Study Sanhedrin folio 112B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
וההקדשות שבה יפדו כו׳. תנו רבנן: היו בה קדשי קדשים, קדשי מזבח – ימותו, קדשי בדק הבית – יפדו, ותרומות – ירקבו, ומעשר שני וכתבי הקדש – יגנזו. רבי שמעון אומר: ״בהמתה״ – ולא בהמת בכור ומעשר, ״שללה״ – פרט לכסף הקדש וכסף מעשר.
§ The Mishnah teaches: And the consecrated property in it must be redeemed. A baraita states (Tosefta 14:5): If there were offerings of the most sacred order in it, if they were animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, they should die; one causes their death. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance must be redeemed, and terumot must be left to decay, and second tithe and sacred scrolls must be interred. R' Shimon says: That is not so; rather, the term: “Its animals” (Deuteronomy 13:16), serves to exclude a firstborn animal and animal tithe, as they never belonged to the idolatrous city. The term: “Its spoils” (Deuteronomy 13:17), serves to exclude consecrated money and tithe money.
אמר מר: היו בה קדשי קדשים, קדשי מזבח – ימותו. ואמאי ימותו? ירעו עד שיסתאבו, וימכרו, ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה.
The Talmud proceeds to analyze the baraita. The Master said: If there were offerings of the most sacred order in it, if they were animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, they should die. The Talmud asks: But why should they die? They should graze until they become unfit, and then they should be sold and their value should be allocated for communal gift offerings.
רבי יוחנן אמר: ״זבח רשעים תועבה״. ריש לקיש אמר: ממון בעלים הוא. והכא בקדשים שחייב באחריותן, ורבי שמעון היא דאמר: ממון בעלים הוא.
R' Yoḥanan says: They should die, as it is written: “The offering of the wicked is an abomination” (Proverbs 21:27), and it is unacceptable for sacrifice on the altar. Reish Lakish says: They should die because the animal is the property of its owner and is not exclusively consecrated property. And the reason it is considered the property of the owner is that here, the tanna is referring to offerings with regard to which one bears financial responsibility for their replacement. That responsibility renders the status of these consecrated animals like that of his property. And this is in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon, who says: An offering with regard to which one bears financial responsibility for its replacement is the property of its owner.