## Kiddushin Daf 55a

###### Kiddushin 55a:1
[Kiddushin 55a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/55a:1)

תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְמִגְדַּל עֵדֶר וּכְמִדָּתָהּ לְכׇל רוּחַ, זְכָרִים – עוֹלוֹת, נְקֵבוֹת – זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its discussion of the desacralizing of consecrated property. **We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Shekalim* 20a): If there was **an animal** fit for the altar **that was found** straying, **from Jerusalem** and as far **as Migdal Eder, and** similarly if it was found **within that distance** from Jerusalem **in any** other **direction,** it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. **Males** are presumed to be **burnt-offerings,** as only males can be brought as burnt-offerings. **Females** are presumed to be **peace-offerings,** as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering.


###### Kiddushin 55a:2
[Kiddushin 55a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/55a:2)

אֶלָּא זְכָרִים, עוֹלוֹת הוּא דְּהָווּ, זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים לָא הָווּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכָא בָּבָא לָחוּב בִּדְמֵיהֶן עָסְקִינַן, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא עוֹלוֹת, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד מִתְחַלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this: **But are males** only **burnt-offerings and not** also **peace-offerings?** As peace-offerings can be male or female, a male animal that was found might have been designated as a peace-offering. **Rabbi Oshaya said:** We are not speaking **here** of bringing the animals themselves as offerings. Rather, **we are dealing with one who comes to obligate** himself to consecrate **their value.** The finder wants to consecrate the value of the animal in case it had been designated as an offering, thereby redeeming the animal and desacralizing it, **and this is** what the mishna is **saying:** In the case of males **we are concerned** that **perhaps** they are **burnt-offerings,** so the money must be consecrated for the purpose of burnt-offerings as well as peace-offerings. **And this is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says: Consecrated** property **is desacralized** if it is misused **intentionally.** Therefore, he may redeem the animal and must use the money to purchase both a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, thereby avoiding all uncertainty.


###### Kiddushin 55a:3
[Kiddushin 55a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/55a:3)

וּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף מִי מִתְחַלֵּל? וְהָתְנַן: אֵין מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה וּבִכְלִי שָׁרֵת בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** can something that has **inherent sanctity,** such as an animal that has been designated as an offering, **be desacralized? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Me’ila* 19b): **There is no misuse after misuse with regard to consecrated** property? This means that if one misuses consecrated property, the item is immediately desacralized and the prohibition of misuse no longer applies to it. This is so **apart from** the case of the misuse of **an animal** designated as an offering **and** apart **from** the case of the misuse of **service vessels alone.** These do not become desacralized when misused, because they have inherent sanctity.


###### Kiddushin 55a:4
[Kiddushin 55a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/55a:4)

כֵּיצַד? הָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְרָכַב, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְרָכַב – כּוּלָּם מָעֲלוּ. הָיָה שׁוֹתֶה בְּכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְשָׁתָה, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְשָׁתָה – כּוּלָּם מָעֲלוּ! הָהִיא – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
That mishna continues: **How** so? If someone **was riding on** a consecrated **animal,** and **another came** after him **and** also **rode** on it, and yet **another came and rode** on it, **they have all misused** consecrated property. Similarly, if one **was drinking from a golden cup** used in the Temple service, and **another came and drank** from it, and yet **another came and drank** from it, **they have all misused** consecrated property. The Gemara asks: As this indicates that an item that has inherent sanctity is never desacralized, how can it be redeemed? The Gemara answers: **That** mishna, from tractate *Me’ila*, **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** whereas **this** mishna, from tractate *Shekalim*, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.**


###### Kiddushin 55a:5
[Kiddushin 55a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/55a:5)

מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נִשְׁמַע לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּשׁוֹגֵג מִתְחַלֵּל וּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף לָא מִתַּחֲלָא. לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד מִתְחַלֵּל קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף לָא מִתַּחֲלָא! הָתָם לָא קָא מְכַוֵּין לְאַפּוֹקִינְהוּ לְחוּלִּין. הָכָא – קָא מְכַוֵּין לְאַפּוֹקִינְהוּ לְחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Let us hear,** i.e., infer, **from** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir: Didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say** that **consecrated** property **is desacralized** if used **unwittingly, and** yet those items that have **inherent sanctity are not desacralized.** According **to Rabbi Meir as well, although consecrated** property **is desacralized** if used **intentionally,** items that have **inherent sanctity** should **not be desacralized.** The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two opinions. **There,** in the case underlying Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the one who misuses the consecrated item unwittingly **does not intend to withdraw it to a non-sacred** state but merely to use it, which is why an item that has inherent sanctity is not desacralized; whereas **here,** in the case underlying Rabbi Meir’s opinion, one who acts intentionally **does intend to withdraw it to a non-sacred** state, so even an item that has inherent sanctity can be desacralized.


###### Kiddushin 55a:6
[Kiddushin 55a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/55a:6)

אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים, בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? – אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שְׁמֵיהּ: קַל וָחוֹמֶר: קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים מִתְחַלְּלִים – קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions Rav Oshaya’s explanation of the mishna: **Say that you have heard Rabbi Meir** express the opinion that one can desacralize a consecrated item **in** the case of **offerings of the most sacred order,** but **did you hear him** express this opinion **in** the case of **offerings of lesser sanctity,** e.g., a peace-offering? If Rabbi Meir holds that offerings of lesser sanctity cannot be desacralized, the explanation of Rabbi Oshaya would be insufficient, as it does not account for the possibility that the animal is a peace-offering. **One of the Sages, and his name was Rabbi Ya’akov, said to him:** This is learned by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference: If **offerings of the most sacred order** can **be desacralized,** is it **not all the more so** the case that this *halakha* would apply to **offerings of lesser sanctity?**


###### Kiddushin 55a:7
[Kiddushin 55a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/55a:7)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד – מִתְחַלֵּל, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – אֵין מִתְחַלֵּל, אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים וְאֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים. קַל וָחוֹמֶר: קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים מִתְחַלְּלִים – קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Akiva, says** that **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says** that **Rabbi Meir would say: Consecrated** property **is desacralized** when misused **intentionally,** but it **is not desacralized** when misused **unwittingly.** This applies **both** to **offerings of the most sacred order and** to **offerings of lesser sanctity,** by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference: If **offerings of the most sacred order** can **be desacralized,** is it **not all the more so** the case that this *halakha* would apply to **offerings of lesser sanctity?**