Kiddushin

We learnt elsewhere: If an animal is found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder1 or an equal distance [from the city] in any direction: the males are burnt-offerings; the females are peace-offerings.2 Now, can males be only burnt-offerings and not peace-offerings!3 — Said R. Oshaia: The reference here is to one who comes to accept responsibility for its value; and this is its meaning: we fear that they may be burnt-offerings; it being in accordance with R. Meir, who ruled: Hekdesh can be deliberately converted into hullin.4 But can [an object of] intrinsic sanctity5 be redeemed? Did we not learn: There cannot be consecutive trespasses in respect of sacred objects,6 excepting in the case of [consecrated] animal[s] and vessels of ministry.7 How so? If a man rode on a [dedicated] cow, then his neighbour came and rode, and then another came and rode, all are guilty of trespass. If he drank out of a golden goblet, then his neighbour came and drank, and then another, all are guilty of trespass? — The latter8 is according to R. Judah; the former,9 R. Meir. But from R. Judah we may understand R. Meir's view. Does not R. Judah maintain that hekdesh may be unwittingly converted into hullin, and yet intrinsic sanctity cannot be secularised;10 hence according to R. Meir too, although hekdesh, by deliberate misuse, is secularised, yet intrinsic sanctity cannot be secularised!11 — There he does not intend to withdraw it into hullin; here he does.12 But when do you know R. Meir to hold this? [Only] in the case of higher sanctity;13 do you know him [to hold this view] in respect to lower sanctity?14 — Said one of the Rabbis to him [the questioner], R. Jacob by name, It follows a fortiori: If objects of the higher sanctity can be secularised, surely those of the lower sanctity can be! It was stated likewise. R. Hama b. ‘Ukba15 said in R. Jose son of R. Hanina's name: R. Meir used to assert, Hekdesh is secularised by deliberate conversion, but is not secularised by unwitting conversion; this applies to objects of both higher and lower sanctity, a fortiori: if objects of higher sanctity can be secularised, surely those of lower sanctity can be. were feared to have strayed out. The females are peace-offerings, since only males could be burnt-offerings (Lev. I, 3). clear up all doubt, he must reckon with the possibility of its being a burnt-offering. Hence he must bring two animals or two sums of money and declare: ‘If this found animal is a burnt-offering, let it be redeemed by one animal, or by one sum, which shall be likewise a burnt-offering, and the other shall be a peace-offering. Whereas if it is a peace-offering, let it be redeemed by the second, and the first be a burnt- offering, while the animal found becomes hullin. as opposed to monetary sanctity, e.g., a consecrated animal which subsequently receives a blemish; it cannot be sacrificed itself, but must be redeemed and another animal bought with the money, which is sacrificed. they are fit for their purpose. deliberate misuse, and yet it teaches that animals of intrinsic sanctity involve consecutive trespasses, which proves that they are not secularised by the first misuse. therefore it secularises even intrinsic sanctity. a sacrifice of the higher sanctity, which belonged entirely to God, none of it being eaten by its owner.