## Sanhedrin Daf 112b

###### Sanhedrin 112b:1
[Sanhedrin 112b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:1)

וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ יִפָּדוּ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיוּ בָּהּ קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ – יָמוּתוּ, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת – יִפָּדוּ, וּתְרוּמוֹת – יֵרָקְבוּ, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ – יִגָּנְזוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״בְּהֶמְתָּהּ״ – וְלֹא בֶּהֱמַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, ״שְׁלָלָהּ״ – פְּרָט לְכֶסֶף הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And the consecrated** property **in it must be redeemed. The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 14:5): **If there were offerings of the most sacred order in it,** if they were animals **consecrated for** sacrifice on **the altar, they shall die;** one causes their death. Items **consecrated for Temple maintenance must be redeemed, and *terumot* must** be left to **decay, and second tithe and sacred scrolls must be interred. Rabbi Shimon says:** That is not so; rather, the term: **“Its animals”** (Deuteronomy 13:16), serves to **exclude a firstborn animal and** animal **tithe,** as they never belonged to the idolatrous city. The term: **“Its spoils”** (Deuteronomy 13:17), serves to **exclude consecrated money and tithe money.**


###### Sanhedrin 112b:2
[Sanhedrin 112b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:2)

אָמַר מָר: הָיוּ בָּהּ קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ – יָמוּתוּ. וְאַמַּאי יָמוּתוּ? יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיִפְּלוּ דְּמֵיהֶן לִנְדָבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the *baraita*. **The Master said: If there were offerings of the most sacred order in it,** if they were animals **consecrated for** sacrifice on **the altar, they shall die.** The Gemara asks: **But why shall they die? They should graze until they become unfit, and** then **they should be sold and their value should be allocated for** communal **gift** offerings.


###### Sanhedrin 112b:3
[Sanhedrin 112b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:3)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״זֶבַח רְשָׁעִים תּוֹעֵבָה״. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים הוּא. וְהָכָא בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא דְּאָמַר: מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** They shall die, as it is written: **“The offering of the wicked is an abomination”** (Proverbs 21:27), and it is unacceptable for sacrifice on the altar. **Reish Lakish says:** They shall die because the animal **is the property of its owner** and is not exclusively consecrated property. **And** the reason it is considered the property of the owner is that **here,** the *tanna* is referring **to offerings** with regard to **which one bears** financial **responsibility for their** replacement. That responsibility renders the status of these consecrated animals like that of his property. **And** this **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who says:** An offering with regard to which one bears financial responsibility for its replacement **is the property of** its **owner.**


###### Sanhedrin 112b:4
[Sanhedrin 112b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:4)

הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי דְּאָמַר: קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים. אֲבָל קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים מַאי? יִפָּדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **From** the fact **that the latter clause** of the *baraita* **is** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** one may infer that **the first clause is not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.** The Gemara suggests a new explanation: Rather, the animals that shall die are **offerings of lesser sanctity, and** the ruling of the *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: Offerings of lesser sanctity are the property of** their **owner.** The Gemara infers: **But offerings of the most sacred order, what** shall be done with them? **They shall be redeemed.**


###### Sanhedrin 112b:5
[Sanhedrin 112b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:5)

אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת יִפָּדוּ, לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, אֲבָל קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים – יִפָּדוּ. כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ, דִּלְמִיתָה אָזְלָא, לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **rather than teaching** in **the latter clause** of the *baraita*: Items **consecrated for Temple maintenance must be redeemed, let** the *tanna* **distinguish and teach** a distinction **within** the category of animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar **itself,** as follows: **In what** case **is this statement,** that animals shall die, **said?** It is stated **with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity; but with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, they shall be redeemed.** The Gemara answers: **Since there is** among offerings of the most sacred order the case of the sin-offering whose owners were killed in the idolatrous city, rendering the animal **a sin-offering whose owners have died, which is left to die,** that distinction **is not clear-cut for** the *tanna*, as offerings of the most sacred order are not always redeemed. Therefore, the *tanna* preferred to cite a distinction without exceptions.


###### Sanhedrin 112b:6
[Sanhedrin 112b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:6)

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא אָמַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״זֶבַח רְשָׁעִים תּוֹעֵבָה״. אֶלָּא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אָמַר לָךְ: כִּי אָמְרִינַן ״זֶבַח רְשָׁעִים תּוֹעֵבָה״, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי – אִישְׁתַּנִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan does not say** his explanation of the *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Reish Lakish,** due to the fact **that it is written: “The offering of the wicked is an abomination,”** and he bases his explanation on that verse. **But Reish Lakish, what is the reason he does not say** his explanation of the *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan?** The Gemara answers: He could have **said to you** that **when we say: “The offering of the wicked is an abomination,” this statement** applies in a case **where** the offering **is in its unadulterated form. But here, since** if they were to redeem it, **it** would have **changed** and would no longer be the animal of the wicked itself, but rather an animal purchased with the proceeds of the redemption of the original, **it** would have **changed,** and it would no longer be an abomination.


###### Sanhedrin 112b:7
[Sanhedrin 112b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:7)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״בְּהֶמְתָּהּ״ – וְלֹא בֶּהֱמַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּתְמִימִין – שְׁלַל שָׁמַיִם הוּא! אֶלָּא בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין – שְׁלָלָהּ נִינְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* continues. **Rabbi Shimon says** that the term **“its animals”** serves to **exclude a firstborn animal and** animal **tithe.** The Gemara asks: **What** animals **are we dealing with? If we say** that Rabbi Shimon is speaking **with regard to unblemished animals,** like all other offerings **they are the spoils of Heaven** and not the spoils of the inhabitants of the city. **Rather,** Rabbi Shimon is speaking **with regard to blemished** animals, which belong to their owners. If so, **they are the spoils of** the city, and what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon says that there is no obligation to destroy these animals?


###### Sanhedrin 112b:8
[Sanhedrin 112b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:8)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: לְעוֹלָם בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין, וּמִי שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל בְּתוֹרַת בְּהֶמְתָּהּ. יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָלִין בְּתוֹרַת בְּהֶמְתָּהּ, אֶלָּא בְּתוֹרַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, דִּשְׁלַל שָׁמַיִם נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina says: Actually,** Rabbi Shimon is speaking **with regard to blemished** animals, **and** his statement should be understood as follows: The mitzva is to destroy that **which is eaten as its animals,** i.e., as the property of an inhabitant of an idolatrous city. **Excluded are those** firstborn and tithe animals, **which,** even when blemished, **are not eaten as its animals; rather,** they are eaten **as firstborn and tithe** animals. They are given as gifts to priests, and **are** considered **the spoils of Heaven.**


###### Sanhedrin 112b:9
[Sanhedrin 112b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:9)

וּפְלִיגָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַכֹּל קָרֵב וְהַכֹּל נִפְדֶּה. מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל שֶׁקָּרֵב כְּשֶׁהוּא תָּם, וְנִפְדֶּה כְּשֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מוּם – מִ״שְּׁלָלָהּ״ אִימְּעִיט, וְכׇל שֶׁקָּרֵב כְּשֶׁהוּא תָּם וְאֵינוֹ נִפְדָּה כְּשֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מוּם, כְּגוֹן בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר – מִ״בְּהֶמְתָּהּ״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this *halakha* **disputes** the statement **of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: Everything is sacrificed and everything is redeemed.** The Gemara asks: **What is he saying?** The Gemara explains that **this** is what **he is saying: Any** offering **that is sacrificed** on the altar **when it is unblemished and is redeemed when it is blemished is excluded from** the term “its **spoils,”** since it is considered the spoils of Heaven. **And** the *halakha* concerning **any** offering **that is sacrificed** on the altar **when it is unblemished and is not redeemed when it is blemished, e.g., a firstborn** animal **and** animal **tithe, is derived from** the term “its **animals,”** as they are not the city’s animals and they are not included in the city’s property.


###### Sanhedrin 112b:10
[Sanhedrin 112b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:10)

תְּרוּמוֹת יֵרָקְבוּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא תְּרוּמָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה בְּיַד כֹּהֵן, כֵּיוָן דְּמָמוֹנֵיהּ הוּא, תִּשָּׂרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* continues: ***Terumot* must** be left to **decay. Rav Ḥisda says:** The Sages **taught** this **only** with regard to ***teruma*** that is still **in the possession of an Israelite,** who has not yet given it to a priest. **But** concerning ***teruma*** that is already **in the possession of a priest** who lives in the idolatrous city, **since it is his property, it shall be burned.**


###### Sanhedrin 112b:11
[Sanhedrin 112b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:11)

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ יִגָּנְזוּ. וְהָא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּתְרוּמָה בְּיַד כֹּהֵן דָּמֵי, וְקָתָנֵי יִגָּנְזוּ! אֶלָּא, אִי אִתְּמַר הָכִי אִתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא תְּרוּמָה בְּיַד כֹּהֵן, אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל תִּנָּתֵן לְכֹהֵן שֶׁבְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raises an objection** from the mishna: **Second tithe and sacred scrolls must be interred. But isn’t** the status of **second tithe in the possession of an Israelite like** that of ***teruma* in the possession of a priest,** as he may partake of it and benefit from it in Jerusalem; **and** nevertheless, **it is taught:** They **must be interred? Rather, if** the statement of Rav Ḥisda **was stated, this is what was stated: Rav Ḥisda says:** The Sages **taught** this **only** with regard to ***teruma*** that is already **in the possession of a priest** who lives in the idolatrous city, as even though it is his property, it maintains the sanctity of *teruma*. **But *teruma*** that is still **in the possession of an Israelite,** which is not his property at all, **shall be given to a priest who is in another city,** and should not be left to decay.


###### Sanhedrin 112b:12
[Sanhedrin 112b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:12)

תְּנַן הָתָם: עִיסָּה שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים מְחַיְּיבִין. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מָמוֹן גָּבוֹהַּ הוּא, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי מָמוֹן הֶדְיוֹט הוּא. אֲבָל בִּגְבוּלִין, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in a *baraita* **there: Second-tithe dough is exempt from** having ***ḥalla*** separated since it is property belonging to the Most High; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis deem** one **liable** to separate *ḥalla* from second-tithe dough. **Rav Ḥisda says:** This **dispute** is **with regard to second tithe in Jerusalem; as Rabbi Meir holds: Second-tithe** produce **is property** belonging **to the Most High,** but the Torah permitted its owners to partake of it in Jerusalem. Since it is the property of Heaven, one is exempt from separating priestly gifts. **And the Rabbis hold: It is non-sacred property** from which one is liable to separate *ḥalla*. **But** with regard to second-tithe dough **in the outlying areas, everyone agrees that one is exempt** from separating *ḥalla*, as outside of Jerusalem it is prohibited to partake of it.


###### Sanhedrin 112b:13
[Sanhedrin 112b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:13)

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ יִגָּנְזוּ. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, מִי הָוְיָא עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת? וְהָתַנְיָא: עֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְזוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן – אֵינָהּ נַעֲשֵׂית עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת! וְאֶלָּא בְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת, וְאַסְּקוּהּ לְגַוַּהּ? הָא קַלְטוּהּ מְחִיצוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raises an objection** from the mishna: **Second tithe and sacred scrolls must be interred. What are we dealing with? If we say** that the reference is to second tithe **in Jerusalem, can** Jerusalem **be an idolatrous city? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Ten matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem, and this is one of them: It does not become an idolatrous city. Rather,** apparently the reference is to second tithe **in a different city** that was rendered an idolatrous city, **and** before it was so rendered **one took** the second-tithe produce **up into** Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: In that case, **wasn’t** the produce **admitted** by **the walls** of Jerusalem, making it no longer associated with the idolatrous city, and it should therefore be permitted to partake of it?


###### Sanhedrin 112b:14
[Sanhedrin 112b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:14)

אֶלָּא לָאו בִּגְבוּלִין, וְקָתָנֵי: יִגָּנְזוּ? לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת, וְאַסְּקוּהּ לְגַוַּהּ. וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? שֶׁנִּטְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** is the reference in the mishna **not** to second-tithe produce **in an outlying area? And it is taught:** They **must be interred.** Apparently, second-tithe produce is not the property of Heaven; it belongs to an inhabitant of the idolatrous city. The Gemara rejects this: **No, actually,** the reference in the mishna is to second-tithe produce **in a different city, and** before it was rendered an idolatrous city **one took** the second-tithe produce **up into** Jerusalem. **And what are we dealing with here?** We are dealing with a case **where** that second-tithe produce **became ritually impure.** Since it is prohibited to partake of it, there is no alternative to interment.


###### Sanhedrin 112b:15
[Sanhedrin 112b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/112b:15)

וְלִפְרְקֵיהּ? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִין לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא שֶׁפּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ אֲפִילּוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תוּכַל שְׂאֵתוֹ״, וְאֵין שְׂאֵת אֶלָּא אֲכִילָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשָּׂא מַשְׂאֹת מֵאֵת פָּנָיו״. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּלָקוּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And let him redeem it** in Jerusalem, **as Rabbi Elazar says: From where** is it derived **with regard to second-tithe** produce **that became impure, that one may redeem it even in Jerusalem?** As **the verse states:** “And if the way is too long for you **so that you are unable to carry it [*se’eto*]…**and you shall turn it into money” (Deuteronomy 14:24–25). **And *se’et*** means **nothing other than eating, as it is stated: “And he took portions [*masot*] from before him”** (Genesis 43:34), indicating that second-tithe produce that cannot be eaten, whether due to the distance from Jerusalem or due to its impurity, may be redeemed. The Gemara answers: **What are we dealing with here?** It is not a case where the second-tithe produce became impure; rather, it is a case **where** an item **purchased** with second-tithe money became impure.