Sanhedrin

THE HOLY OBJECTS THEREIN MUST BE REDEEMED etc. Our Rabbis taught: If there were holy objects therein, that which is dedicated to the altar [i.e., for sacrifices] must die; to the Temple repair, must be redeemed; terumoth must be allowed to rot, and the second tithe and sacred Writings hidden. R. Simeon said: 'The cattle thereof,' — but not firstlings or tithes.  'The spoil thereof,' excludes sacred money and tithe money. The Master said: 'If there were holy objects therein, that which is dedicated to the altar must die.' But why should they die? Let them graze until unfit [for sacrifice], then be sold,  and the money utilised for a free-will offering! — R. Johanan answered, The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination.  Resh Lakish said: It is the property of its owner, the reference here being to dedicated animals for which the owner is responsible [if lost or injured], and [the ruling] according to R. Simeon, who maintained that such is the owner's property.  But since the second clause is R. Simeon's, it follows that the first is not? — [Say, then,] the reference is to sacrifices of lower sanctity, and it agrees with R. Jose the Galilean, who maintained that such are the property of their owners. But what of sacrifices of the highest sanctity? Are they to be redeemed! [If so,] the second clause, instead of teaching that that which is dedicated to the Temple repair must be redeemed, should have drawn and taught a distinction in that very matter [viz., animals dedicated to the altar]. [Thus:] This law [that the animals must die] holds good only of sacrifices of lower sanctity, but sacrifices of the highest sanctity are to be redeemed? — Since there is the sin-offering [among the latter], which, if its owner die, must perish, this cannot be stated as a general rule. Now it is intelligible that R. Johanan did not answer as Resh Lakish, since it is written, 'The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination'  but why did Resh Lakish not answer as R. Johanan? — He can reply to you: When do we say, 'The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination'? When they are in their original state; but these, since their state is changed [if the animal is redeemed], are changed. 'R. Simeon said: The cattle thereof implies, but not the firstlings or tithes.' To what does this refer? Shall we say, to unblemished animals? Then they are the 'spoil of Heaven'!  But if blemished, they are 'the spoil of it'?  — Rabina answered: In truth, the reference is to blemished animals. But [only] that which is eaten as 'the cattle thereof' [is destroyed], excluding these, which are eaten not as 'the cattle thereof' but as firstlings and tithes,  and are thus considered 'spoil of Heaven'. Now this [Rabina's answer] conflicts with Samuel's. For Samuel said [in explanation of the same difficulty]: Everything can be sacrificed, and everything can be redeemed. Now, what does this mean? — It means this: That which is sacrificed if unblemished, and redeemed when blemished,  is excluded by 'the spoil of it';  but that which is offered up if unblemished, but not redeemed when blemished, e.g., the firstling and the tithe, is excluded by 'and the cattle thereof'. THE TERUMOTH MUST BE ALLOWED TO ROT. R. Hisda said: This applies only to terumah in the hands of an Israelite;  but if in the hands of the priest, being his property, it must be burnt. R. Joseph objected: THE SECOND TITHE AND THE SACRED WRITINGS MUST BE HIDDEN. Now, the second tithe in the hands of an Israelite is as terumah in the hand of the priest,  yet it teaches, THEY MUST BE HIDDEN, [but not burnt]. But if it [R. Hisda's dictum] was stated, it was thus stated: R. Hisda said: This applies only to terumah in the hand of the priest;  but terumah in the hand of an Israelite must be given to a priest of another city. We learnt  elsewhere: 'Dough of the second tithe is exempt from hallah:  this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages hold it liable.' R. Hisda said: This refers only to the second tithe in Jerusalem, R. Meir maintaining that the second tithe is sacred property,  whilst the Rabbis regard the second tithe as secular property. But in the provinces,  all agree that it is exempt. R. Joseph objected: THE SECOND TITHE AND SACRED WRITINGS MUST BE HIDDEN. To what does this refer? Shall we say to Jerusalem?  But can it become a condemned city? Has it not been taught, 'Ten things were said concerning Jerusalem, and this is one of them, [viz.,] it cannot become a condemned city.'  But if it [the second tithe] was of another city, and was brought up thither [to Jerusalem],  surely its barriers have received it.  Hence it must surely refer to the provinces, yet it is stated, THEY MUST BE HIDDEN?  — No. In truth, it is of another city and brought thither [to Jerusalem]; but we deal with a case where it became defiled.  Then should it not be redeemed? For R. Eleazar said: Whence do we know that if the second tithe became defiled it can be redeemed even in Jerusalem? From the verse, When thou art not able to bear it [then thou shalt turn it into money].  Now se'eth  can only refer to eating, as … And he took and sent mase'oth  [messes] unto them from before him?  — We deal with purchased [commodities].