Kiddushin - Daf 55
- בהמה שנמצאת מירושלים למגדל עדר
In a Mishnah it was taught: בהמה שנמצאת מירושלים למגדל עדר – An animal [fit for a korban] which was found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eder (near Beis Lechem), or within that range in any direction, we suspect it came from Yerushalayim, where most animals are korbanos. Because it is unknown what korban it may be, the Mishnah says: זכרים עולות – males are treated as olos, נקבות זבחי שלמים – but females, which are unfit for olos, are treated as shelamim. The Gemara asks that a male may also be a shelamim, and Rebbe Oshaya explains that the animal is not sacrificed: בבא לחוב בדמיהן עסקינן – we are discussing one who is coming to obligate himself in their value and redeem them. He brings money for each possibility of the animal’s status and redeems the animal with the money. The Mishnah means that males may also be olos, but the possibility of shelamim is also accommodated. Later, Rebbe Yochanan disagrees and does not allow one to intentionally remove kedushah from a valid korban. Instead, he explains that one waits until the animal develops a מום and transfers its kedushah to other animals. The Gemara will address other possible korbanos the animals may be.
- אין מועל אחר מועל במוקדשין אלא בבהמה ובכלי שרת בלבד
The above explanation is challenged: וקדושת הגוף מי מתחלל – Can physical sanctity, such as that of a korban, be deconsecrated? But a Mishnah teaches: אין מועל אחר מועל במוקדשין – One cannot commit me’ilah after me’ilah, because the item becomes chullin from the first me’ilah, אלא בבהמה ובכלי שרת בלבד – except for animals [designated as korbanos] and vessels of Temple service. These items, whose kedushah is קדושת הגוף, remain hekdesh even after me’ilah. For example, if several people successively ride a korban, or drink from a goblet designated for avodah, all of them are liable for me’ilah, since they do not become chullin. How, then, can one redeem an unblemished korban with money?
The Gemara answers that the Mishnah discussing me’ilah, which by definition is unintentional, follows Rebbe Yehudah’s view that unintentional usage of hekdesh makes it chullin. The Mishnah of the found animal discusses someone intentionally deconsecrating hekdesh, following Rebbe Meir’s view. Although Rebbe Yehudah’s statement demonstrates that items of physical kedushah cannot be deconsecrated, the Gemara explains: הכא קא מכוין לאפוקינהו לחולין – here, he intends to take [the hekdesh] out to a state of chullin, and intentional deconsecration is effective even for קדושת הגוף.
- The possibility that the female animal is a חטאת
The Gemara asks about the possibility that the female animal which was found may be a חטאת, and answers that a chatas is only valid within its first year, and the Mishnah discusses an animal found in its second year. Although it may be a חטאת שעברה שנתה – chatas whose year has passed, and is invalid for offering, such a case is uncommon. The Gemara asks what would be done with a female animal which is found within its first year. In a Baraisa, Chananya ben Chachinai taught that a she-goat within its first year is a chatas. The Gemara objects that it cannot possibly be brought as a chatas (since it may also be a shelamim, whose blood is offered differently than a chatas’s). It also cannot be redeemed (using multiple animals to stipulate for each possibility, as above), because a chatas cannot be brought voluntarily. Rather, Abaye explains: כחטאת – Chananya means it is treated like a chatas which cannot be offered: כונסה לכיפה והיא מתה מאליה – it is brought into a chamber and dies on its own.
