Kiddushin 107

חזרנו על כל צדדים של ר"מ ולא מצינו הקדש בשוגג אין מתחלל במזיד מתחלל

We have scrutinised R'Meir['s views] from every angle, and have not found that hekdesh, unwittingly used, is not secularised; if deliberately, it is.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not a single statement by R. Meir elsewhere warrants this assumption, which is implicit in R. Johanan's explanation of the MISHNAH:');">¹</span> But our Mishnah refers to priestly tunics which were not worn out, since they stand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'were given'.');">²</span>

ומשנתינו בכתנות כהונה שלא בלו הואיל וניתנו ליהנות בהן לפי שלא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת

to be used, for the Torah was not given to angels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'ministering angels'. Since the tunics are still fit For service, their unwitting use is no trespass, because they were sanctified in the first place on this tacit understanding. For the priests cannot be expected to disrobe immediately they finish the service and not wear them a moment after. Consequently, they do not pass out of the ownership of hekdesh through unwitting use, and therefore R. Meir holds that she is not betrothed.');">³</span> Come and hear: Worn out priestly tunics involve trespass: this is R'Meir's view.

ת"ש כתנות כהונה שבלו מועלין בהם דברי ר"מ מאי לאו אפי' לא בלו לא בלו דוקא

Surely the same holds good even if they are not worn out?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that their unwitting use involves trespass. (There is no liability to a trespass-offering for the deliberate use of hekdesh.)');">⁴</span> - No: only when they are worn out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being unfit for service, they are not to be used.');">⁵</span>

ת"ש מועלים בחדתין ואין מועלים בעתיקים (דברי ר' יהודה) ר' מאיר אומר מועלין אף בעתיקים שהיה ר"מ אומר מועלין בשירי הלשכה

Come and hear: Trespass can be committed with the new ones, but not with the old. R'Meir said: Trespass can be committed with the old too; for R'Meir used to say: Trespass can be committed with the surplus of the Chamber.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There was an annual tax of one shekel for the public sacrifices payable between the first of Adar and the first of Nisan. The money was placed in a chamber and with it were bought sacrifices between Passover and Pentecost. If the tax was paid between the second of Nisan and the first of Sivan in the year it fell due, it was placed in special chests, which bore the inscription, 'New shekels', with which were bought sacrifices between Pentecost and Tabernacles. The same applied to the shekels paid between the second of Sivan and first of Tishri. The chests were then placed in the shekel chamber where they were divided into three baskets, (v. Shek. III, I, 2.) If the tax was not paid in the year it was due but in the following, it was placed in other chests marked 'old shekels.' These, together with the surplus from the chamber fund each year, were not used for sacrifices but for general town purposes, such as repairing the walls, etc.');">⁶</span>

ואמאי נימא הואיל וניתנו ליהנות לפי שלא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת דהא חומת העיר ומגדלותיה משירי הלשכה אתו דתנן חומת העיר ומגדלותיה וכל צרכי העיר באין משירי הלשכה לא תימא ר"מ אלא אימא ר' יהודה

Yet why; let us say, since they stand to be used, for the Torah was not given to angels [no trespass is committed with them]. For the walls of the city and its towers came out of the Chamber surplus, as we learnt: The city wall and its towers and all city requirements were provided for out of the chamber surplus!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that though the money might be used for that, yet if it was unwittingly employed for another purpose, liability is incurred. Hence the same should apply to the priestly tunics.');">⁷</span>

ת"ש דתניא אמר ר' ישמעאל בר רבי יצחק אבני ירושלים שנשרו מועלים בהם דברי ר"מ לא תימא ר"מ אלא אימא ר' יהודה

- Say not R'Meir', but R'Judah'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Judah does indeed hold the view expressed in the last note, as shewn in our Mishnah too,');">⁸</span> Come and hear: For it was taught: R'Ishmael B'R'Isaac said: If the stones of Jerusalem fall out [of their place in the walls], no trespass is incurred with them: this is R'Meir's view! - Say not, R'Meir', but, R'Judah'.

אי ר' יהודה ירושלים מי מיקדשא והתנן כאימרא כדירים כעצים כאישים כהיכל כמזבח כירושלים ר' יהודה אומר כל האומר ירושלים לא אמר כלום

If R'Judah, is then Jerusalem [the city itself] sanctified? But we learnt: 'As the lamb', 'As the Templ sheds of cattle' or 'As the wood', 'As the [altar] fire', 'As the altar', 'As the Temple', [or] 'As Jerusalem.

וכי תימא משום דלא אמר כירושלים והתניא ר' יהודה אומר כל האומר כירושלים לא אמר כלום עד שידור בדבר הקרב בירושלי'

Judah said: He who says: 'Jerusalem', has said nothing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the vow is invalid; v. Ned. (Sonc. ed.) p. 27.');">⁹</span> And should you answer, that is because he did not say: 'As Jerusalem',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Jerusalem itself is sanctified, and so a vow that something (e.g., food) shall be as Jerusalem is valid and renders the object forbidden. But R. Judah's reason is that the vower omitted 'as'.');">¹⁰</span> - surely it was taught: R'Judah said: He who says: 'as Jerusalem' has said nothing, unless he relates his vow to that which is sacrificed in Jerusalem!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. Ned. (Sonc. ed.) p. 28, n. 3,');">¹¹</span> -