Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 55

1) REDEEMING AN UNBLEMISHED ANIMAL

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Shekalim (7:4) which discusses the proper procedure that should be done when one finds an animal near Yerushalayim (which might have been designated as a Korban and was lost). Rebbi Oshiya explains that the animal itself cannot actual be brought as a Korban, due to the doubt about its status. Rather, the Mishnah is advising a person who wants to rectify the situation (in case it really was a Korban that was lost). According to RASHI's explanation, he should take the value of the animal that was found and buy two animals with it. He should sanctify one animal as an Olah, and say that if the original animal was an Olah, then its Kedushah should be transferred to this animal. He should sanctify the other animal as a Shelamim, and say that if the original animal was a Shelamim, then its Kedushah should be transferred to this animal (and the first one that he sanctified will be an Olas Nedavah).

The Rishonim (see RASHBA, RITVA) question Rashi's explanation. Since the animal that was found is not blemished (it is not a "Ba'al Mum"), not only is it prohibited to redeem it, but if one attempts to redeem it, the Pidyon does not take effect at all, as the Gemara in Temurah (32b) teaches, and as Rashi himself quotes in his commentary to the Chumash (Vayikra 26:11)! How, then, can a person who finds this animal (which might be a Korban) redeem it and transfer its Kedushah to a new animal?

ANSWER: The PNEI YEHOSHUA explains that this case can be compared to a case of a Ba'al Mum. The difference between a Ba'al Mum and an unblemished animal is that one is fit to be brought upon the Mizbe'ach and one is unfit. As long as a sanctified animal is fit for the Mizbe'ach, it cannot be redeemed, and the Pidyon will not take effect if one attempts to redeem it.

An animal that was found wondering around the outskirts of Yerushalayim is also not able to be brought upon the Mizbe'ach as a Korban. Even though there is no problem in the actual body of the animal that would invalidate it as a Korban, nevertheless, practically, it cannot be brought as a Korban because it might be an Olah and it might be a Shelamim. Therefore, it falls into the category of animals "Asher Lo Yakrivu mi'Menah Korban la'Hashem" (Vayikra 27:11), an animal from which a Korban cannot be brought.

Even though the animal cannot be brought as a Korban, and thus it may be redeemed, Rebbi Yochanan still asks (55b), "Do we tell a person to sin" (by advising him to redeem an animal that is not blemished), because the animal itself has no invalidating feature, and thus the Isur to redeem it remains. But the redemption, when done, does take effect.

QUESTION: The Gemara questions Rebbi Oshiya's explanation of the Mishnah in Shekalim concerning a person who wants to redeem an animal that was found near Yerushalayim and bring a Korban in its place (see previous Insight). The Gemara asks, "Is [an item that is sanctified with] Kedushas ha'Guf redeemable [without a blemish?" The Gemara cites a Mishnah (Me'ilah 19b) that teaches that an animal sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf (to be brought as a Korban) cannot be redeemed. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah there (in Me'ilah) is the view of Rebbi Yehudah , while the Mishnah in Shekalim is the view of Rebbi Meir, and Rebbi Meir holds that even Kedushas ha'Guf can be redeemed. The Gemara concludes that the Rebbi Meir holds that Kedushas ha'Guf can lose its Kedushah (by being redeemed, or by intentionally being used for one's personal benefit) is because the person has express intent to make the item Chulin (non-sanctified).

It appears from RASHI (DH Hasam) that there is no real reason to differentiate between Kedushas ha'Guf and Kedushas Damim. Both belong to Hekdesh, and both carry with them the Isur of removing them from the domain of Hekdesh. There is just a logical reason to say that Kedushas ha'Guf can also be effectively removed from the domain of Hekdesh when one has express intent to do so.

Why, then, does Rebbi Yehudah argue, and hold that Kedushas ha'Guf cannot be removed from the domain of Hekdesh, even when it is done intentionally?

ANSWER: The reason we can accept this distinction -- between inadvertent removal from the domain of Hekdesh and intentional removal from the domain of Hekdesh -- according to Rebbi Meir more readily than according to Rebbi Yehudah is because of the nature of the Isur, which differs according to each Tana.

Since Rebbi Meir considers an act of Shogeg, and not an act of Mezid, to be Me'ilah, it must be a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv. Premeditated theft is much worse than taking something by mistake. If we find that only Shogeg is Chayav, and not Mezid, this shows us that the entire Isur of Me'ilah is not a regular act of theft, but it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that merely labels certain acts as Asur. Accordingly, we can accept any difference that the Torah gives, whether it be Shogeg versus Mezid, or Kedushas ha'Guf versus Kedushas Damim.

In contrast, according to Rebbi Yehudah, we view stealing from Hekdesh as a regular act of theft. Since even an act of Mezid is Chayav for the Isur of stealing, we are not forced to find a new Gezeiras ha'Kasuv but we can judge it in the normal way in which we view the Isur of stealing. Hence, there is no reason to differentiate between Kedushas ha'Guf and Kedushas Damim with regard to removing it intentionally from the domain of Hekdesh. (A. Kronengold)

QUESTION: The Gemara asks that we find that Rebbi Meir says that an item of Kedushas ha'Guf can be removed from the domain of Hekdesh and lose its Kedushah only when it is an item of Kodshei Kodashim. From where, though, do we learn that Rebbi Meir says that an item of Kodshei *Kalim* can lose its Kedushah? The Gemara answers that we learn Kodshei Kalim from Kodshei Kodashim from a Kal v'Chomer.

What is the Gemara's question in the first place? Since both types of items are Hekdesh, what is the reason the Gemara entertains the possibility of a difference between Kodshei Kodashim and Kodshei Kalim?

ANSWER: The RITVA explains that there is no part of Kodshei Kodashim that belongs to the owner. In contrast, Kodshei Kalim do contain some part which belongs to the owner, and that part may be eaten after the Korban is offered.

Me'ilah can be classified as an act of theft, taking something away from the domain of Hekdesh. When someone takes something that does not belong to him, we view his act as an act of theft. If the person himself has partial ownership in the object (even a majority ownership; see Ritva), we view him as taking something that belongs to himself and not as taking something that he does not own. Therefore, we might have thought that when a person takes Kodshei Kalim -- of which he owns a part -- it is not considered Me'ilah.

55b

QUESTION: The Gemara asks that perhaps the animal that was found near Yerushalayim is a Korban Pesach, and thus how can a person who finds it bring another Korban in its place? The Gemara answers that this is no concern, because during the time of Pesach, people are especially cautious to watch their Korban. After the time of bringing the Korban has passed, a Korban Pesach that was not brought on Pesach is brought as a Shelamim. Hence, on the chance that the animal that was found is a Korban Pesach, the person who finds the animal can transfer its Kedushah conditionally onto another animal and bring it as a Korban Shelamim.

If the Gemara already said that at the time of Pesach, people are especially cautious to avoid losing the Korban Pesach, then how can there be a case of finding a lost Korban Pesach not in its time? People are careful not to lose it!

ANSWERS: A number of answers are offered by the Rishonim.

(a) TOSFOS answers that sometimes the animal might be sick and cannot be used for a Korban Pesach, and the owners bring a different animal to offer as their Korban Pesach. If the first animal recovers after Pesach, then it is a Korban Pesach she'Lo b'Zemano.

Another case is when the owners became Tamei and were not able to bring the Korban. Since the animal cannot be offered, it remains a Korban Pesach after Pesach has passed.

(b) The RITVA explains that the Gemara means to ask that since the owners are careful, we can assume that if we find an animal it is not a Pesach, but rather a Shelamim.