Kiddushin 55b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan considered the words of Rabbi Oshaya

who interpreted the Mishna in Tractate Shekalim as dealing with one who comes to assume liability for their value and to redeem them as he found them, unblemished:

But surely it is forbidden to redeem an unblemished sacrificial animal, because it is stated [Leviticus 27:27]: “And if it is among the impure animals, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation,” and the Sages interpreted in Tractate Menahot [101a] that “impure animal” means an animal possessing a blemish; thus we have learned that only an animal with a permanent blemish may be redeemed—

And if so, it is difficult:

Do they indeed say to a person, “Arise and sin”

by redeeming an unblemished sacrificial animal, and

“so that you may merit”

repairing the offering of the sacrifice that was found !?

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan said

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

The Mishna in Shekalim is not dealing with one who comes to rectify them and redeem them while they are unblemished, as they were found; rather,

he waits for it

the animal that he found

until it becomes blemished

with a permanent blemish, and it will be permitted to redeem it—

And he brings [

he brings—this one who comes to rectify it, so that its value will come to be offered]—

two animals,

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

and he stipulates:

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

The Master said

in the Mishna in Shekalim:

“Males are burnt-offerings,”

and we interpret it as meaning that he is concerned even about a burnt-offering, in addition to peace-offerings; and we ask:

Perhaps it is a thanksgiving-offering,

and he does not rectify this possible category

!? And we answer: “That he also brings a thanksgiving-offering”

—indeed, he also brings money or an offering for a thanksgiving-offering because of the uncertainty, and includes it in his stipulation.

And we still ask:

But

a thanksgiving-offering

requires bread!?

requires bread!?

And we answer:

That he also brings bread,

indeed, he also brings bread.

And we still ask:

Perhaps it is a guilt-offering,

and he cannot rectify it through a stipulation, because a guilt-offering is not brought as a voluntary offering !? We answer:

A guilt-offering [

“a guilt-offering for robbery,” “a guilt-offering for misuse,” and “a guilt-offering for a betrothed maidservant”] comes from the ram, which is

two years old, and

here, with what are we dealing? With a case where it was

found to be one year old [

the animal that was found was one year old], and there is no concern that it is a guilt-offering. And we ask:

Perhaps it is the guilt-offering of a leper

itself,

or

it is the guilt-offering of a nazirite,

which come from a ewe that is one year old!? And we answer: These guilt-offerings

are not common [

they are not prevalent], and we do not have concern for them.

And we still ask:

Perhaps it is a Paschal-offering,

which comes as a male and is one year old !?

And we answer: In either event there is no concern for it, because

in its time, people are exceedingly careful with the Paschal-offering [

people are careful with it] not to let it be lost, and there is no concern that the animal that was found is a Paschal-offering

; and

if it is a Paschal-offering

not in its time [

whose time has passed], then

it is a peace-offering,

and when he stipulates regarding the peace-offerings, he has already stipulated regarding it as well.

And we ask:

Perhaps they are firstborn and tithe

animals

!?

And we answer: But

for what halakhic purpose [

what practical difference] do we have concern for a firstborn and a tithe!? It is only with regard to

eating them through their blemishes,

for a doubtful firstborn and a doubtful tithe may be eaten by their owners through their blemishes; and if so,

likewise here, the animals that he redeemed

are eaten through their blemishes,

and he eats them under the status of firstborn and tithe, which are not slaughtered in a butcher’s shop and are not weighed by the litra.

The Master said

in the Mishna in Shekalim: An animal that was found ...

females are peace-offering sacrifices:

And we ask:

Perhaps it is a thanksgiving-offering

which may also come from a female!? And we answer:

That he brings

also

a thanksgiving-offering.

And we still ask:

But we require bread!?

And we answer:

That he also brings bread.

And we ask:

Perhaps it is a sin-offering

which comes as a female !?

And we answer:

A sin-offering

comes from an animal

in its first year, and

here, with what are we dealing? With a case where it

was found

to be a female animal

two years old.

And we still ask:

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

which was consecrated when it was in its first year and the year passed

!?

And we answer:

It is not common

for its year to pass.

And we still ask: And if

it was found to be in its first year, what

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

It was taught in a beraita:

Hanania ben Hakhinai says: A goat in its first year is for a sin-offering [

this is Scriptural wording, and he uses this wording merely as a mnemonic], meaning: If he found an animal in its first year, he shall offer it as a sin-offering.

And we are astonished at this: He shall offer it

as a sin-offering—is that conceivable!?

Surely perhaps it is not a sin-offering.

Rather, he said

—Abaye

explained the words of Hanania ben Hakhinai:

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

like a sin-offering

that is unfit to be offered. How?

He confines it in an enclosure

and it dies on its own

from hunger, for they do not give it food.

The Sages taught:

One does not purchase

initially

an animal with second-tithe money

outside Jerusalem, because it is written regarding second tithe [Deuteronomy 14:24]: “And if the way is too long for you, because you cannot carry it [the second tithe that you separated]: Then you shall give the 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 initially, but after the fact the redemption of the money takes effect upon the animal; therefore: