be profaned intentionally according to his view?

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

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said:

Rabbi Meir would say: Consecrated property is profaned intentionally; it is not profaned inadvertently—both offerings of the highest sanctity and offerings of lesser sanctity,

and although we have not heard him say this except with regard to offerings of the highest sanctity, nevertheless, surely the matter is

a kal va-homer:

if

offerings of the highest sanctity are profaned

intentionally,

are offerings of lesser sanctity not all the more so

that they should be profaned intentionally.