Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shekalim 12

1) "MAKDISH B'FERUSH" AND "MAKDISH STAM"

OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses a case where someone was Makdish all of his possessions, which included both male and female animals. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue what must be done with the animals. Rebbi Eliezer says that both the male and female animals must be sold -- the males to be used as Olos and the females as Shelamim, and the money that one receives in return for them goes to Bedek ha'Bayis. Rebbi Yehoshua says that the males are themselves brought as Olos, and the females (which cannot be used for Olos) are sold to be used as Shelamim and the money is used to buy Olos, and the rest of his possessions go to Bedek ha'Bayis (see Chart #1).

Rebbi Papyas says that he heard that the Halachah follows both opinions, in two different cases. If one is Makdish "b'Ferush" ("explicitly"), then the Halachah follows Rebbi Eliezer and all of the animals are sold and the money is used for Bedek ha'Bayis. If one is Makdish "Stam" (ambiguously, without specifying), then the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehoshua and the animals (or their value) are used for Olos and the rest of one's possessions go to Bedek ha'Bayis. What does the Mishnah mean by "Makdish b'Ferush" and "Makdish Stam?"

(a) The BARTENURA and the TIKLIN CHADETIN explain that "Makdish b'Ferush" means that one when is Makdish his possessions, he mentions that he is Makdish both "my possessions and my animals." That is, he makes special mention of his animals in the same statement that he is Makdish the rest of his possessions. Since he does not differentiate what type of Hekdesh his animals or his other possessions should be, they are all the same and all go to Bedek ha'Bayis. In contrast, when one is "Makdish Stam" and does not mention his animals but merely says that he is Makdish "all of my possessions," then we assume that his intention is to earmark each type of item for the particular part of Hekdesh for which it is suitable.

(b) The RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos), RABEINU MESHULAM and the RIVEVAN explain that "Makdish b'Ferush" means that one says specifically that he wants all of his possessions to go "to Bedek ha'Bayis." In such a case, even his animals (i.e. their value) go to Bedek ha'Bayis, as Rebbi Eliezer says. Even Rebbi Yehoshua agrees in such a case that the value of the animals goes to Bedek ha'Bayis. In contrast, when one is "Makdish Stam" and says only that he is Makdish all of his possessions, and he does not specify to what purpose they are Hekdesh, in this case Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue and the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehoshua; the animals are used for Korbanos and the other possessions go to Bedek ha'Bayis. Rebbi Papyas, then, is ruling like Rebbi Yehoshua, and arguing with Rebbi Akiva who rules like Rebbi Eliezer.

12b

QUESTION: The Gemara cites an argument regarding the laws of Temurah. If a person is Makdish a female animal to be a Korban Olah, Pesach, or Asham, it cannot be brought as such a Korban because those Korbanos must be brought from male animals. However, does the female animal obtain a Kedushah such that it can make a Temurah? There are three opinions. The Tana Kama says that the female animal is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf and it could make a Temurah. Rebbi Shimon says that the female animal can make a Temurah only when one was Makdish it to become an Olah, but not when one was Makdish it to become a Korban Pesach or an Asham. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Shimon says that a female animal does not make a Temurah in any of the three cases. (See Chart #2)

Rebbi Yochanan explains the reason of Rebbi Shimon. He says that when one is Makdish a female animal to be an Olah, it becomes Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf (and can make a Temurah), because a female animal *can* become an Olah in one instance; a bird which is a female can be made into an Olas ha'Of, a bird-Olah. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah argues and says that it is not Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf since it cannot become an Olas-Behemah, an animal-Olah.

At the end of the Daf, the Gemara asks that Rebbi Yochanan contradicts himself. In one statement, he explains Rebbi Shimon's opinion and says that a female animal could be used as an Olas ha'Of, and that is why a female is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf when one is Makdish it as an Olah. "Here, though," says the Gemara, "Rebbi Yochanan says differently." Where? What other statement is the Gemara referring to in which Rebbi Yochanan contradicts his earlier statement? There is no other statement from Rebbi Yochanan!

ANSWERS:

(a) The TALMID RABEINU SHMUEL BAR SHNEUR suggests that the Gemara is asking about the contradiction between the statement of Rebbi Yochanan (which he said in explaining Rebbi Shimon) and the statement of *Reish Lakish*, which the Gemara quoted a few lines earlier. (The YEFEI EINAYIM suggests that in the Gemara a few lines earlier, the quote should be in the name of Rebbi Yochanan instead of Reish Lakish. According to the Talmid Rabeinu Shmuel bar Shneur, who does not change the Girsa, the Gemara assumes that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Reish Lakish's statement there.)

Reish Lakish is explaining the third opinion in the Mishnah (on 12a), that of Rebbi Elazar, who says that if someone is Makdish all of his possessions and among them there are birds which are fit for Korbanos, then the birds must be sold to be used as Korbanos, and the money one receives in return for them are used to bring Olos of animals. Reish Lakish explains that Rebbi Elazar's reason is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv which states that when a person makes something Hekdesh without specifying what type of Hekdesh, that item must be used for a Korban Behemah (an animal offering) and not for a bird offering.

This contradicts Rebbi Yochanan, who said that a female animal is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf when one is Makdish it as an Olah, since a female could be used for an Olah when it comes to bird offerings. From this statement, we see that Rebbi Yochanan *equates birds with animals*. However, from Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah, we see that when a person is Makdish his possessions without specifying for what type of Hekdesh, he is *not Makdish his birds* with Kedushas ha'Guf, while he *is Makdish his animals* with Kedushas ha'Guf (that is, Rebbi Elazar distinguishes between birds and animals).

How do we see that from the words of Rebbi Elazar (as interpreted by Reish Lakish)? If the person intended to be Makdish his birds with Kedushas ha'Guf, then he would not be able to sell them to be used as Olos (for items which are Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf which are disqualified from being offered on the Mizbe'ach cannot be offered on the Mizbe'ach even if they are sold). The birds would be "Dachuy" (pushed-off, or invalidated) from being used as a Korban. Since Rebbi Elazar says that the birds *may* be sold and offered on the Mizbe'ach, it must be that the person was never Makdish the birds with Kedushas ha'Guf, but only with Kedushas Damim, not like his other animals, and thus they may be sold and brought as a Korban. We see, then, that Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah, based on Reish Lakish's explanation of his opinion, contradicts the statement of Rebbi Yochanan.

The Gemara answers that normally, a person *does* consider birds and animals to be in the same category. Only a person who is Makdish all his possessions is not Makdish his birds with Kedushas ha'Guf. The reason for this is because he knows that the Torah says that his birds will become Pasul if he gives them Kedushas ha'Guf and they will not be able to be brought as bird- offerings, nor can they be redeemed, because they have Kedushas ha'Guf. Therefore, he is Makdish them only with Kedushas Damim.

(b) RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY also explains that the Gemara, when it asks the contradiction on Rebbi Yochanan's statement, is referring to Rebbi Yochanan's explanation of Rebbi Shimon, and is asking from the opinion of Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah. Rebbi Yochanan says that since a female animal is fit for an Olah offering when it is a bird, it is therefore considered Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf even when it is sanctified to be an Olas- Behemah. That is, Rebbi Yochanan holds that when an animal is fit to be brought as a different type of Korban, it is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf even though it is not fit to be brought as the Korban for which it was now designated.

Rav Kanievsky asserts that Rebbi Yochanan would maintain that even Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, who argues with Rebbi Shimon, would agree, in principle, to this concept. Although Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah argues with Rebbi Shimon and says that such an animal does not become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf, that is only because a female animal is only fit for a *different* type of Olah but it is never fit for *this* type of Olah. In a case where the animal would be fit for this particular type of Olah, but would be disqualified for a tangential reason that applies only in this case, then even Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah would agree that it is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf. This is exactly the case in which Rebbi Elazar says that the bird is *not* Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf.

Thus, the question on Rebbi Yochanan's statement is from Rebbi Elazar's opinion in the Mishnah. Rebbi Elazar says that if someone is Makdish his possessions and there are birds among them, those birds are not Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf and therefore they are to be sold to be used as Olos, and the money received for them is to be used for Olos. Even though a bird normally may be brought as an Olah, the person who was Makdish his possessions may not bring it as an Olah because now it is disqualified (for a tangential reason) due to the Gezeras ha'Kasuv which teaches that one who is Makdish his possessions "Stam" must bring them as an Olas Behemah. The birds, rather, are Kadosh with Kedushas Damim. This is clearly the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, because if he held that the birds were Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf, then they would not be fit to be used for *anything* -- they could not be brought as an Olah themselves, nor could they be redeemed. Since they can be bought by someone else and used as an Olah, it must be that they never had Kedushas ha'Guf and never became disqualified with that Pesul. We see, then, that Rebbi Elazar maintains that an animal which is not fit to be brought for the Korban for which it was designated but is only disqualified for a side reason, and *is* fit to be brought as another Korban, is *not* Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf. This contradicts Rebbi Yochanan.

The answer of the Gemara is that Rebbi Yochanan's rule that an animal which is fit to be brought as another Korban is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf only applies if another condition is met. Not only must the animal be fit to be brought as another Korban, but it must be able to be redeemed, and to have its value (the money paid for it) brought as the type of Korban for which it was initially designated. Only when this second condition -- the ability to be redeemed -- is met, does the item attain a status of Kedushas ha'Guf. A bird, which cannot be redeemed, will never become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf (when sanctified for a Korban for which it is unfit) even though it is fit to be brought as a Korban under other circumstances, *since it cannot be redeemed*.

(c) The TIKLIN CHADETIN explains that the contradiction is between Rebbi Yochanan's original statement explaining the opinion of Rebbi Shimon and his statement in the Gemara *which follows* (13a) in which Rebbi Yochanan explains the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah who argues with Rebbi Shimon (the Tiklin Chadetin asserts that his statement there should actually be placed here on 12b, right before to Reish Lakish's statement). In that Gemara, Rebbi Yochanan states that an animal which is unfit to be brought as the Korban for which it was sanctified, but is fit to be brought as another type of Korban ("Teme'ah b'Oso Shem"), is Kadosh with Kedushas Damim and *not* Kedushas ha'Guf. This contradicts his own statement in explaining Rebbi Shimon.

The Tiklin Chadetin explains the Gemara's answer similar to the way it was explained above (by Rav Chaim Kanievsky). Perhaps in the Gemara on 13a, Rebbi Yochanan was not giving a blanket statement that whenever an animal is not fit for the Korban for which it was designated it is Kedushas Damim. Rather, he was saying that it is Kedushas Damim *sometimes* when it is not fit, such as in the case of Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah, when a person was Makdish his possessions without specifying for what type of Hekdesh. In that case it is Kadosh with Kedushas Damim, because otherwise it would not be fit at all to be brought as an Olah; not only could it not be brought as an Olah itself (because of the Gezeras ha'Kasuv), but even its value could be brought as an Olah (since a bird sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf cannot be redeemed). However, in the case of a female animal sanctified as an Olah, where its value *can* be brought as an Olah, Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Shimon that it is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf since it is a type of animal which is still fit to be brought as another type of Olah.