Kiddushin 55b (נה:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection in connection with the statement of Rabbi Oshaya, who interpreted the Mishna in tractate Shekalim as dealing with one who comes to discharge his obligation with their monetary value and to redeem them as he found them, unblemished:

The animal consecrated for the altar may not be redeemed while it is unblemished, as it is stated: [Leviticus 27:27] “And if it is an impure animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation,” and the Sages explained in tractate Menahot [101a] that “an impure animal” means an animal with a blemish. We have therefore learned that only an animal with a permanent blemish may be redeemed —

And if so, the following difficulty arises:

do they really tell a person, “Rise and sin”

by redeeming an unblemished sacrificial animal,

so that you will merit

to rectify the offering of the found sacrifice

!?

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan said

to explain what we learned: “The males are burnt-offerings”:

The Mishna in Shekalim is not dealing with a case in which he comes to rectify and redeem them while they are unblemished, as they were found. Rather,

he waits for it

the animal he found

until it develops a blemish

that is permanent, at which point it will be permitted to redeem it—

And he brings [the meaning is: he brings]—the one who comes to rectify it so that its value will be offered—

two animals,

one for a burnt-offering and one for a peace-offering,

and

he stipulates:

If this animal that was found is a burnt-offering, this one shall be a burnt-offering in its place, and the second shall be for a voluntary peace-offering; and if it is a peace-offering, the animal he brought for a peace-offering shall be in its place, and the second shall be offered as a voluntary burnt-offering.

The Master said

in the Mishna in Shekalim:

“The males are burnt-offerings,”

and we explain this as meaning that he is concerned even about the possibility that it is a burnt-offering, in addition to the possibility that it is a peace-offering. The Gemara challenges:

Perhaps it is a thanksgiving-offering,

and he has not rectified this possible category

!? And we answer:

He also brings a thanksgiving-offering,

indeed, he also brings money or a sacrifice for a thanksgiving-offering as a matter of uncertainty, and includes it in his stipulation.

We raise another objection:

But

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

But a thanksgiving-offering requires loaves!?

And we answer:

He also brings loaves, indeed, he also brings loaves.

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

Perhaps it is a guilt-offering,

and he cannot rectify it through a stipulation, because a guilt-offering is not brought voluntarily

!? And we answer:

A guilt-offering [“a guilt-offering for robbery,” “a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated property,” and “a guilt-offering for a betrothed maidservant”]

is brought from a ram that is

two years old, and

here, with what case are we dealing? With one in which it

was found to be one year old [the animal that was found was one year old], so there is no concern that it is a guilt-offering. The Gemara asks:

Perhaps it is a guilt-offering of a leper

or it is a guilt-offering of a nazirite,

which are brought from a sheep that is one year old

!? And we answer: These guilt-offerings

are not common [they are not frequently encountered], and we do not take them into consideration.

The Gemara nevertheless asks: Perhaps it is a Paschal offering,

are not common

and therefore we do not take them into account.

which is brought as a male animal that is one year old

!?

And we answer: Regardless, there is no need to be concerned about this, because

with regard to a Paschal offering in its proper time, people are exceedingly careful about it [people are careful not to let it become lost], and there is no concern that the found animal is a Paschal offering

;

and

if it were a Paschal offering

not in its proper time [after its time had passed], then

it is a peace-offering,

and when he stipulated concerning the peace-offerings, he already stipulated concerning it as well.

And the Gemara asks:

Perhaps they are firstborn animals or animal tithes

!?

And we answer: Surely,

with regard to what halakhic consequence [what practical difference] do we need to be concerned that they are firstborn animals or animal tithes

!? It matters only

in order to eat them while blemished,

because a possibly firstborn animal and a possible animal tithe may be eaten by their owners while blemished. Therefore,

the same applies here: The animals he redeemed

may be eaten while blemished,

and he eats them under the status of a firstborn animal or animal tithe, which may not be slaughtered in a butcher’s shop and may not be weighed on a scale.

here too,

the animals that he redeemed

may be eaten with their defects,

The Master said

in the Mishna in Shekalim: An animal that was found ... the females are peace-offerings: And the Gemara asks: Perhaps it is a thanksgiving-offering,

which may also be brought from a female

!? And we answer:

He also brings

a

thanksgiving-offering.

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

But we require loaves!?

And we answer:

He also brings loaves.

And the Gemara asks:

Perhaps it is a sin-offering,

which is brought as a female animal

!?

And we answer:

A sin-offering

is brought from an animal

in its first year, and

here, with what case are we dealing? With one in which a female animal

was found

to be

two years old.

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

Perhaps it is a sin-offering whose year had passed,

which had been consecrated when it was one year old and whose second year had passed

!?

which was consecrated when it was one year old, and then the year passed!?

And we answer:

It is not common

for its year to pass.

The Gemara nevertheless asks: And if

a female animal in its first year was found, what

is its remedy [and if a female animal in its first year was found, what is its remedy]?

It was taught in a beraita: Hanania ben Hakhinai says: “A one-year-old goat is for a sin offering”

It was taught in a beraita: Hanania ben Hakhinai says: A she-goat in its first year is for a sin-offering [this is wording from Scripture, used merely as a mnemonic], meaning: If he found an animal in its first year, he should offer it as a sin-offering.

And we are astonished at this: He should offer it

as a sin-offering—is that conceivable!?

Surely, perhaps it is not a sin-offering.

Rather,

explained

Abaye

explained the statement of Hanania ben Hakhinai:

If he found an animal in its first year, he should treat it

like a sin-offering

that is unfit to be offered. How so?

He confines it in an enclosure

and it dies on its own

of hunger, since he does not provide it with food.

The Sages taught:

One may not initially purchase

an animal

with second-tithe money

outside Jerusalem, because it is written with regard to second tithe [Deuteronomy 14:24]: “And if the way is too long for you, so that you cannot carry it [the second tithe that you separated], then you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand,” and additionally because perhaps the animal will lose weight from the exertion of the journey. Nevertheless, this is only the law as an initial requirement; after the fact, the redemption of the money takes effect upon the animal. Therefore:

In any event, this is only the initial law; after the fact, the redemption of the money takes effect on the animal. Therefore: