Kiddushin 109

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

We learnt elsewhere: If an animal is found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen, XXXV, 21. Lit., 'Fold Tower,' a place not far from Jerusalem, on the road to Bethlehem.');">¹</span> or an equal distance [from the city] in any direction: the males are burnt-offerings; the females are peace-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Most cattle that wandered out of Jerusalem had been consecrated for sacrifices, and cattle found within this distance were feared to have strayed out. The females are peace-offerings, since only males could be burnt-offerings (Lev. I, 3) .');">²</span> Now, can males be only burnt-offerings and not peace-offerings!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. They may be the latter: how can they be sacrificed as burnt-offerings?');">³</span>

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

- Said R'Oshaia: The reference here is to one who comes to accept responsibility for its value; and this is its meaning: we fear that they may be burnt-offerings; it being in accordance with R'Meir, who ruled: Hekdesh can be deliberately converted into hullin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal itself can certainly not be sacrificed. But if a person wishes to accept responsibility, redeem it, and so clear up all doubt, he must reckon with the possibility of its being a burnt-offering. Hence he must bring two animals or two sums of money and declare: 'If this found animal is a burnt-offering, let it be redeemed by one animal, or by one sum, which shall be likewise a burnt-offering, and the other shall be a peace-offering. Whereas if it is a peace-offering, let it be redeemed by the second, and the first be a burnt- offering, while the animal found becomes hullin.');">⁴</span> But can [an object of] intrinsic sanctity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sanctity of the body,' i.e., an animal which is sacred and without blemish, so that it can be offered on the altar; as opposed to monetary sanctity, e.g., a consecrated animal which subsequently receives a blemish; it cannot be sacrificed itself, but must be redeemed and another animal bought with the money, which is sacrificed.');">⁵</span> be redeemed?

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

Did we not learn: There cannot be consecutive trespasses in respect of sacred objects,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when the first commits trespass they become hullin and cease to be subject to further trespass.');">⁶</span> excepting in the case of [consecrated] animal[s] and vessels of ministry.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used in the Temple. These do not become hullin when secularly used, because they cannot be redeemed as long as they are fit for their purpose.');">⁷</span> How so?

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

If a man rode on a [dedicated] cow, then his neighbour came and rode, and then another came and rode, all are guilty of trespass. If he drank out of a golden goblet, then his neighbour came and drank, and then another, all are guilty of trespass? - The latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah just quoted.');">⁸</span> is according to R'Judah; the former,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the finding of an animal.');">⁹</span>

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

R'Meir. But from R'Judah we may understand R'Meir's view. Does not R'Judah maintain that hekdesh may be unwittingly converted into hullin, and yet intrinsic sanctity cannot be secularised;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the latter Mishnah, which agrees with R. Judah, must refer to unwitting use, since no offering is incurred for deliberate misuse, and yet it teaches that animals of intrinsic sanctity involve consecutive trespasses, which proves that they are not secularised by the first misuse.');">¹⁰</span>

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

hence according to R'Meir too, although hekdesh, by deliberate misuse, is secularised, yet intrinsic sanctity cannot be secularised!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For unwitting misuse, in R. Judah's opinion, is the same as deliberate misuse in R. Meir's.');">¹¹</span> - There he does not intend to withdraw it into hullin; here he does.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e,, deliberate conversion, according to R. Meir, is stronger than unwitting misuse, on R. Judah's opinion, and therefore it secularises even intrinsic sanctity.');">¹²</span> But when do you know R'Meir to hold this?

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

[Only] in the case of higher sanctity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., anything which is entirely used in the service of the Temple. E.g., an article consecrated for Temple repair, and a sacrifice of the higher sanctity, which belonged entirely to God, none of it being eaten by its owner.');">¹³</span> do you know him [to hold this view] in respect to lower sanctity?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Mishnah on a strayed animal refers to such, since it may be a peace-offering, which is of the lower sanctity.');">¹⁴</span> - Said one of the Rabbis to him [the questioner], R'Jacob by name, It follows a fortiori: If object of the higher sanctity can be secularised, surely those of the lower sanctity can be! It was stated likewise. R'Hama B''Ukba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. ed.: Akiba; but a R. Hama b. R. Akiba is unknown in the Talmud.');">¹⁵</span> said in R'Jose son of R'Hanina's name: R'Meir used to assert, Hekdesh is secularised by deliberate conversion, but is not secularised by unwitting conversion; this applies to objects of both higher and lower sanctity, a fortiori: if objects of higher sanctity can be secularised, surely those of lower sanctity can be.