Chullin

then surely it would have been put to death! Rather we must say that it had not yet been condemned, in which case one is bound to bring it to the Beth din so as to carry into effect the verse: So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.1 What are the circumstances with regard to consecrated birds? If you say that a man had a nest in his home and consecrated it, but in that case the law does not apply, for the verse: If a bird's nest chance to be before thee,2 excludes what is at one's disposal. You will say then that a man saw a nest somewhere and consecrated it, but in that case would it become consecrated? Does not the Divine Law say. And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy,3 [from which we conclude that] just as his house is in his possession so must everything [that he may wish to sanctify] be in his possession? You will then say that a man lifted up the young ones,4 consecrated them, and put them back again; but in such a case, even though they were not consecrated, the law would not apply, for we have learnt: If a man took the young and brought them back again into the nest, and afterwards the dam returned to them, he is not bound to let it go.5 You will therefore say that he lifted up the dam, consecrated it, and put it back again; but in that case at the very outset, even before he consecrated it, he was bound to let it go, for it was taught: R. Johanan b. Joseph says: If a man consecrated a wild animal and then slaughtered it, he is exempt from covering up [the blood];6 if he slaughtered it and afterwards consecrated it, he is bound to cover up [the blood], since he was already bound to cover up [the blood] before it was consecrated!7 Rab suggested8 the case where a man consecrated the young of his dovecote9 and they later broke lose.10 Samuel suggested the case where a man consecrated his hen11 to the Temple treasury.12 Now one can understand why Samuel does not suggest the case of Rab; it is because he wishes to state the law even in respect of that which is consecrated to the Temple treasury only. But why does not Rab suggest the case of Samuel? — Rab would answer thus: It is only in the case where a man consecrated the young of his dove-cote that one is not bound to let the dam go, for they are consecrated for the altar; and inasmuch as they are themselves consecrated for an offering, [even though they break loose,] their sanctity has not gone.13 But where a man consecrated his hen to the Temple treasury, inasmuch as it was not consecrated for the altar but only for its value, as soon as it breaks loose its sanctity has gone, and the law of letting the dam go applies. But Samuel says: Wherever it14 happens to be it is in the Lord's treasury, for it is written: The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.15 And so, too, did R. Johanan say: It is a case where a man consecrated his hen to the Temple treasury, and afterwards it broke loose. Thereupon R. Simeon b. Lakish said to him: Surely as soon as it breaks loose its sanctity has gone! — He replied: Wherever it happens to be it is in the Lord's treasury, for it is written: ‘The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof’. I can point out a contradiction between the words of R. Johanan [here] and the words of R. Johanan [elsewhere]; and I can point out a contradiction between the words of Resh Lakish [here] and the words of Resh Lakish [elsewhere]. For it has been stated: [If a man said], ‘Let this maneh be for the Temple treasury’, and it was stolen or lost, R. Johanan says: He is responsible for it until it reaches the hands of the Temple treasurer; but Resh Lakish says: Wherever it is it is in the Lord's treasury, for it is Written, ‘The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof’. Hence there is a contradiction between R. Johanan's statements, and between Resh Lakish's statements.16 [I concede that] there is not necessarily a contradiction between Resh Lakish's statements, for this [the former] view he expressed before he had learnt the true view from his master R. Johanan,17 whilst that [the latter] view he expressed after he had learnt it from his master R. Johanan.18 But surely there is a contradiction between the statements of R. Johanan! — There is no contradiction even between the statements of R. Johanan, for in one case the man said: ‘I take upon myself [an offering]’ and in the other case he said: ‘Let this be [an offering]’.19 It follows then that, according to Resh Lakish, a man is not responsible [for his offering] even though he said: ‘I take upon myself’. But we have learnt: What is a votive-offering and what a freewill-offering? It is a votive-offering when a man says: ‘I take upon myself a burnt-offering’; it is a freewill-offering when a man says: ‘Let this be a burnt-offering’. And wherein do votive-offerings differ from freewill-offerings? With a votive-offering if it dies or is stolen or lost, he is responsible for it [and must replace it]; but with a freewill-offering, if it dies or is stolen or lost he is not responsible for it.20 — Resh Lakish can answer thus: That is so21 only with regard to what is consecrated for the altar, since it still needs to be offered as a sacrifice;22 but with regard to what is consecrated to the Temple treasury, since it has not to be offered as a sacrifice, he is not responsible for it even though he said ‘I take upon myself’.23 But we have learnt:24 If a man said: ‘Let this ox be a burnt-offering’, or, ‘Let this house be an offering’, and the ox died or the house fell down, he is not bound to make restitution; but if he said: ‘I take upon myself [to offer] this ox for a burnt-offering’, or, ‘I take upon myself [to present] this house as an offering’, and the ox died or the house fell down, he must make restitution!25 — That is so only where the ox died or the house fell down, then indeed he must make restitution, since they are no more in existence; but where they are in existence, wherever they happen to be, they are still within the Lord's treasury, for it is written: ‘The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof’. R. Hamnuna said: All agree that regarding vows of valuation,26 even though a man said: ‘I take upon myself’,27 he is not bound to make restitution, for these cannot be expressed without the formula ‘I take upon myself’. For how else can they be expressed? If he were only to say: ‘My valuation’, then [we do not know] upon whom [lies this obligation]; and if he were to say: ‘The valuation of So-and-So’, [we still do not know] upon whom [lies the obligation]. Raba demurred: But surely he can say: ‘Here is my valuation’, or, ‘Here is the valuation of So-and-so’. Moreover it has been taught: R. Nathan says: It is written: And he shall give thy valuation in that day, as a holy thing unto the Lord.28 What does Scripture teach thereby? But inasmuch as we find that, with regard to consecrated things and second tithe, if a man exchanged them for unconsecrated money and the money was stolen or lost, he is not liable to make restitution,29 his disposal. V. infra 141a. existing obligation of letting the dam go. consecrated birds. were consecrated. whole earth is the Lord's treasury, whereas in the latter dispute it is Resh Lakish who advances this view. to the law of letting the dam go; but later R. Johanan convinced him that it was not so, with the argument that the earth is the Lord's treasury, which argument Resh Lakish eventually accepted. to it, since it is still within the Lord's treasury. treasury, nevertheless holds a man responsible for his offering if he expressed himself thus: ‘I take upon myself’, for then the personal obligation is not discharged until the Temple treasurer has actually received it. and hold that even where a man said: ‘I take upon myself’, he is not responsible for it. up to then he is responsible for it. happens to be it is still within the Lord's treasury. undertook the vow as a personal charge. It is, however, evident from this that even in respect of what is consecrated to the Temple treasury, e.g., a house, one is bound to make restitution, contra Resh Lakish. to the scale prescribed in the Torah, cf. Lev. XXVII, 1ff. afterwards consecrated unto the Temple, and the reference in this verse to ‘thy valuation’ is certainly strange and out of place. 15.