## Kiddushin Daf 54a

###### Kiddushin 54a:1
[Kiddushin 54a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54a:1)

חָזַרְנוּ עַל כׇּל צְדָדִים שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְלֹא מָצִינוּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּשׁוֹגֵג אֵין מִתְחַלֵּל, בְּמֵזִיד מִתְחַלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We reviewed all angles** of the opinion **of Rabbi Meir,** i.e., we have examined all of Rabbi Meir’s statements with regard to consecrated property, **and we did not find** that he holds that **consecrated** property **is not desacralized** if it is misused **unwittingly** but it **is desacralized** if misused **intentionally.**


###### Kiddushin 54a:2
[Kiddushin 54a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54a:2)

וּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ בְּכׇתְנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה שֶׁלֹּא בָּלוּ, הוֹאִיל וְנִיתְּנוּ לֵיהָנוֹת בָּהֶן, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה תּוֹרָה לְמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as for **our mishna,** which indicates that this is Rabbi Meir’s opinion, it should not be understood as Rabbi Meir’s opinion with regard to consecrated property in general, but **with regard to** a case where a priest betrothed a woman using **priestly tunics that have not worn out** and that can still be worn during the Temple service. If a priest betrothed a woman with such garments, Rabbi Meir holds that if he did so unwittingly she is not betrothed, since clothes of this kind are not desacralized, and do not become hers. This is **because they were** initially **given** on the condition that the priests may **benefit from them** even when not performing the Temple service, **since the Torah was not given to the ministering angels.** It is impossible for a priest to wear the garments only at the moment he is performing the service and at no other time. Therefore, these garments are desacralized only if he intended to desacralize them.


###### Kiddushin 54a:3
[Kiddushin 54a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: כׇּתְנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה שֶׁבָּלוּ מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ לֹא בָּלוּ? לָא, בָּלוּ דַּוְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rav’s statement. **Come** and **hear:** With regard to **priestly tunics that have worn out,** one **misuses** property consecrated to the Temple **by** using **them;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. What, is it not** so that this *halakha* would apply **even** if **they had not worn out,** and the *tanna* wanted to teach the additional *halakha* that it is still a transgression even after they are no longer fit for use? The Gemara rejects this: **No,** this *halakha* applies **specifically** to garments that **have worn out.** Since these cannot be used by priests, the permission to use them for non-sacred purposes lapses, and they are like other consecrated property that is subject to the *halakhot* of misuse.


###### Kiddushin 54a:4
[Kiddushin 54a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מוֹעֲלִים בְּחַדְתִין וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִים בְּעַתִּיקִים. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין אַף בְּעַתִּיקִים, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בִּשְׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with the explanation of Rabbi Meir’s statement. **Come** and **hear: One** is liable for **misuse** of property consecrated to the Temple **by** using **new** shekels, i.e., those given this year, which are used to purchase animals for this year’s offerings, **but one** is **not** liable for **misuse** of property consecrated to the Temple **by** using **old** shekels, given by those who failed to give the previous year’s half-shekel, since these old shekels are used not to purchase offerings but for Temple maintenance; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One** is liable for **misuse** of property consecrated to the Temple **even by** using **old** shekels, **as Rabbi Meir would say: One** is liable for **misuse** of property consecrated to the Temple not only **by** using money designated to purchase offerings, but even with **the remainder of the chamber,** i.e., the money that remained in the chamber after money was taken to purchase the animals used in communal offerings.


###### Kiddushin 54a:5
[Kiddushin 54a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54a:5)

וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וְנִיתְּנוּ לֵיהָנוֹת, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה תּוֹרָה לְמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת, דְּהָא חוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה אָתוּ, דִּתְנַן: חוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ, וְכׇל צׇרְכֵי הָעִיר בָּאִין מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. לָא תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֶלָּא אֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues the question: **But why** should one be liable for using the old shekels? **Let us say** the same logic: One is not liable, **because they were** initially **given** on the condition that people may **benefit** from them, **since the Torah was not given to** the **ministering angels** and people could not help but benefit from them. This is **as** the money to repair **the wall of the city and its towers comes from the remainder of the chamber, as we learned** in a mishna (*Shekalim* 4:2): **The wall of the city, its towers, and all** of the **requirements of the city** of Jerusalem **come from the remainder of the chamber.** It is not possible for passersby to avoid benefiting from the shade provided by the walls of the city. The Gemara answers: **Do not say** that the opinion that one is liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple by using money from the remainder of the chamber is that of **Rabbi Meir. Rather,** emend the mishna and **say** that it is the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Kiddushin 54a:6
[Kiddushin 54a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אַבְנֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ מוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. לָא תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֶלָּא אֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another proof: **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yitzḥak said:** With regard to **stones** of the walls and towers **of Jerusalem that fell, one** is liable for **misuse** of property consecrated to the Temple **by** using **them;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** This indicates that according to Rabbi Meir, the use of even such stones renders one liable, despite the fact that it is not possible for people to avoid benefiting from them. The Gemara again answers: **Do not say** that this *baraita* is recording the statement of **Rabbi Meir. Rather,** emend the *baraita* and **say** that it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Kiddushin 54a:7
[Kiddushin 54a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54a:7)

אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם מִי מִיקַּדְּשָׁא? וְהָתְנַן: כְּאִימְּרָא, כַּדִּירִים, כָּעֵצִים, כָּאִישִּׁים, כַּהֵיכָל, כַּמִּזְבֵּחַ, כִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר: ״יְרוּשָׁלַיִם״ לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this explanation: **If** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, is Jerusalem consecrated** at all? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Nedarim* 10b): If one says that an item shall be considered **like the lamb** of the daily offering, **like the** animals designated as offerings and kept in special **enclosures, like the wood** of the altar, **like the fires** on the altar, **like the Sanctuary, like the altar,** or **like Jerusalem,** it is a vow and he is prohibited to derive benefit from the item, as he has compared it to something consecrated. The essence of a vow creating a prohibition is the statement that a certain item shall be like a consecrated item. **Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who says** that an item shall be considered **Jerusalem has not said anything,** indicating that Rabbi Yehuda holds that Jerusalem is not consecrated.


###### Kiddushin 54a:8
[Kiddushin 54a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54a:8)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא אָמַר: ״כִּירוּשָׁלַיִם״, וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״כִּירוּשָׁלַיִם״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, עַד שֶׁיִּדּוֹר בְּדָבָר הַקָּרֵב בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is not that he holds that Jerusalem is not consecrated, but **because** the one stating the vow **did not say: Like Jerusalem,** but stated only that the item shall be considered Jerusalem, which is not a clear expression of a vow, **but isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Nedarim* 1:6) that **Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who says** that an item shall be considered **like Jerusalem has not said anything, until he vows by** comparing the item to **an item that is sacrificed in Jerusalem.** This indicates that he holds that Jerusalem itself is not consecrated.