Sanhedrin 224

וההקדשות שבה יפדו כו': ת"ר היו בה (קדשי) קדשים קדשי מזבח ימותו קדשי בדק הבית יפדו ותרומות ירקבו ומעשר שני וכתבי הקדש יגנזו ר"ש אומר בהמתה ולא בהמת בכור ומעשר שללה פרט לכסף הקדש וכסף מעשר

THE HOLY OBJECTS THEREIN MUST BE REDEEMED etc. Our Rabbis taught: If there were holy objects therein, that which is dedicated to the altar [i.e., for sacrifices] must die; to the Temple repair, must be redeemed; terumoth must be allowed to rot, and the second tithe and sacred Writings hidden. R. Simeon said: 'The cattle thereof,' — but not firstlings or tithes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which were of a sacred character, the flesh being eaten by the owners, and the blood and fat offered on the altar. ');">¹</span> 'The spoil thereof,' excludes sacred money and tithe money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the money for which sacred objects and tithes were redeemed. ');">²</span>

אמר מר היו בה (קדשי) קדשים קדשי מזבח ימותו ואמאי ימותו ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה

The Master said: 'If there were holy objects therein, that which is dedicated to the altar must die.' But why should they die? Let them graze until unfit [for sacrifice], then be sold,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because an animal dedicated to the altar may not be redeemed as long as it is fit to be sacrificed. ');">³</span> and the money utilised for a free-will offering! — R. Johanan answered, The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXI, 27; and even the money received for its redemption is abhorrent for sacrifice. ');">⁴</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר (משלי כא, כז) זבח רשעים תועבה ר"ל אמר ממון בעלים הוא והכא בקדשים שחייב באחריותן ור"ש היא דאמר ממון בעלים הוא

Resh Lakish said: It is the property of its owner, the reference here being to dedicated animals for which the owner is responsible [if lost or injured], and [the ruling] according to R. Simeon, who maintained that such is the owner's property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a person vows, dedicating a particular animal for a sacrifice, which is subsequently lost or destroyed, he is not bound to replace it, it being regarded from the moment of the dedication as sacred property, not his own, and he has no further obligation in respect of it. But if he vows to bring a sacrifice, and then dedicates an animal for the purpose, he is bound to replace it if subsequently lost or destroyed, since his vow did not specify that particular animal. R. Simeon maintains that since he must bear the responsibility for it, it is regarded as his own property. Consequently, if in a condemned city, it must be destroyed, like all other secular possessions therein. ');">⁵</span> But since the second clause is R. Simeon's, it follows that the first is not? — [Say, then,] the reference is to sacrifices of lower sanctity, and it agrees with R. Jose the Galilean, who maintained that such are the property of their owners. But what of sacrifices of the highest sanctity? Are they to be redeemed! [If so,] the second clause, instead of teaching that that which is dedicated to the Temple repair must be redeemed, should have drawn and taught a distinction in that very matter [viz., animals dedicated to the altar]. [Thus:] This law [that the animals must die] holds good only of sacrifices of lower sanctity, but sacrifices of the highest sanctity are to be redeemed? — Since there is the sin-offering [among the latter], which, if its owner die, must perish, this cannot be stated as a general rule.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the owner of any sacrifice of the highest sanctity, excepting the sin-offering, dies, the animal is put to pasture until it receives a blemish, when it is redeemed. But if a sin-offering, it is slain (not as a sacrifice). In the case under discussion, the owners are executed: consequently, it cannot be stated as a general rule that sacrifices of the highest sanctity must be redeemed, and therefore the second clause speaks of animals dedicated to the Temple repair instead. ');">⁶</span>

הא מדסיפא ר"ש היא רישא לאו ר"ש בקדשים קלים ואליבא דרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר קדשים קלים ממון בעלים אבל קדשי קדשים מאי יפדו

Now it is intelligible that R. Johanan did not answer as Resh Lakish, since it is written, 'The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is quite a sufficient answer. ');">⁷</span> but why did Resh Lakish not answer as R. Johanan? — He can reply to you: When do we say, 'The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination'? When they are in their original state; but these, since their state is changed [if the animal is redeemed], are changed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the verse is inapplicable; hence another answer must be sought. ');">⁸</span>

אדתני סיפא קדשי בדק הבית יפדו ליפלוג וליתני בדידה בד"א בקדשים קלים אבל קדשי קדשים יפדו כיון דאיכא חטאת שמתו בעליה דלמיתה אזלא לא פסיקא ליה

'R. Simeon said: The cattle thereof implies, but not the firstlings or tithes.' To what does this refer? Shall we say, to unblemished animals? Then they are the 'spoil of Heaven'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the blood and fat must be offered on the altar; hence their exclusion is deduced from 'and the spoil of it', as stated above. ');">⁹</span> But if blemished, they are 'the spoil of it'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being blemished, their blood and fat are not offered upon the altar. Consequently they belong entirely to their owners, and should be destroyed, being included in 'the spoil of it'. ');">¹⁰</span>

בשלמא ר' יוחנן לא אמר כר"ל דכתיב זבח רשעים תועבה אלא ר"ל מ"ט לא אמר כר' יוחנן אמר לך כי אמרינן זבח רשעים תועבה הני מילי היכא דאתנהו בעינייהו אבל הכא כיון דאישתני אישתני:

— Rabina answered: In truth, the reference is to blemished animals. But [only] that which is eaten as 'the cattle thereof' [is destroyed], excluding these, which are eaten not as 'the cattle thereof' but as firstlings and tithes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Notwithstanding that their blood and fat are not offered upon the altar, when their owners eat them they do not regard them as ordinary animals, such as could be denominated 'the cattle thereof', but as firstlings and tithes. ');">¹¹</span> and are thus considered 'spoil of Heaven'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MSS, delete 'and&nbsp;… Heaven'.] ');">¹²</span>

ר"ש אומר בהמתך ולא בהמת בכור ומעשר: במאי עסקינן אילימא בתמימין שלל שמים הוא אלא בבעלי מומין שללה נינהו

Now this [Rabina's answer] conflicts with Samuel's. For Samuel said [in explanation of the same difficulty]: Everything can be sacrificed, and everything can be redeemed. Now, what does this mean? — It means this: That which is sacrificed if unblemished, and redeemed when blemished,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., all sacrifices of lower sanctity, excepting firstlings and tithes. ');">¹³</span> is excluded by 'the spoil of it';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus in his opinion, he disagrees with the view of the first Tanna, who maintains that such sacrifices are destroyed, as they are their owners 'property. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רבינא לעולם בבעלי מומין ומי שנאכל בתורת בהמתך יצאו אלו שאין נאכלין בתורת בהמתך אלא בתורת בכור ומעשר דשלל שמים נינהו

but that which is offered up if unblemished, but not redeemed when blemished, e.g., the firstling and the tithe, is excluded by 'and the cattle thereof'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Even if unblemished, they are not considered as 'spoil of Heaven', which is not in agreement with Rabina.] ');">¹⁵</span> THE TERUMOTH MUST BE ALLOWED TO ROT. R. Hisda said: This applies only to <i>terumah</i> in the hands of an Israelite;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before it was given to the priest. Since it does not belong to the Israelite, and he might have given it to the priest of some other town, it is regarded as property merely entrusted to an inhabitant of this town, and therefore not destroyed. On the other hand, since he may have intended to give it to a priest of the same town, it may not be eaten. Hence it is left to rot. ');">¹⁶</span>

ופליגא דשמואל דאמר שמואל הכל קרב והכל נפדה מאי קאמר ה"ק כל שקרב כשהוא תם ונפדה כשהוא בעל מום משלל אימעיט וכל שקרב כשהוא תם ואינו נפדה כשהוא בעל מום כגון בכור ומעשר מבהמה נפקא:

but if in the hands of the priest, being his property, it must be burnt. R. Joseph objected: THE SECOND TITHE AND THE SACRED WRITINGS MUST BE HIDDEN. Now, the second tithe in the hands of an Israelite is as <i>terumah</i> in the hand of the priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both belong to their possessor. ');">¹⁷</span> yet it teaches, THEY MUST BE HIDDEN, [but not burnt]. But if it [R. Hisda's dictum] was stated, it was thus stated: R. Hisda said: This applies only to <i>terumah</i> in the hand of the priest;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, being his own property must be destroyed, though not burnt, on account of its sanctity. ');">¹⁸</span>

תרומות ירקבו: אמר רב חסדא ל"ש אלא תרומה ביד ישראל אבל תרומה ביד כהן כיון דממוניה הוא תשרף

but <i>terumah</i> in the hand of an Israelite must be given to a priest of another city. We learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the formula introducing a Mishnah. But the passage cited is a Baraitha, and [H] 'we learnt', is probably an error for [H], 'it has been taught'. ');">¹⁹</span>

מתיב רב יוסף מעשר שני וכתבי הקדש יגנזו והא מעשר שני ביד ישראל כתרומה ביד כהן דמי וקתני יגנזו אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר אמר רב חסדא ל"ש אלא תרומה ביד כהן אבל תרומה ביד ישראל תנתן לכהן שבעיר אחרת

elsewhere: 'Dough of the second tithe is exempt from <i>hallah</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment','[H], the first portion of the dough. V. Num. XV, 20. ');">²⁰</span> this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages hold it liable.' R. Hisda said: This refers only to the second tithe in Jerusalem, R. Meir maintaining that the second tithe is sacred property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas only secular food is liable to hallah. Cf. Ye shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough for an heave offering. (Num. XV, 20), thus excluding sacred dough, which belongs to Heaven. ');">²¹</span>

תנן התם עיסה של מעשר שני פטורה מן החלה דברי ר"מ וחכמים מחייבין אמר רב חסדא מחלוקת במעשר שני בירושלים דר"מ סבר מעשר שני ממון גבוה הוא ורבנן סברי ממון הדיוט הוא אבל בגבולין דברי הכל פטור

whilst the Rabbis regard the second tithe as secular property. But in the provinces,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A technical term for the whole of Palestine as opposed to Jerusalem. ');">²²</span> all agree that it is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the owner may not eat it there, it is certainly sacred property. ');">²³</span>

מתיב רב יוסף מעשר שני וכתבי הקדש יגנזו במאי עסקינן אילימא בירושלים מי הויא עיר הנדחת והתניא עשרה דברים נאמרו בירושלים וזו אחת מהן אינה נעשית עיר הנדחת ואלא בעיר אחרת ואסקוהו לגוה הא קלטוהו מחיצות

R. Joseph objected: THE SECOND TITHE AND SACRED WRITINGS MUST BE HIDDEN. To what does this refer? Shall we say to Jerusalem?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which became a condemned city. ');">²⁴</span> But can it become a condemned city? Has it not been taught, 'Ten things were said concerning Jerusalem, and this is one of them, [viz.,] it cannot become a condemned city.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 82b. ');">²⁵</span>

אלא לאו בגבולין וקתני יגנזו לא לעולם דעיר אחרת ואסקוהו לגוה והכא במאי עסקינן שנטמא

But if it [the second tithe] was of another city, and was brought up thither [to Jerusalem],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Before the city was seduced.] ');">²⁶</span> surely its barriers have received it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., once within Jerusalem, the law of that town applies to it, and therefore, since it cannot become a condemned city, it should be permitted even for food. ');">²⁷</span>

ולפרקיה דא"ר אלעזר מניין למעשר שני שנטמא שפודין אותו אפילו בירושלים ת"ל (דברים יד, כד) לא תוכל שאתו ואין שאת אלא אכילה שנאמר (בראשית מג, לד) וישא משאת מאת פניו הכא במאי עסקינן בלקוח

Hence it must surely refer to the provinces, yet it is stated, THEY MUST BE HIDDEN?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that the second tithe in the provinces is treated as secular property. ');">²⁸</span> — No. In truth, it is of another city and brought thither [to Jerusalem]; but we deal with a case where it became defiled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it may not be eaten; consequently it must be hidden. ');">²⁹</span> Then should it not be redeemed? For R. Eleazar said: Whence do we know that if the second tithe became defiled it can be redeemed even in Jerusalem? From the verse, When thou art not able to bear it [then thou shalt turn it into money].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 25. ');">³⁰</span> Now se'eth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (E.V. 'to bear'). ');">³¹</span> can only refer to eating, as&nbsp;… And he took and sent mase'oth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');">³²</span> [messes] unto them from before him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XLIII, 34. Thus he translates the first verse: If thou art not able to eat it — being defiled — then thou shalt turn it into money — i.e., redeem it. ');">³³</span> — We deal with purchased [commodities].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original second tithe having been redeemed, the money was expended upon commodities, which in turn became defiled. At this stage it assumed that only the original second tithe can be redeemed if defiled, but not that purchased with the redemption money. ');">³⁴</span>