Chullin 277

בר קטלא הוא

then surely it would have been put to death! Rather we must say that it had not yet been condemned, in which case one is bound to bring it to the Beth din so as to carry into effect the verse: So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIII, 6.');">¹</span>

אלא דלא גמר דיניה ובעי לאתוייה לבי דינא וקיומי ביה (דברים יג, ו) ובערת הרע מקרבך

What are the circumstances with regard to consecrated birds?

הני מוקדשין היכי דמי

If you say that a man had a nest in his home and consecrated it, but in that case the law does not apply, for the verse: If a bird's nest chance to be before thee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 6.');">²</span>

אילימא דהוה ליה קן בתוך ביתו ואקדשיה מי מיחייב

excludes what is at one's disposal.

(דברים כב, ו) כי יקרא קן צפור פרט למזומן

You will say then that a man saw a nest somewhere and consecrated it, but in that case would it become consecrated?

אלא דחזא קן בעלמא ואקדשיה ומי קדוש

Does not the Divine Law say.

(ויקרא כז, יד) איש כי יקדיש את ביתו קדש אמר רחמנא מה ביתו ברשותו אף כל ברשותו

And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 24.');">³</span>

אלא דאגבהינהו לאפרוחים ואקדשינהו והדר הדרינהו האי אפילו בחולין נמי לא מיחייב דתנא

[from which we conclude that] just as his house is in his possession so must everything [that he may wish to sanctify] be in his possession?

נטל את הבנים והחזירן לקן ואח"כ חזרה האם עליהן פטור מלשלח

You will then say that a man lifted up the young ones,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thereby acquiring them as his own.');">⁴</span>

אלא דאגבהה לאם ואקדשה והדרה מעיקרא איחייב ליה בשילוח מקמי דאקדשה

consecrated them, and put them back again; but in such a case, even though they were not consecrated, the law would not apply, for we have learnt: If a man took the young and brought them back again into the nest, and afterwards the dam returned to them, he is not bound to let it go.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the young ones have become his own property the law of sending away does not apply, for they are always at his disposal. V. infra 141a.');">⁵</span>

דתניא ר' יוחנן בן יוסף אומר

You will therefore say that he lifted up the dam, consecrated it, and put it back again; but in that case at the very outset, even before he consecrated it, he was bound to let it go, for it was taught: R'Johanan B'Joseph says: If a man consecrated a wild animal and then slaughtered it, he is exempt from covering up [the blood];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the law of covering up the blood (v. Lev. XVII, 13) does not apply to consecrated animals; v. supra 83b.');">⁶</span>

הקדיש חיה ואח"כ שחטה פטור מלכסות שחטה ואח"כ הקדישה חייב לכסות שכבר נתחייב בכסוי קודם שיבא לידי הקדש

if he slaughtered it and afterwards consecrated it, he is bound to cover up [the blood], since he was already bound to cover up [the blood] before it was consecrated!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And consecration does not set aside the existing obligation of covering up the blood; likewise it does not set aside the existing obligation of letting the dam go.');">⁷</span>

רב אמר

Rab suggested<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In answer to the question of how to construe a case where the law of letting the dam go might possibly apply to consecrated birds.');">⁸</span>

במקדיש פירות שובכו ומרדו ושמואל אמר

the case where a man consecrated the young of his dovecote<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intending them to be offered as bird-offerings upon the altar.');">⁹</span>

במקדיש תרנגולתו לבדק הבית

and they later broke lose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are no more at his disposal, and so the law of letting the dam go would apply were it not for the fact that they were consecrated.');">¹⁰</span>

בשלמא שמואל לא אמר כרב דקא מוקים לה בקדשי בדק הבית אלא רב מאי טעמא לא אמר כשמואל

Samuel suggested the case where a man consecrated his hen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not allowed for an offering, but is consecrated merely for its value.');">¹¹</span>

אמר לך רב

to the Temple treasury.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it also broke loose and became wild; v. note 5.');">¹²</span>

דוקא קפטרי משילוח כגון פירות שובכו דקדשי מזבח נינהו דכיון דקדשי קדושת הגוף לא פקעה קדושתייהו מינייהו אבל במקדיש תרנגולתו לבדק הבית דלאו קדשי מזבח דקדושת דמים בעלמא הוא כיון דמרדה פקעה קדושתייהו וחייבת בשילוח

Now one can understand why Samuel does not suggest the case of Rab; it is because he wishes to state the law even in respect of that which is consecrated to the Temple treasury only.

ושמואל אמר

But why does not Rab suggest the case of Samuel? - Rab would answer thus: It is only in the case where a man consecrated the young of his dove-cote that one is not bound to let the dam go, for they are consecrated for the altar; and inasmuch as they are themselves consecrated for an offering, [even though they break loose,] their sanctity has not gone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the law of letting the dam go does not apply.');">¹³</span>

כל היכא דאיתיה בבי גזא דרחמנא איתא דכתיב (תהלים כד, א) לה' הארץ ומלואה

But where a man consecrated his hen to the Temple treasury, inasmuch as it was not consecrated for the altar but only for its value, as soon as it breaks loose its sanctity has gone, and the law of letting the dam go applies.

וכן אמר ר' יוחנן

But Samuel says: Wherever it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even what is consecrated only for its value.');">¹⁴</span>

במקדיש תרנגולתו לבדק הבית ומרדה

happens to be it is in the Lord's treasury, for it is written: The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XXIV, 1. Therefore even though it has broken loose it is still within the Lord's treasury and sacred.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר ליה רבי שמעון בן לקיש

And so, too, did R'Johanan say: It is a case where a man consecrated his hen to the Temple treasury, and afterwards it broke loose.

וכיון שמרדה פקעה ליה קדושתה

Thereupon R'Simeon B'Lakish said to him: Surely as soon as it breaks loose its sanctity has gone! - He replied: Wherever it happens to be it is in the Lord's treasury, for it is written: 'The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof'.

אמר ליה

I can point out a contradiction between the words of R'Johanan [here] and the words of R'Johanan [elsewhere]; and I can point out a contradiction between the words of Resh Lakish [here] and the words of Resh Lakish [elsewhere].

בבי גזא דרחמנא איתא דכתיב לה' הארץ ומלואה

For it has been stated: [If a man said], 'Let this maneh be for the Temple treasury', and it was stolen or lost, R'Johanan says: He is responsible for it until it reaches the hands of the Temple treasurer; but Resh Lakish says: Wherever it is it is in the Lord's treasury, for it is Written, 'The earth is t Lord's and the fullness thereof'.

ורמי דר' יוחנן אדר' יוחנן ורמי דר' שמעון בן לקיש אדר"ש בן לקיש

Hence there is a contradiction between R'Johanan's statements, and between Resh Lakish's statements.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the discussion regarding the law of letting the dam go it was R. Johanan who advanced the argument that the whole earth is the Lord's treasury, whereas in the latter dispute it is Resh Lakish who advances this view.');">¹⁶</span>

דאיתמר

[I concede that] there is not necessarily a contradiction between Resh Lakish's statements, for this [the former] view he expressed before he had learnt the true view from his master R'Johanan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish then held that if a consecrated bird had broken loose its sanctity had gone and it was subject henceforth to the law of letting the dam go; but later R. Johanan convinced him that it was not so, with the argument that the earth is the Lord's treasury, which argument Resh Lakish eventually accepted.');">¹⁷</span>

מנה זה לבדק הבית ונגנבו או נאבדו רבי יוחנן אמר

whilst that [the latter] view he expressed after he had learnt it from his master R'Johanan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore where a man consecrated an animal and it was lost or stolen, he has no further responsibility with regard to it, since it is still within the Lord's treasury.');">¹⁸</span>

חייב באחריותן עד שיבואו לידי גזבר

But surely there is a contradiction between the statements of R'Johanan! - There is no contradiction even between the statements of R'Johanan, for in one case the man said: 'I take upon myself [an offering]' and in the other case he said: 'Let this be [an offering]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan, although maintaining the principle that wherever a thing happens to be it is still within the Lord's treasury, nevertheless holds a man responsible for his offering if he expressed himself thus: 'I take upon myself', for then the personal obligation is not discharged until the Temple treasurer has actually received it.');">¹⁹</span>

וריש לקיש אמר

It follows then that, according to Resh Lakish, a man is not responsible [for his offering] even though he said: 'I take upon myself'.

ל היכא דאיתיה בבי גזא דרחמנא איתיה דכתיב לה' הארץ ומלואה

But we have learnt: What is a votive-offering and what a freewill-offering?

קשיא דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש קשיא דר' יוחנן אדר' יוחנן

It is a votive-offering when a man says: 'I take upon myself a burnt-offering'; it is a freewill-offering when a man says: 'Let this be a burnt-offering'.

דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש לא קשיא הא מקמי דשמעיה מר' יוחנן רביה הא לבתר דשמעיה מר' יוחנן רביה

And wherein do votive-offerings differ from freewill-offerings?

אלא דר' יוחנן אדר' יוחנן קשיא

With a votive-offering if it dies or is stolen or lost, he is responsible for it [and must replace it]; but with a freewill-offering, if it dies or is stolen or lost he is no responsible for it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kin. I, 1; R.H. 6a; Meg. 82. Resh Lakish surely would not maintain his view in opposition to the Mishnah quoted and hold that even where a man said: 'I take upon myself', he is not responsible for it.');">²⁰</span>

דר' יוחנן אדר' יוחנן נמי לא קשיא הא דאמר עלי הא דאמר הרי זו

- Resh Lakish can answer thus: That is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where a man says: 'I take upon myself', he is responsible for it.');">²¹</span>

מכלל דר"ש בן לקיש אע"ג דאמר עלי לא מחייב

only with regard to what is consecrated for the altar, since it still needs to be offered as a sacrifice;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore so long as he has not brought his offering to the Temple he will not have discharged his obligation, and up to then he is responsible for it.');">²²</span>

והתניא

but with regard to what is consecrated to the Temple treasury, since it has not to be offered as a sacrifice, he is not responsible for it even though he said take upon myself'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as soon as he dedicates it to the Temple it automatically becomes part of the Temple treasury, and wherever it happens to be it is still within the Lord's treasury.');">²³</span>

איזהו נדר ואיזו היא נדבה נדר האומר הרי עלי עולה נדבה האומר הרי זו עולה

But we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Arak. 20b.');">²⁴</span>

ומה בין נדר לנדבה

If a man said: 'Let this ox be a burnt-offering', or, 'Let this hou be an offering', and the ox died or the house fell down, he is not bound to make restitution; but if he said: 'I take upon myself [to offer] this ox for a burnt-offering', or, 'I take upon myself [to present] this house as an offering', and the ox died or the house fell down, he must make restitution!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though he specified the subject consecrated by the term 'this' he is nevertheless responsible since he undertook the vow as a personal charge. It is, however, evident from this that even in respect of what is consecrated to the Temple treasury, e.g., a house, one is bound to make restitution, contra Resh Lakish.');">²⁵</span>

נדר מתה או נגנבה או שאבדה חייב באחריותה

- That is so only where the ox died or the house fell down, then indeed he must make restitution, since they are no more in existence; but where they are in existence, wherever they happen to be, they are still within the Lord's treasury, for it is written: 'The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof'.

נדבה מתה או נגנבה או שאבדה אינו חייב באחריותה

R'Hamnuna said: All agree that regarding vows of valuation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a man vows to the Temple the 'valuation' of himself or of another person. The 'valuation' is fixed according to the scale prescribed in the Torah, cf. Lev. XXVII, 1ff.');">²⁶</span>

אמר לך ריש לקיש

even though a man said: 'I take upon myself',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he set aside the fixed amount and it was lost or stolen.');">²⁷</span>

הני מילי קדשי מזבח דמחוסר הקרבה אבל קדשי בדק הבית דלאו מחוסר הקרבה אע"ג דאמר עלי לא מחייב

he is not bound to make restitution, for these cannot be expressed without the formula 'I take upon myself'.

והתנן

For how else can they be expressed?

האומר שור זה עולה בית זה קרבן

If he were only to say: 'My valuation', then [we do not know] upon whom [lies this obligation]; and if he were to say: 'The valuation of So-and-So', [we still do not know] upon whom [lies the obligation].

מת השור נפל הבית אינו חייב באחריותן

Raba demurred: But surely he can say: 'Here is my valuation', or, 'Here is the valuation of So-and-so'.

שור זה עלי עולה בית זה עלי קרבן

Moreover it has been taught: R'Nathan says: It is written: And he shall give thy valuation in that day, as a holy thing unto the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 23. This verse is stated in connection with the law of the redemption of a field that was bought and afterwards consecrated unto the Temple, and the reference in this verse to 'thy valuation' is certainly strange and out of place.');">²⁸</span>

מת השור ונפל הבית חייב לשלם

What does Scripture teach thereby?

ה"מ היכא דמת השור ונפל הבית חייב לשלם דליתנהו אבל היכא דאיתנהו כל היכא דאיתיה בבי גזא דרחמנא איתיה דכתיב לה' הארץ ומלואה

But inasmuch as we find that, with regard to consecrated things and second tithe, if a man exchanged them for unconsecrated money and the money was stolen or lost, he is not liable to make restitution,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Scripture does not state that the redemption money shall be given unto the Lord, but simply that it is holy, ibid. 15.');">²⁹</span>

אמר רב המנונא

הכל מודים בערכין אע"ג דאמר עלי לא מיחייב

מאי טעמא דלא מיתמר ליה בלא עלי

היכי לימא

לימא ערכי אמאן

לימא ערך פלוני אמאן

מתקיף לה רבא

לימא הריני בערכי הריני בערך פלוני

ועוד תניא רבי נתן אומר

(ויקרא כז, כג) ונתן את הערכך ביום ההוא קדש לה' מה תלמוד לומר

לפי שמצינו בהקדשות ומעשרות שמתחללין על מעות שבחולין נגנבו או שאבדו אינן חייבין באחריותן