Kiddushin, Daf Nun Heh, Part 2

 

Introduction

Yesterday s sugya taught of a person who finds a sacrificable animal near Jerusalem and redeems it for money. The money is holy and the animal has been desacralized. The question our sugya asks is whether one can actually desacralize an animal dedicated to be a sacrifice.

 

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

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

 

But can [an object of] intrinsic holiness be desacralized? Did we not learn: There cannot be trespass after trespass with sacred objects, except in the case of animal[s] and vessels of ministry.

How so? If a man rode on a beast [dedicated to the Temple], then his neighbor came and rode, and then another came and rode, all are guilty of trespass.

If he drank out of a golden goblet [dedicated to the Temple], then his neighbor came and drank, and then another, all are guilty of trespass?

 

This mishnah from Tractate Me ilah teaches that misusing an animal dedicated to the Temple or a vessel from the Temple does not desacralize them. Thus no matter how many people use these items in a non-holy way, each person commits trespass. This shows that things that have intrinsic holiness, such as animals donated to be sacrifices, cannot be desacralized. This differs from things whose value was donated to the Temple. These do not have intrinsic holiness and can be redeemed.

In any case, this seems to prove that things with intrinsic holiness cannot be redeemed (i.e. desacralized), whereas in yesterday s mishnah, about animals found near Jerusalem, we said they could be redeemed.

 

ההיא ר’ יהודה היא הא ר’ מאיר

 

The latter is according to R. Yehudah; the former, R. Meir.

 

The Talmud resolves by saying that according to R. Meir animals with intrinsic holiness can be redeemed. This is the mishnah from Shekalim. But this mishnah, from Tractate Me ilah, follows R. Yehudah who holds that they may not.

 

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

 

But from R. Yehudah we may understand R. Meir’s view. Did not R. Yehudah say that hekdesh used unwittingly is desacralized, and yet items with intrinsic sanctity cannot be desacralized; hence according to R. Meir too, although hekdesh, by deliberate use, is desacralized, yet items with intrinsic sanctity cannot be desacralized!

 

R. Yehudah holds that if one unwittingly uses hekdesh it is desacralized (our mishnah in Kiddushin). But one cannot desacralize things that have intrinsic sanctity (this mishnah in Meilah). R. Meir s opinion should be parallel. He holds that if one uses hekdesh intentionally it is descralized. But he should also hold, like R. Yehudah, that things with intrinsic sanctity cannot be desacralized.

 

התם לא קא מכוין לאפוקינהו לחולין הכא קא מכוין לאפוקינהו לחולין

 

There he does not intend to desacralize it; here he does.

 

The answer is that R. Yehudah refers to a case where someone unwittingly uses hekdesh. He does not intend to desacralize it, and thus if it has intrinsic sanctity, it is not desacralized. But R. Meir refers to one who intentionally uses hekdesh. Since he is acting intentionally, he can desacralize even something with intrinsic holiness. But stay tuned tomorrow s section continues this holy discussion!