OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses a case in which a person consecrated all of his possessions to Hekdesh. Included among his possessions were both male and female animals. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue about what is done with the animals. Rebbi Eliezer says that both the male and female animals must be sold. The males are sold to be used as Olos, and the females are sold to be used as Shelamim, and the money received for them goes to Bedek ha'Bayis. Rebbi Yehoshua says that the males themselves are offered 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).

Rebbi Papyas says that he heard that the Halachah follows both opinions, in two different cases. In a case in which a person consecrates his property "b'Ferush" ("explicitly"), the Halachah follows Rebbi Eliezer; all of the animals are sold and the money is used for Bedek ha'Bayis. In a case in which a person consecrates his property "Stam" (ambiguously, without specifying), the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehoshua; the animals (or their value) are used for Olos and the rest of his possessions go to Bedek ha'Bayis.

What does the Mishnah mean when it refers to a case of "Makdish b'Ferush" and a case of "Makdish Stam"?

(a) The BARTENURA and the TIKLIN CHADTIN explain that "Makdish b'Ferush" means that one mentions explicitly "my possessions and my animals" when he consecrates his possessions to Hekdesh. He makes special mention of his animals in the same declaration in which he consecrates the rest of his possessions. Since he does not differentiate between the type of Hekdesh that he intends his animals to be and the type that he intends his other possessions to be, they all become the same type of Hekdesh and are given to Bedek ha'Bayis.

In contrast, when one is "Makdish Stam," he does not mention his animals but merely says that he consecrates "all of my possessions." In such a case it is assumed that his intention is to earmark each type of object for the particular part of Hekdesh for which it is most 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 Rebbi Yehoshua agrees that his animals (i.e. their value) go to Bedek ha'Bayis, as Rebbi Eliezer says.

In contrast, when one is "Makdish Stam," he says only that he consecrates all of his possessions and he does not specify for what purpose they are Hekdesh. In this case, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue. The Halachah follows Rebbi Yehoshua, and the animals are used for Korbanos and the other possessions go to Bedek ha'Bayis. Accordingly, Rebbi Papyas rules like Rebbi Yehoshua, and he argues with Rebbi Akiva who rules like Rebbi Eliezer.

QUESTION: The Gemara cites an argument that involves the laws of Temurah. Everyone agrees that when a person consecrates a female animal to be a Korban Olah, Pesach, or Asham, it cannot be offered because those types of Korbanos must be male animals. Nevertheless, does the female animal become sanctified such that it can make a Temurah?

The Tana Kama says that the female animal becomes sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf and it can make a Temurah. Rebbi Shimon says that the female animal can make a Temurah only when one consecrated it to become an Olah, but not when one consecrated 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.)

Rebbi Yochanan explains the reasoning of Rebbi Shimon. When one consecrates a female animal to be an Olah, it becomes sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf (and can make a Temurah) because a female animal can become an Olah in one instance: a female bird can be made into an Olas ha'Of, a bird-Olah. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah argues and says that the female animal does not have Kedushas ha'Guf, because it cannot become an Olas Behemah, an animal-Olah.

Later (end of 12b), the Gemara points out that Rebbi Yochanan contradicts himself. In one statement, he explains Rebbi Shimon's opinion and says that a female animal may be used as an Olas ha'Of, and that is why a female animal is sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf when one consecrates it as an Olah. The Gemara says, "Here, however, Rebbi Yochanan says differently."

Where does Rebbi Yochanan say differently? To what other statement of Rebbi Yochanan does the Gemara refer, in which he contradicts his earlier statement?

(a) The TALMID SHEL RABEINU SHMUEL BAR SHNEUR suggests that the Gemara's question refers to the contradiction between the statement of Rebbi Yochanan (in which he explains the view of Rebbi Shimon) and the statement of Reish Lakish, which the Gemara quoted a few lines earlier. (The YEFEI EINAYIM suggests that the quote of the Gemara there should be in the name of Rebbi Yochanan instead of Reish Lakish. According to the Talmid Shel Rabeinu Shmuel bar Shneur, who does not emend the text, the Gemara assumes that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Reish Lakish's statement there.)

Reish Lakish explains Rebbi Elazar, the third opinion in the Mishnah (on 12a), who says that if one consecrates all of his possessions and among them are birds that are fit for Korbanos, the birds must be sold to be used as Korbanos and the money received for them is used to buy Olos of animals. Reish Lakish explains that Rebbi Elazar's reason is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv which states that when a person makes an object Hekdesh but does not specify what type of Hekdesh it should be, the item must be used for a Korban Behemah (an animal offering) and not for a bird offering.

This ruling contradicts Rebbi Yochanan, who says that a female animal is sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf when one consecrates it as an Olah, because a female could be used for an Olah in the case of bird offerings. From his statement it is evident that Rebbi Yochanan equates birds with animals. However, the words of Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah imply that when a person consecrates his possessions and does not specify what type of Hekdesh, he does not consecrate his birds with Kedushas ha'Guf, but he does consecrate his animals with Kedushas ha'Guf. (That is, in contrast to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Elazar distinguishes between birds and animals.)

How is this evident from the words of Rebbi Elazar (as interpreted by Reish Lakish)? If the person intended to consecrate his birds with Kedushas ha'Guf, then he would not be able to sell them to be used as Olos (because objects that have Kedushas ha'Guf which become disqualified from being offered on the Mizbe'ach cannot be offered on the Mizbe'ach even when 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 never consecrated the birds with Kedushas ha'Guf, but only with Kedushas Damim, unlike his other animals. Hence, the birds may be sold and offered as a Korban. Accordingly, Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah, according to Reish Lakish's explanation of his opinion, contradicts the statement of Rebbi Yochanan.

The Gemara answers that while a person normally does consider birds and animals to be in the same category, a person who consecrates all of his possessions does not consecrate his birds with Kedushas ha'Guf. The reason for this is because he knows that the Torah says that his birds will become disqualified if he gives them Kedushas ha'Guf and they will not be able to be offered as bird-offerings, and they also will not be redeemable. Therefore, when he consecrates them, he gives them only the Kedushah of Kedushas Damim.

(b) RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY explains that when the Gemara poses the contradiction on Rebbi Yochanan's statement, it refers to Rebbi Yochanan's explanation of Rebbi Shimon. The Gemara's question is based on the opinion of Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah. Rebbi Yochanan says that since a female animal is fit to be an Olah offering when it is a bird, it is considered sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf even when one designates it as an Olas Behemah. That is, Rebbi Yochanan maintains that as long as an animal is fit to be offered as a different type of Korban, it becomes sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf even though it is not fit to be offered as the Korban for which it was actually designated.

Rav Kanievsky asserts that Rebbi Yochanan maintains that even Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, who argues with Rebbi Shimon, would agree in principle with this concept. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah argues with Rebbi Shimon and says that such an animal does not become holy with Kedushas ha'Guf, only because a female animal is never fit for this type of Olah (the one for which it was designated), but only for a different type of Olah. In a case in which the animal is inherently fit for the particular type of Olah for which it was designated, but is disqualified for some external, tangential reason that applies only in this case, even Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah agrees that the animal has Kedushas ha'Guf. This is the exact case in which Rebbi Elazar says that the bird does not have Kedushas ha'Guf.

Hence, the question on Rebbi Yochanan's statement is from Rebbi Elazar's opinion in the Mishnah. Rebbi Elazar says that if one consecrates his possessions and there are birds among them, those birds do not have Kedushas ha'Guf and, therefore, they are to be sold for use as Olos and the money received for them is to be used for Olos. Even though a bird normally may be offered as an Olah, the person who consecrated his possessions may not offer it as an Olah because now it is disqualified (for a tangential reason) due to the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv which teaches that one who consecrates his possessions "Stam" must offer them as an Olas Behemah. The birds, rather, have Kedushas Damim. This clearly is the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, because if he maintained that the birds have Kedushas ha'Guf, then they would not be fit to be used for anything -- they could not be offered 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. Rebbi Elazar clearly maintains that an animal that is not fit to be offered for the Korban for which it was designated but is only disqualified for a tangential reason -- and is fit to be offered as another Korban -- does not become sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf. This contradicts Rebbi Yochanan.

The Gemara answers that Rebbi Yochanan's rule (that an animal that is fit to be offered as another Korban has Kedushas ha'Guf) applies only when another condition is fulfilled. Not only must the animal be fit to be offered as another Korban, but it must be redeemable such that its value (the money paid for it) can be offered 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 object attain the status of Kedushas ha'Guf. A bird will never have Kedushas ha'Guf (when it was sanctified for a Korban for which it is unfit) even though it is fit to be offered as a Korban under other circumstances, because it cannot be redeemed.

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

The Tiklin Chadtin explains the Gemara's answer similarly to the way Rav Chaim Kanievsky explains it. In the Gemara later (13a) Rebbi Yochanan's statement is not intended as a general rule that an animal has Kedushas Damim whenever it is unfit for the Korban for which it was designated. Rather, Rebbi Yochanan means that such an animal sometimes has Kedushas Damim when it is unfit, such as in the case of Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah in which a person consecrated his possessions and did not specify for what type of Hekdesh. In that case, the bird has Kedushas Damim, because otherwise it would not be fit at all to be offered as an Olah: not only could it not be offered as an Olah itself (because of the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv), but even its value could not be offered 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, the value of which can be offered as an Olah, Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Shimon that it has Kedushas ha'Guf since it is a type of animal that is fit to be offered as another type of Olah.