משנה: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּחֶלְקוֹ מִקָּדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וּמִקֳּדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד לֹא קִידֵּשׁ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מֵזִיד קִידֵּשׁ שׁוֹגֵג לֹא קִידֵּשׁ. וּבַהֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד קִידֵּשׁ שׁוֹגֵג לֹא קִידֵּשׁ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹגֵג קִידֵּשׁ מֵזִיד לֹא קִידֵּשׁ. MISHNAH: If somebody uses his portion either from most holy or simply holy sacrifices for preliminary marriage, she is not preliminarily married169The parts of most holy sacrifices (purification and reparation sacrifices) that are eaten are reserved for male Cohanian in the Temple precint, off limits to women. The Cohen’s part of simple sacrifices (well-being sacrifices) are eaten by the Cohen’s family in purity. Since a woman by preliminary marriage becomes “bought by the Cohen’smoney”, she might eat from these parts. But everybody agrees that sacrificial meat never is the Cohen’s property but that the Cohanim “eat from the Almighty’s table.” Since the Cohen’s part is not his property, it cannot be used in a marriage transaction. Cf. Ma‘aśer Šeni 1:2, Kiddushin 2:1:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.1.11">Note 65.. From Second Tithe170Which is eaten by the farmer’s family in Jerusalem; cf. Introduction to Tractate Ma‘aser Šeni. (First Tithe is profane in the Levite’s hand.) there is no preliminary marriage whether unintentionally171At the moment of the transaction neither man nor woman was aware that the gift was one of Second Tithe. or intentionally, the words of Rebbi Meïr172He holds that Second Tithe is Heaven’s peroperty in the hand of the farmer.. Rebbi Jehudah says, intentionally he performed preliminary marriage173In his opinion, Second Tithe is the farmer’s property but is reserved for sanctified use. If the farmer intentionally misused Second Tithe as marriage gift, he desecrated it. The tithe becomes profane and the farmer has to replace it in the statutory amount of 125%., unintentionally he did not perform preliminary marriage174If the use was unintentional, the tithe is not desecrated but cannot be used.. From Temple property, intentionally he performed preliminary marriage175The intentional use of Temple property for private purposes is sacrilege and desecrates the property, which becomes profane., unintentionally he did not perform preliminary marriage176In R. Meïr’s opinion, Temple property becomes profane only by intentional profanation., the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, unintentionally he performed preliminary marriage177He extends the rules of Leviticus.5.14-16">Lev. 5:14–16 to all Temple property. The inadvertent use of Temple property constitutes larceny which requires a reparation offering and restitution in the amount of 125%, but the object taken becomes profane and, therefore, can be used as marriage gift., intentionally178Since intentional sin cannot be atoned for by sacrifice (Numbers.15.30">Num. 15:30), the rules of Leviticus.5.14-16">Lev. 5:14–16 cannot apply. he did not perform preliminary marriage.
הלכה: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּחֶלְקוֹ כול׳. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַבְּכוֹר מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי וּבַעַל מוּם וְשָׁחוּט. וּמְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute179The statement that the Cohen’s share of simple sacrifices may not be used as a marriage gift.. There180Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 1:2, Notes 43–44. The firstling becomes the Cohen’s property at the rancher’s corral, outside the Temple precinct., we have stated: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may use it for preliminarily marrying a woman.”
רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. חַי לֹא שָׁחוּט. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי. רִבִּי מֵאִיר יְלִיף כָּל־הַקֳּדָשִׁין מִן מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה. מַה מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אַף כָּל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. רִבִּי יוּדָה יְלִיף כָּל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים מִן הַבְּכוֹר. מַה הַבְּכוֹר מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. אַף כָּל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. בֵּין חַי בֵּין שָׁחוּט. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר. חַי לֹא שָׁחוּט. תַּמָּן בְּשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ בְּרַם הָכָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֲפִילוּ תִֵימַר. כָּאן וְכָאן בְּשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ. בִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּחַיִים וּבְרָאוּי לִיפּוֹל לוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָךְ כַּחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי. וְהָיָה לְךָ אֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מַה מְקַייֵם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי וְהָיָה לְךָ. רִיבָה לוֹ הֲוָייָה אֲחֶרֶת. שֶׁיְהֵא נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד. 181From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is from Ma‘aser Šeni 1:2, Notes 63–69 (מ). The only major addition is a quote of the Mishnah here. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. And Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Meïr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not become betrothed to a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may become betrothed to a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There, he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he becomes betrothed while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (Numbers.18.18">Num. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving.” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you”182The text is misquoted here, correct in Ma‘aser Šeni., even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”182The text is misquoted here, correct in Ma‘aser Šeni.? He added another being that it should be eaten during two days and one night.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. חַלַּת עַם הָאָרֶץ וְהַמְּדוּמָע וְהַלָּקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר וּשְׁיֵרֵי מְנָחוֹת פְּטוּרִין מִן הַדְּמַאי. There183Mishnah Demay 1:3, Notes 112–114., we have stated: “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ, food containing heave, food bought with money of the Second Tithe, and the remainders of flour sacrifices are free from demay.”
תַּנִּי וְכוּלָּם שֶׁיִּקְרָא שֵׁם לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר אוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁלָּהֶם מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. חוּץ מִשְּׁיֵרֵי מְנָחוֹת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. הַשְּׁאָר בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בָּעֵי. הַיי דָא מַחֲלוֹקֶת. מַה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִין כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. הוּא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי הִיא שְׁיֵרֵי מְנָחוֹת לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. אִין כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אָֽזְלִית לְקַיסָרִין וְשָֽׁמְעִית רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה יְתִיב מַתְנֵי. הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּחֶלְקוֹ מִקָּדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים וּמִקֳּדָשִׁים קַלִּין אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. וְאָֽמְרִית לֵיהּ. מֲנָן שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ הָדָא מִילְתָא. אָמַר לִי. מֵרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וְאָֽמְרִית. יְאוּת. דְּהוּא שָׁמַע הָדָא דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הוּא דְּאָמַר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּלָא שְׁמִיעַא לֵיהּ צְרִיכָה הוּא דּוּ אָמַר. הַיי דָא מַחֲלוֹקֶת. אִין כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. הִיא מַעֲשֵׂר הִיא שְׁיֵרֵי מְנָחוֹת לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. אִין כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. 184This text is from Demay 1:3, Notes 183–188. It was stated: “Concerning all of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” Rebbi Eleazar said, with the exception of the remainders of flour sacrifices. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the rest is in dispute. Rebbi Yose asked, what dispute? Where are we standing, if according to Rebbi Meïr, both for Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything. If according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah who was sitting there, stating: “If [a priest] preliminarily marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, she is not married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did you hear this, and he said, from Rebbi Jeremiah. I said, this explains the matter! Rebbi Jeremiah, who heard that Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, he says it is in dispute. Rebbi Yose, who did not hear that, asked which dispute? If according to Rebbi Meïr, both for tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything; if according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done.
כַּד דְּמָךְ רִבִּי מֵאִיר גָּזַר רִבִּי יוּדָה וְאָמַר. אַל יִּיכָּֽנְסוּ תַלְמִידָיו שֶׁלְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר כָּאן. דָּחַק סוּמֲכוֹס וְעָאַל. אָמַר. הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. וְאִשָּׁה נִכְנֶסֶת הִיא לָעֲזָרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בִּמְקַדֵּשׁ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ. בְּמַה קִידְּשָׁהּ. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. בְּגוֹפוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּטוֹבַת הֲנָייָה שֶׁבּוֹ. אוֹ נֹאמַר. וְלֹא פְלִיגִין. מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּגוֹפוֹ. בְּחֶזְקַת טוֹבַת הֲנָייָה שֶׁבּוֹ. רִבִּי חִזְקִיּהָ רִבִּי בֵּיבַי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מְקַדְּשִׁין בִּפְרוּטָה שֶׁלְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי. When Rebbi Meïr expired, Rebbi Jehudah decided and said, Rebbi Meïr’s students shall not enter here185Kiddushin.52b">Babli 52b, Nazir.49b">Nazir 49b. In the version of the Babli, Symmachos quoted R. Meïr’s Mishnah in R. Jehudah’s school, R. Jehudah objected that most holy sacrifices are distributed at a place reserved to male Cohanim, and R. Yose gave the answer attributed here to R. Jehudah.
Since in the preceding paragraph it was established that R. Jehudah admits the possibility of contracting marriage by the Cohen’s part in the sacrifices, the question arises how this is possible for most holy meat. In R. Meïr’s Mishnah, most holy sacrifices could be mentioned together with simple sacrifices since all are forbidden.. Symmachos squeezed by and entered. He said, “Most holy sacrifices for preliminary marriage,” how could a woman enter the Temple courtyard? He said to him, if he contracts preliminary marriage through an agent186According to the Babli, it also could be a transaction between an unmarried Cohen and the Cohen father of an underage girl. Then not even an agent is needed.. By what does he contract preliminary marriage? Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body187The meat itself, given from one Cohen to another. Then the question arises whith whom a Cohen possibly could trade most holy meat.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the goodwill created188The goodwill created by a gift of meat might be worth a peruṭah. Goodwill is immaterial, not subject to the restrictions imposed on sancta.. Or we might say that they do not disagree189To avoid the question raised in Kiddushin 2:7:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.7.6">Note 187.. When Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body, [he meant] by the expected goodwill from it. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One may contract preliminary marriage with a peruṭah from Second Tithe190Second Tithe is agricultural produce. It may be redeemed by money, which transfers the sanctity from the produce to the coin (Deuteronomy.14.25">Deut. 14:25). But only the original produce is called “holy” (Deuteronomy.26.13">Deut. 26:13); the replacement is functionally but not intrinsically holy. Therefore, the money may be given as marriage gift to a woman in Jerusalem who may buy food with it for consumption in purity..
בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא עָלַת עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לַעֲבוֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אַחַת לֹא עָֽלְתָה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ וְאַחַת לֹא עָֽלְתָה עַל דַּעְתֵּיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. הַמְקֻדָּשׁ לֹא עָלַת עַל דַּעְתּוֹ וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי לֹא עָלַת עַל דַּעְתֶּיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. הֶקְדֵּשׁ לֹא עָלַת עַל דַּעְתּוֹ וְלֹא עָלַת עַל דַּעְתֶּיהָ. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי עָלַת עַל דַּעְתּוֹ וְלֹא עַל דַּעְתֶּיהָ. “With Second Tithe.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He did not intend to transgress the words of the Torah191One has to explain why Second Tithe cannot be used as marriage gift in error according to R. Jehudah. If the groom did not intend to acquire the Second Tithe, he cannot give it away.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, in one case he did not intend, in one case she did not intend192The rules for both Temple property and Second Tithe can be explained in the same way. R. Jonah and R. Abin try to understand what R. Ze‘ira meant.. Rebbi Jonah said, the sanctified he did not intend193Misappropriation of Temple property is characterized as a sin in Leviticus.5.15-16">Lev. 5:15–16. One cannot assume that a man intentionally wants to sin. Therefore, for R. Meïr one has to assume that the marriage is invalid, for R. Jehudah that it is valid. Both will agree that if the groom is interviewed and he insists that he intentionally misused Temple property, then for R. Meïr the marriage is valid, for R. Jehudah it is invalid (Notes 175,177)., Second Tithe she did not intend194No woman wants to be married by produce which she will be obligated to bring to Jerusalem before it can be used. According to the undisputed opinion of R. Eleazar (Kiddushin 2:7:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.7.6">Note 190), the Mishnah must speak of produce which is Second Tithe, not of money for which the tithe was redeemed.. Rebbi Abin said, the sanctified neither he nor she did intend195Nobody wants to start his marriage with a blatant sin.; Second tithe he did intend but she did not194,No woman wants to be married by produce which she will be obligated to bring to Jerusalem before it can be used. According to the undisputed opinion of R. Eleazar (Kiddushin 2:7:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.7.6">Note 190), the Mishnah must speak of produce which is Second Tithe, not of money for which the tithe was redeemed.196In the Kiddushin.53b">Babli, 53b, this opinion is attributed to R. Johanan..
רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פְדָייָה. הֶקְדֵּשׁ מֵזִיד יוֹצֵא לַחוּלִין בְּלֹא פִדְיוֹן. וְהָא תַנֵּי. בִּשְׁגָגָה. פְּרָט לַמֵּזִיד. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר לַחוֹמֶשׁ וּלְקָרְבָּן. הָא לָצֵאת מוֹצִיא. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. מִיעוּט שְׁלָמִים יוֹצְאִין לַחוּלִין בְּלֹא פִדְיוֹן. וְהָא תַנֵּי. מִקָּדְשֵׁי. לֹא כָּל־קָדְשֵׁי. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר לַחוֹמֶשׁ וּלְקָרְבָּן. הָא לָצֵאת מוֹצִיא. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: Intentionally desecrated Temple property becomes profane without redemption197This explains why for R. Meïr a marriage effected by intentional misuse of Temple property is valid.. But did we not state198Sifra Wayyiqra Parašah 11(8), (Pesachim.32b">Babli Pesaḥim 32b) referring to Leviticus.5.15">Lev. 5:15 dealing with larceny committed with sacrifices or Temple property, explicitly restricted to unintentional sin.: “In error,” that excludes intention? That you say for the additional fifth177He extends the rules of Leviticus.5.14-16">Lev. 5:14–16 to all Temple property. The inadvertent use of Temple property constitutes larceny which requires a reparation offering and restitution in the amount of 125%, but the object taken becomes profane and, therefore, can be used as marriage gift. and the sacrifice, but profaned it is199Since intentional sin is excluded from expiation by sacrifice, the rules of Leviticus.5.14-16">Lev. 5:14–16 do not apply.. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The excluded well-being offerings200Well-being offerings, which remain the property of the donor and of which only a small part is given to the altar and the priests, is excluded from the rules of Leviticus.5.14-16">Lev. 5:14–16, as will be explained immediately following. become profane without redemption. But did we not state201Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 20(1), referring to Leviticus.5.15">Lev. 5:15, speaking of larceny committed “from the Eternal’s sancta”. In rabbinic interpretation, prefix מ or מִן always implies “some, not all”. In this case, the verse is taken to refer to “the Eternal’s sancta”, no part of which is private property. This excludes well-being and other simple sacrifices but includes sacrifices given to the priests since these offerings always remain Heaven’s property (cf. Kiddushin 2:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.7.1">Note 169).: “From the sancta,” not all sancta? That you say for the additional fifth and the sacrifice, but profaned it is199Since intentional sin is excluded from expiation by sacrifice, the rules of Leviticus.5.14-16">Lev. 5:14–16 do not apply..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד מִגְדַּל עֵדֶר לְכָל־רוּחַ. רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה אָמַר. לָבֹא בִדְמֵיהֶם שָׁנוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְאוֹמְרִין לוֹ לָאָדָם. צֵא וּמְעוֹל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים. אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת הִילְּכוּ בָהֶן אַחַר הָרוֹב. אִם רוֹב זְכָרִים עוֹלוֹת. וְאִם רוֹב נְקֵיבוֹת זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. וְאֵין הַשְּׁלָמִים בָאִין מִן הַזְּכָרִים וּמִן הַנְּקֵיבוֹת. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. מוֹצִיאָן לַחוּלִין וְחוֹזֵר וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן עוֹלוֹת. וְקַשְׁיָא. יֵשׁ חַטָּאת קְרֵיבָה עוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא עַל הַמּוֹתָרוֹת שֶׁיִיקָּֽרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. וְאֵין זֶה מֵזִיד. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁתְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא אֵין זֶה מֵזִיד. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן. תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא עַל הָאוֹבְדוֹת שֶׁיִקָּֽרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת. There202Mishnah Šeqalim 7:4. The present paragraph has a parallel there in Halakhah 7:6 of which, however, it is not a direct copy., we have stated: “An animal that is found as from Jerusalem to Migdal-Eder in every direction203If an animal which is a potential sacrifice (cattle, sheep, or goats) is found ownerless near Jerusalem, one may assume that it was dedicated as sacrifice but escaped from its owner. Elevation offerings must be male (Leviticus.1.2">Lev. 1:2,Leviticus.1.10">10); well-being sacrifices can be of either gender. Most well-being offerings were bought from redemption monies of Second Tithe. The Mishnah precribes that male animals be used for elevation offerings, females for well-being offerings..” The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught for their monetary value204It is impossible to say that a male animal which was found ownerless should be taken as elevation offering since it might have been dedicated as well-being offering. The animal should be redeemed and the redemption money used for an elevation offering. The same argument is given in the Kiddushin.55a">Babli, 55a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices205It is impossible to redeem an unblemished dedicated animal (Leviticus.27.10">Lev. 27:10). Any redemption is both sinful and ineffective. R. Hoshiah’s rule seems to be impossible.? But in every case206The animal itself should be used for what was its most probable dedication. they followed the majority of cases: If most are male, they are elevation offerings, if most are female, well-being offerings. But do not well-being offerings come from males and females? What does he do? He redeems them as profane and then turns them into elevation offerings207One follows both R. Hoshaia and R. Joḥanan. The animal is first redeemed and then rededicated; this precludes the sin of freeing a dedicated animal and removes the prior specific dedication. (In the Kiddushin.55b">Babli, 55b, R. Joḥanan holds that the redemption of unblemished animals is never possible. He requires that the aninmal be put out to graze until it develops a blemish; then it can be redeemed and the proceeds used for another sacrifice.). This is difficult. Can a purification offering208This reading is unacceptable since purification offerings are female (Leviticus.4.28">Lev. 4:28,Leviticus.4.32">32). One must read: “well-being offering.” This argument is missing in Šeqalim. become an elevation offering? Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is a stipulation by the court that all redundant animals should be brought as elevation offerings209Therefore, it is part of every dedication of any male animal that, if not needed for its original purpose, it should be used as an elevation offering.. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Ḥama, is that not intentional [misuse]? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional [misuse]. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, as you say there, it is a stipulation by the court that lost animals should be brought as elevation offerings210It is also part of every dedication of any male animal that, if lost and then found by another person, it should become an elevation offering..