Kiddushin 55aקידושין נ״ה א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Kiddushin 55a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
55aנ״ה א

תנן התם בהמה שנמצאת מירושלים למגדל עדר וכמדתה לכל רוח זכרים עולות נקבות זבחי שלמים ...

The Gemara continues its discussion of the desacralizing of consecrated property. We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 20a): If there was an animal fit for the altar that was found straying, from Jerusalem and as far as Migdal Eder, and similarly if it was found within that distance from Jerusalem in any other direction, it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. Males are presumed to be burnt-offerings, as only males can be brought as burnt-offerings. Females are presumed to be peace-offerings, as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering.

אלא זכרים עולות הוא דהוו זבחי שלמים לא הוו אמר ר' אושעיא הכא בבא לחוב בדמיהן עסקינן והכי קאמר חיישינן שמא עולות ורבי מאיר היא דאמר הקדש במזיד מתחלל

The Gemara questions this: But are males only burnt-offerings and not also peace-offerings? As peace-offerings can be male or female, a male animal that was found might have been designated as a peace-offering. Rabbi Oshaya said: We are not speaking here of bringing the animals themselves as offerings. Rather, we are dealing with one who comes to obligate himself to consecrate their value. The finder wants to consecrate the value of the animal in case it had been designated as an offering, thereby redeeming the animal and desacralizing it, and this is what the mishna is saying: In the case of males we are concerned that perhaps they are burnt-offerings, so the money must be consecrated for the purpose of burnt-offerings as well as peace-offerings. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Consecrated property is desacralized if it is misused intentionally. Therefore, he may redeem the animal and must use the money to purchase both a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, thereby avoiding all uncertainty.

וקדושת הגוף מי מתחלל והתנן אין מועל אחר מועל במוקדשין אלא בבהמה ובכלי שרת בלבד

The Gemara asks: And can something that has inherent sanctity, such as an animal that has been designated as an offering, be desacralized? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Me’ila 19b): There is no misuse after misuse with regard to consecrated property? This means that if one misuses consecrated property, the item is immediately desacralized and the prohibition of misuse no longer applies to it. This is so apart from the case of the misuse of an animal designated as an offering and apart from the case of the misuse of service vessels alone. These do not become desacralized when misused, because they have inherent sanctity.

כיצד היה רוכב על גבי בהמה בא חבירו ורכב בא חבירו ורכב כולם מעלו היה שותה בכוס של זהב בא חבירו ושתה בא חבירו ושתה כולם מעלו ההיא ר' יהודה היא הא ר' מאיר

That mishna continues: How so? If someone was riding on a consecrated animal, and another came after him and also rode on it, and yet another came and rode on it, they have all misused consecrated property. Similarly, if one was drinking from a golden cup used in the Temple service, and another came and drank from it, and yet another came and drank from it, they have all misused consecrated property. The Gemara asks: As this indicates that an item that has inherent sanctity is never desacralized, how can it be redeemed? The Gemara answers: That mishna, from tractate Me’ila, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas this mishna, from tractate Shekalim, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

מדרבי יהודה נשמע לרבי מאיר לאו אמר רבי יהודה הקדש בשוגג מתחלל וקדושת הגוף לא מתחלא לר"מ נמי אע"ג דהקדש במזיד מתחלל קדושת הגוף לא מתחלא התם לא קא מכוין לאפוקינהו לחולין הכא קא מכוין לאפוקינהו לחולין

The Gemara asks: Let us hear, i.e., infer, from the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda to the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that consecrated property is desacralized if used unwittingly, and yet those items that have inherent sanctity are not desacralized. According to Rabbi Meir as well, although consecrated property is desacralized if used intentionally, items that have inherent sanctity should not be desacralized. The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two opinions. There, in the case underlying Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the one who misuses the consecrated item unwittingly does not intend to withdraw it to a non-sacred state but merely to use it, which is why an item that has inherent sanctity is not desacralized; whereas here, in the case underlying Rabbi Meir’s opinion, one who acts intentionally does intend to withdraw it to a non-sacred state, so even an item that has inherent sanctity can be desacralized.

אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי מאיר בקדשי קדשים בקדשים קלים מי שמעת ליה א"ל ההוא מרבנן ורבי יעקב שמיה קל וחומר קדשי קדשים מתחללים קדשים קלים לא כל שכן

The Gemara questions Rav Oshaya’s explanation of the mishna: Say that you have heard Rabbi Meir express the opinion that one can desacralize a consecrated item in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, but did you hear him express this opinion in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., a peace-offering? If Rabbi Meir holds that offerings of lesser sanctity cannot be desacralized, the explanation of Rabbi Oshaya would be insufficient, as it does not account for the possibility that the animal is a peace-offering. One of the Sages, and his name was Rabbi Ya’akov, said to him: This is learned by means of an a fortiori inference: If offerings of the most sacred order can be desacralized, is it not all the more so the case that this halakha would apply to offerings of lesser sanctity?

איתמר נמי אמר ר' חמא בר' עקיבא אמר רבי יוסי בר' חנינא אומר היה ר"מ הקדש במזיד מתחלל בשוגג אין מתחלל אחד קדשי קדשים ואחד קדשים קלים קל וחומר קדשי קדשים מתחללים קדשים קלים לא כל שכן

It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Akiva, says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says that Rabbi Meir would say: Consecrated property is desacralized when misused intentionally, but it is not desacralized when misused unwittingly. This applies both to offerings of the most sacred order and to offerings of lesser sanctity, by means of an a fortiori inference: If offerings of the most sacred order can be desacralized, is it not all the more so the case that this halakha would apply to offerings of lesser sanctity?