ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 55
KIDUSHIN 51-55 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) The Mishnah in Shekalim rules that if one finds an animal at a distance
equivalent to Migdal Eider from Yerushalayim and does not know its status,
one must treat it as if it was Kodshim - because the majority of animals
that come from Yehushalayim are Kodshim.
(b) One considers a male animal an Olah, and a female - a Shelamim.
(c) We ask how one knows that a male is an Olah, seeing as it could also be
a Shelamim. Rebbi Oshaya - establishes our Mishnah when someone wants to
remedy the problem and bring the value of the animal as whatever Korban it
was. The author of the Mishnah must then be Rebbi Meir - who holds Hekdesh
(d) He would then need to bring two sets of money and declare that if the
found animal is an Olah, then its Kedushah should be transferred on to one
set of money and the other set he hereby designates for a Shalmei Nedavah;
whereas if it is a Shelamim, then the reverse will take effect.
(a) According to the Mishnah in Me'ilah, there are only two things belonging
to Hekdesh that do not go out to Chulin when they are used. One of them is
an animal that is designated as a Korban - which does not go out to Chulin
without a blemish.
(b) The second thing is a K'li Sha'res.
(c) According to what we have just learned, if two people rode on an animal
that is designated as a Korban, or drank from a Kos of Hekdesh (one after
the other) - both of them would be Mo'el.
(d) We reconcile this Mishnah with Rebbi Meir, who, we just concluded, holds
that Hekdesh does go out to Chulin be'Meizid - by establishing the author as
(a) Despite the fact that according to Rebbi Yehudah, 'Hekdesh be'Shogeg
Mis'chalel' does not extend to Kedushas ha'Guf, according to Rebbi Meir by
Meizid it does - because his specific intention to take it out of Hekdesh
(which does not exist according to Rebbi Yehudah) is effective.
(b) Rebbi Meir said his Din ('Hekdesh be'Meizid Mis'chalel') by Kodshei
Bedek ha'Bayis, which is Kodshei Kodshim. Rebbi Ya'akov explains that Rebbi
Oshaya extends it to the Shelamim in the Mishnah in Shekalim, which are
Kodshim Kalim - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (if Kodshei Kodshim go out to Chulin,
how much more so Kodshim Kalim)?
(c) Rebbi Chama bar Ukva Amar Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina explained Rebbi
Meir like this, substantiating Rebbi Ya'akov's explanation.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan's problem with Rebbi Oshaya's explanation (requiring the
finder to transfer the Kedushah of the found animal on to money to bring as
an Olah and a Shelamim) is - that it is forbidden to redeem unblemished
Kodshei Mi zbe'ach.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im ba'Beheimah ha'Temei'ah, u'Fadah
be'Erkecha" - that one may only redeem Kodshei Mizbe'ach once they are
(c) He therefore adds to Rebbi Oshaya's explanation - that the finder first
waits until the animal receives a permanent blemish before redeeming the
animal on the money in the manner that we explained.
(a) We learned above that if he found a male animal, he redeemed it on an
Olah, as well as a Shelamim. We *do* in fact, contend with the possibility
that it is a Todah - and he has to bring an additional animal together with
the forty loaves.
(b) But we *do not* contend with the possibility that it is ...
1. ... an Asham Gezeilos, Me'ilos or Shifchah Charufah - because these
Ashamos consist of a ram (in its second year), whereas the animal that he
found was in its year.
(c) We cannot answer that he does indeed bring an Asham with a fourth set of
money, like we answered by Todah - because one cannot bring a voluntary
Asham (and, as we learned earlier, the money is designated on condition, and
might be use to purchase a voluntary Korban).
2. ... an Asham Metzora or Nazir - because they are not common.
(d) Nor do we contend with the possibility that it is a Pesach ...
1. ... in its time - because people take great care not to lose their Korban
Pesach (in which case it is not common to find one).
2. ... after its time - because that becomes a Shelamim, which he is already
3. ... a Bechor or Ma'aser Beheimah - because these cannot be redeemed, but
are eaten as Chulin when they become blemished, which is precisely what he
does with them anyway.
(a) We also learned that if he finds a female animal, he redeems it on a
Shelamim. We do not contend with the possibility that it is ...
1. ... a Chatas - because a Chatas consists of a goat in its first year,
whereas the one that he found was in its second year.
(b) Chananya bar Chachinai in a Beraisa states that if one did find a female
animal in its first year, it is a Chatas. The problem with this statement
is - that it might be a Shelamim, and as for redeeming it and bringing a
Chatas with the money, one cannot bring a Chatas Nedavah (as we just
2. ... a Chatas that has already entered its second year - because it is not
(c) So what he really said was - one gives it the Din of a Chatas.
(d) Practically, this means - that it must be set aside (possibly inside an
archway [known as a Kiypah]) and deprived of food until it dies.