Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

September 28, 2023 | 讬状讙 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Kiddushin 46

Today’s daf is sponsored by Glenda Sacks in honor of Sari Esserman’s birthday and in memory of Sari’s beloved mother.

Today’s daf is sponsored by The Hadran Zoom Family in honor of the marriage of Shirli Noiman to Amitai Levy, the son of our co-learner, Dahlia Levy. “讘讬谉 讻住讛 诇注砖讜专, we continue to learn and celebrate! Mazel tov!”

A minor who was betrothed and married to a kohen without her father鈥檚 consent, can she eat truma? How is this case different from the previous cases? A man who betrothed a woman with dates and with each date he gave her, said “You will be betrothed to me with this date, be betrothed to me with this date,” if one of them is worth a pruta, it is a valid betrothal. If he said, “You will be betrothed to me with this date and this date and this date,” then if there is a value of a pruta between all the dates, she is betrothed. If she ate each date as he gave it to her, there needs to be the value of a pruta in one of them. This last ruling is said about the first case or about the second case (“be betrothed to me with this date, be betrothed to me with this date,” or “with this date and this date and this date”). If one betroths his sister, do we assume he gave her the money as a deposit (and she must return it) or as a gift (and she does not have to return it)? Rav and Shmuel disagree. A difficulty is raised against Shmuuel from a Mishna in Halla 2:5, but is resolved.

谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转诇诪讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞注砖讛 讘讛 诪注砖讛 讬转讜诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘


Rather, the statement of the student seems reasonable. Although Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was like a student compared with Rav Huna, his opinion makes more sense. Rava said: What is the reason of Rav Huna? Since an action was done with her that renders her like an orphan in the lifetime of her father, she is considered married and may partake of teruma. The fact that her father ignored both her betrothal and her marriage indicates that he has waived his rights to control whom she marries. She is therefore considered like an orphan, whose marriage is valid with her own consent.


讗讬转诪专 拽讟谞讛 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讗讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讘讬谉 讗讘讬讛 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注讻讘 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘 讗住讬 讗诐 诪讗谉 讬诪讗谉 讗讘讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讛 讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 诪讗谉 讬诪讗谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


It was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed the following issue: In the case of a minor girl who became betrothed without her father鈥檚 consent, Rav says: Either she or her father is able to prevent the betrothal from taking effect. And Rav Asi says: Her father can prevent it but not she, since she initially agreed. Rav Huna raised an objection to Rav Asi, and some say it was 岣yya bar Rav who raised an objection to Rav Asi: The baraita states in the case of a seduced woman: 鈥淚f her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins鈥 (Exodus 22:16). The Sages expounded: I have derived only the halakha that her father can refuse to give her to the seducer in marriage; from where do I derive that she herself can also refuse? The verse states: 鈥淚f he refuses [ma鈥檈n yema鈥檈n].鈥 The repetition of the verb indicates that the right of refusal exists in any case. Despite the fact that she was seduced, she can change her mind and say that she does not want to marry him.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诇讗 转讬讝诇讜 讘转专 讗讬驻讻讗 讬讻讜诇 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诇讻讜 讻讙讜谉 砖驻讬转讛 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 驻讬转讛 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 拽专讗 讘注讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讜诪专 砖诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 讻诪驻讜转讛


Rav said to those who tried to offer support for his opinion: Do not go after the opposite, i.e., do not cite a proof from a source that could be understood in the opposite manner. Rav Asi can answer your argument by claiming that the baraita is referring to a case where he initially seduced her not for the sake of marriage. Their initial act of intercourse was not performed in order to effect betrothal, so they are not betrothed. The Gemara questions this: In the case of a seduction that is not for the sake of marriage, is a verse required to teach that she can refuse to marry him? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: It serves to say that if she refuses to marry him despite her father鈥檚 consent to the match, the seducer nevertheless pays the fine like a standard case of a seduced woman. The obligation to pay the fine is not only for a case where her father refuses to let her marry the seducer.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞讬谞讗 诪讛专 讬诪讛专谞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗诐 驻讬转讛 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 爪专讬讻讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诇讚注转 讗讘讬讛


Rav Yosef said to him: If so, if the baraita is discussing a case where intercourse was not performed to effect betrothal, this is what we learned in a baraita with regard to a seduced woman: 鈥淗e shall pay a dowry for her to be his wife鈥 (Exodus 22:15). This teaches that she requires betrothal from him. And if the verse is speaking of one who seduced her for the sake of marriage, why do I need betrothal? The act of intercourse can serve as the betrothal. Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case where he seduced her not for the sake of marriage. Abaye said to him: Even if he seduced her for the sake of marriage, she requires an additional betrothal with her father鈥檚 consent, since she is a minor and became betrothed without it.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘转诪专讛 讝讜 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讝讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讗诐 讬砖 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讘讻讜诇谉 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讬转讛 讗讜讻诇转 专讗砖讜谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


MISHNA: In the case of one who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with this date, and adds: Be betrothed to me with that one, then if one of the dates is worth one peruta she is betrothed, but if not, she is not betrothed, since he mentioned betrothal in connection with each date. But if he said: Be betrothed to me with this one, and with this one, and with this one, then even if all of them together are worth one peruta she is betrothed, but if not, she is not betrothed. If he gave her dates with the intention of betrothing her with them, and she was eating them one by one as she received them, she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth one peruta.


讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讛转拽讚砖讬 讛转拽讚砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚


GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that it is only if he says: Be betrothed to me, be betrothed to me, in connection with each date that each act of betrothal is considered distinct? Rabba says: It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said in the context of the laws of deposit oaths: He is never liable to bring more than one offering unless he will state an expression of an oath to each and every one.


讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讻讜诇谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讻讜壮 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讜讻诇转 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞转 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讝讜 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗


The mishna teaches: If one said: With this one, and with this one, and with this one, she is betrothed even if all of them together are worth one peruta. The mishna subsequently states that if she was eating the dates one by one, she is betrothed only if one of them is worth one peruta. The Gemara asks: To which clause of the mishna is the case of the woman eating the dates one by one referring? If we say it is referring to the first clause of the mishna, when he betrothed her separately with each date, why would the mishna specifically state that she ate them? Even if she placed them down without eating them the same halakha would also apply, as he said: Be betrothed to me with this date, so each date must be worth one peruta. Rather, it must be referring to the latter clause, when he said that he is betrothing her with all the dates. In such a situation, if she ate them one by one, she is betrothed only if one of them is worth one peruta.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 讜讛讗 诪诇讜讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讬 砖诇讞谉 讜讛专讬 讘砖专 讜讛专讬 住讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诇谞讜 诇讗讻讜诇


The Gemara proceeds to ask: And is she betrothed even if the first date is worth one peruta? But until he has given her all the dates for the betrothal, each individual date is considered to be a loan, because if he were to retract his betrothal before giving her all of the dates she would have to return them to him, and one cannot betroth a woman by giving her a loan. By the time he finishes giving her the dates, the first one has already been eaten, so it is not able to effect the betrothal. With regard to this difficulty Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a table, and there is meat, and there is a knife, and we have nothing to eat. In other words, everything in the mishna is explicit yet we cannot explain it.


专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇注讜诇诐 讗专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪谞讞转 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讬拽专讘讗 讛谞讬讬转讛 讗讬诪讗 讙诪专讛 讜诪拽谞讬讗 谞驻砖讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rav and Shmuel both said: Actually, the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where one betrothed the woman with each date separately, and it is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. The mishna stated, for stylistic reasons, a halakha that it did not need to state, and should be understood as follows: It is not necessary to state the halakha in the case of a woman who placed the dates down, that if one of them is worth one peruta, yes, she is betrothed, and if not, she is not betrothed. But in a case where she was eating them, one might think that since her benefit is immediate, say that she has decided to transfer herself to him by means of that date, although it is worth less than one peruta. The mishna therefore teaches us that she is nevertheless not betrothed.


专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 讜诪讗讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


Rabbi Ami said a different explanation: Actually, the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, where he betrothed her by giving her all of the dates. And what is the meaning of: Unless one of them is worth one peruta? It means: Unless the last of them is worth one peruta. But if one of the other dates is worth one peruta she is not betrothed, since they are considered a loan until all the dates have been given.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 讜驻专讜讟讛 讚注转讛 讗驻专讜讟讛


Rava says: Conclude three conclusions from this statement of Rabbi Ami: Conclude from it that in the case of one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, since she is not betrothed with a date that she has already eaten. And conclude from it that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, her mind is focused on the peruta although the debt is far larger, and she will be betrothed. In the latter case, although the value of the dates she ate was more than the value of the last date, which was merely worth one peruta, she is nevertheless betrothed.


讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪注讜转 讘注诇诪讗 讞讜讝专讬诐


And conclude from it that generally, money that was given for a betrothal that did not take effect is returned. It is not viewed as a gift, but as a loan that must be repaid. This is evident from the fact that all the dates except the last one are considered a loan that must be repaid.


讗讬转诪专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讞讜转讜 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇讛


It was stated: In the case of one who betroths his sister by giving her money, Rav says: The money of the betrothal must be returned by his sister, as this betrothal does not take effect. And Shmuel says: This money is considered to be a gift that she may keep. The Gemara clarifies their respective opinions. Rav says: The money must be returned, since a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give the money to her for the sake of a deposit. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And let him explicitly say to her that he is giving her the money for the sake of a deposit. The Gemara answers: He thought she would not accept it from him.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 住讘专 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗


And Shmuel maintains: The money is considered to be a gift, because a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give the money to her for the sake of a gift. The Gemara again raises a difficulty: And let him explicitly say to her that he is giving it to her for the sake of a gift. The Gemara answers: He thought it would be embarrassing to her and she would refuse to accept the money. He therefore attempted to give it to her by an alternative method.


诪转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 讞诇转讜 拽诪讞 讗讬谞讜 讞诇讛 讜讙讝诇 讘讬讚 讻讛谉 讜讗诪讗讬 讙讝诇 讘讬讚 讻讛谉 谞讬诪讗 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬诐 讞诇讛 拽诪讞 讜谞转谉 诇砖诐 诪转谞讛


Ravina raises an objection from a mishna (岣lla 2:5): In the case of one who separates his 岣lla, the portion of dough that must be given to a priest, from flour, before it has been made into dough, the portion he has separated is not 岣lla. Since the Torah states: 鈥淥f the first of your dough you shall set apart鈥 (Numbers 15:20), 岣lla can be separated only from dough. And if the priest fails to return the flour it is considered stolen property in the priest鈥檚 possession. Ravina asks: And why is it stolen property in the priest鈥檚 possession? In this case too, let us say as Shmuel does: A person knows that one cannot separate 岣lla from flour, and he gave the flour for the sake of a gift.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚谞驻讬拽 讞讜专讘讛 诪讬谞讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 驻讞讜转 诪讞诪砖 专讘注讬诐 拽诪讞 讜讛讗讬 讗诇讬砖 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜拽住讘专 谞转拽谞讛 注讬住转讜 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讘讟讬讘诇讛


The Gemara answers: There it is different. The priest must return the flour because otherwise a ruinous situation may emerge from it. How so? Sometimes the priest has, on his own, less than five-fourths of a kav of flour, i.e., he has less than the amount necessitating the separation of 岣lla, and he also has this flour, which gives him a total of more than five-fourths of a kav, the amount necessitating the separation of 岣lla. He will knead all this flour together and will think his dough has been made ready with regard to 岣lla, since he did not have enough of his own flour to require the separation of 岣lla and he had added flour that had been separated as 岣lla to it. And he will then come to eat it in its untithed state, as the flour he received was not in fact 岣lla. Therefore, the Sages required him to return the flour.


讜讛讗诪专转 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬诐 讞诇讛 拽诪讞 讬讜讚注 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 讞诇讛 拽诪讞 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讚住讘专 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讬专讞讗 讚讻讛谉 讜讟讬专讞讗 讚讻讛谉 讗讞讬诇转讬讛


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that a person knows that one may not separate 岣lla from flour? How can the priest make such an error? The Gemara answers: He knows the halakha but he does not know the reason for the halakha. He knows that one cannot separate 岣lla from flour, but he does not know the reason, as he thinks: What is the reason one may not separate 岣lla from flour? Due to the labor of the priest, i.e., to prevent the priest from having to knead it himself. And as far as the labor of the priest goes, he thinks: I have relinquished the right to have the non-priest knead it for me.


讜转讬讛讜讬 转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 转讗讻诇 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讛 讞诇讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪谉 讛谞拽讜讘 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 转讗讻诇 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专


The Gemara asks a question based on a comparison to a similar case: But why must the priest go to the effort of returning the flour to its owner? Let the separated flour be considered teruma, i.e., 岣lla, by rabbinic law, and it should not be eaten by the priest until he removes 岣lla for it from somewhere else, in order to make it ready to be eaten. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Demai 5:10): If one separated teruma from produce grown in a perforated pot, which is obligated in terumot and tithes by Torah law, for produce that had grown in a non-perforated pot, which is not obligated in terumot and tithes according to Torah law; although the separating of teruma did not take effect, and the putative teruma is still untithed produce, it is considered to be teruma and remains in the possession of the priest, and it may not be eaten until he removes teruma and tithes for it from somewhere else. The same halakha should apply in the case of the 岣lla.


讘转专讬 诪谞讬 爪讗讬转 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 诇讗 爪讗讬转


The Gemara answers: With regard to things that are in two separate containers, the priest will listen. Since the priest is well aware of the difference between a perforated and a non-perforated pot, he will accept the ruling of the Sages to separate teruma an additional time. With regard to something that is in one container, he will not listen. He does not see any difference between receiving flour or dough, and he will not accept the ruling of the Sages to separate 岣lla an additional time. Consequently, they required him to return the flour.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讛谉 诪讬爪转 爪讬讬转 讜拽住讘专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞转拽谞讛 注讬住转讜 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讘讟讬讘诇讗


And if you wish, say that the tanna has a different concern: Actually, a priest will listen even with regard to something in a single container, and the concern is that the prior owner of the flour will think that his dough has been made ready to eat and he will come to eat it in its untithed state.


讜讛讗诪专转 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讞诇讛 拽诪讞 讬讜讚注 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讞诇讛 拽诪讞 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讚住讘专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讬专讞讗 讚讻讛谉 讟讬专讞讗 讚讻讛谉 拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that a person knows that one may not separate 岣lla from flour? The Gemara answers: He knows the halakha but he does not know the reason for the halakha. He knows that one cannot separate 岣lla from flour, but he does not know the reason, as he thinks: What is the reason one may not separate 岣lla from flour? It is due to the labor of the priest. And as far as the labor of the priest goes, he thinks: The priest has accepted that task upon himself.


讜转讬讛讜讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转专讜诐 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 注诇 讛谞拽讜讘 转专讜诪讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转专讜诐 讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘转专讬 诪讗谞讬 爪讗讬转 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 诇讗 爪讗讬转


The Gemara makes a suggestion based on a comparison to a similar case: But let it be teruma, i.e., 岣lla, and he should separate teruma again. Didn鈥檛 we learn a similar idea in a mishna (Demai 5:10): If one separated teruma from produce grown in a non-perforated pot for the produce of a perforated pot, it is teruma by rabbinic law, but he must separate teruma again to render the produce grown in the perforated pot ready to eat. The Gemara answers: We have already established that with regard to things that are in two separate containers, one will listen, but with regard to something that is in one container, one will not listen.


讜诇讗 爪讗讬转 讜讛转谞谉 讛转讜专诐 拽讬砖讜转 讜谞诪爪讗 诪专讛 讗讘讟讬讞 讜谞诪爪讗转 住专讜讞 转专讜诪讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转专讜诐 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转专讜诪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讬讗


The Gemara questions this assumption: And will one not listen to a ruling to separate teruma a second time from a single container? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Terumot 3:1): In the case of one who separated a cucumber as teruma to give to a priest, and that cucumber was found to be so bitter that it was inedible, or if he separated a melon and it was found to be spoiled, his separation is still teruma, but he must separate teruma again? The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is full-fledged teruma by Torah law, and even if he does not listen and separate teruma again, no Torah law will be violated.


诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 诪谞讬谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讘讛专讬诪讻诐 讗转 讞诇讘讜 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 谞砖讬讗讜转 讞讟讗 诇诪讛 诪讻讗谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛


What is the source from which it is extrapolated that it is full-fledged teruma by Torah law? It is from a statement of Rabbi Ilai, for Rabbi Ilai says: From where is it derived that one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, i.e., in order to fulfill the obligation of separating teruma from the high-quality produce, that his teruma is teruma? As it is stated with regard to teruma: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof鈥 (Numbers 18:32). The verse is saying to give the best part as teruma, and one who gives a bad portion has committed a transgression. Nevertheless, the verse indicates that the separated produce is teruma; if it were not sacred as teruma why would one bear a sin? If one鈥檚 action were to no effect, he has not sinned. From here it is derived that if one separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, his teruma is teruma.


讗诪专 专讘讗


Rava said:


  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddushin: 46 – 52 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the law if a man betrothes a woman by telling her he will give her...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 46: The Amoraim Don’t Understand the Mishnah!

A new mishnah: a betrothal via a date (the fruit). But is it worth a perutah? Can the value of...
date rimon date tree

Species Story

While today most people get married using a ring, the Mishnah and the Gemara offer us some more creative options:...

Kiddushin 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 46

谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转诇诪讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞注砖讛 讘讛 诪注砖讛 讬转讜诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘


Rather, the statement of the student seems reasonable. Although Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was like a student compared with Rav Huna, his opinion makes more sense. Rava said: What is the reason of Rav Huna? Since an action was done with her that renders her like an orphan in the lifetime of her father, she is considered married and may partake of teruma. The fact that her father ignored both her betrothal and her marriage indicates that he has waived his rights to control whom she marries. She is therefore considered like an orphan, whose marriage is valid with her own consent.


讗讬转诪专 拽讟谞讛 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讗讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讘讬谉 讗讘讬讛 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注讻讘 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘 讗住讬 讗诐 诪讗谉 讬诪讗谉 讗讘讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讛 讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 诪讗谉 讬诪讗谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


It was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed the following issue: In the case of a minor girl who became betrothed without her father鈥檚 consent, Rav says: Either she or her father is able to prevent the betrothal from taking effect. And Rav Asi says: Her father can prevent it but not she, since she initially agreed. Rav Huna raised an objection to Rav Asi, and some say it was 岣yya bar Rav who raised an objection to Rav Asi: The baraita states in the case of a seduced woman: 鈥淚f her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins鈥 (Exodus 22:16). The Sages expounded: I have derived only the halakha that her father can refuse to give her to the seducer in marriage; from where do I derive that she herself can also refuse? The verse states: 鈥淚f he refuses [ma鈥檈n yema鈥檈n].鈥 The repetition of the verb indicates that the right of refusal exists in any case. Despite the fact that she was seduced, she can change her mind and say that she does not want to marry him.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诇讗 转讬讝诇讜 讘转专 讗讬驻讻讗 讬讻讜诇 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诇讻讜 讻讙讜谉 砖驻讬转讛 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 驻讬转讛 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 拽专讗 讘注讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讜诪专 砖诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 讻诪驻讜转讛


Rav said to those who tried to offer support for his opinion: Do not go after the opposite, i.e., do not cite a proof from a source that could be understood in the opposite manner. Rav Asi can answer your argument by claiming that the baraita is referring to a case where he initially seduced her not for the sake of marriage. Their initial act of intercourse was not performed in order to effect betrothal, so they are not betrothed. The Gemara questions this: In the case of a seduction that is not for the sake of marriage, is a verse required to teach that she can refuse to marry him? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: It serves to say that if she refuses to marry him despite her father鈥檚 consent to the match, the seducer nevertheless pays the fine like a standard case of a seduced woman. The obligation to pay the fine is not only for a case where her father refuses to let her marry the seducer.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞讬谞讗 诪讛专 讬诪讛专谞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗诐 驻讬转讛 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 爪专讬讻讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诇讚注转 讗讘讬讛


Rav Yosef said to him: If so, if the baraita is discussing a case where intercourse was not performed to effect betrothal, this is what we learned in a baraita with regard to a seduced woman: 鈥淗e shall pay a dowry for her to be his wife鈥 (Exodus 22:15). This teaches that she requires betrothal from him. And if the verse is speaking of one who seduced her for the sake of marriage, why do I need betrothal? The act of intercourse can serve as the betrothal. Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case where he seduced her not for the sake of marriage. Abaye said to him: Even if he seduced her for the sake of marriage, she requires an additional betrothal with her father鈥檚 consent, since she is a minor and became betrothed without it.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘转诪专讛 讝讜 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讝讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讗诐 讬砖 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讘讻讜诇谉 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讬转讛 讗讜讻诇转 专讗砖讜谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


MISHNA: In the case of one who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with this date, and adds: Be betrothed to me with that one, then if one of the dates is worth one peruta she is betrothed, but if not, she is not betrothed, since he mentioned betrothal in connection with each date. But if he said: Be betrothed to me with this one, and with this one, and with this one, then even if all of them together are worth one peruta she is betrothed, but if not, she is not betrothed. If he gave her dates with the intention of betrothing her with them, and she was eating them one by one as she received them, she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth one peruta.


讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讛转拽讚砖讬 讛转拽讚砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚


GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that it is only if he says: Be betrothed to me, be betrothed to me, in connection with each date that each act of betrothal is considered distinct? Rabba says: It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said in the context of the laws of deposit oaths: He is never liable to bring more than one offering unless he will state an expression of an oath to each and every one.


讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讻讜诇谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讻讜壮 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讜讻诇转 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞转 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讝讜 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗


The mishna teaches: If one said: With this one, and with this one, and with this one, she is betrothed even if all of them together are worth one peruta. The mishna subsequently states that if she was eating the dates one by one, she is betrothed only if one of them is worth one peruta. The Gemara asks: To which clause of the mishna is the case of the woman eating the dates one by one referring? If we say it is referring to the first clause of the mishna, when he betrothed her separately with each date, why would the mishna specifically state that she ate them? Even if she placed them down without eating them the same halakha would also apply, as he said: Be betrothed to me with this date, so each date must be worth one peruta. Rather, it must be referring to the latter clause, when he said that he is betrothing her with all the dates. In such a situation, if she ate them one by one, she is betrothed only if one of them is worth one peruta.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 讜讛讗 诪诇讜讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讬 砖诇讞谉 讜讛专讬 讘砖专 讜讛专讬 住讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诇谞讜 诇讗讻讜诇


The Gemara proceeds to ask: And is she betrothed even if the first date is worth one peruta? But until he has given her all the dates for the betrothal, each individual date is considered to be a loan, because if he were to retract his betrothal before giving her all of the dates she would have to return them to him, and one cannot betroth a woman by giving her a loan. By the time he finishes giving her the dates, the first one has already been eaten, so it is not able to effect the betrothal. With regard to this difficulty Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a table, and there is meat, and there is a knife, and we have nothing to eat. In other words, everything in the mishna is explicit yet we cannot explain it.


专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇注讜诇诐 讗专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪谞讞转 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讬拽专讘讗 讛谞讬讬转讛 讗讬诪讗 讙诪专讛 讜诪拽谞讬讗 谞驻砖讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rav and Shmuel both said: Actually, the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where one betrothed the woman with each date separately, and it is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. The mishna stated, for stylistic reasons, a halakha that it did not need to state, and should be understood as follows: It is not necessary to state the halakha in the case of a woman who placed the dates down, that if one of them is worth one peruta, yes, she is betrothed, and if not, she is not betrothed. But in a case where she was eating them, one might think that since her benefit is immediate, say that she has decided to transfer herself to him by means of that date, although it is worth less than one peruta. The mishna therefore teaches us that she is nevertheless not betrothed.


专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 讜诪讗讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


Rabbi Ami said a different explanation: Actually, the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, where he betrothed her by giving her all of the dates. And what is the meaning of: Unless one of them is worth one peruta? It means: Unless the last of them is worth one peruta. But if one of the other dates is worth one peruta she is not betrothed, since they are considered a loan until all the dates have been given.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 讜驻专讜讟讛 讚注转讛 讗驻专讜讟讛


Rava says: Conclude three conclusions from this statement of Rabbi Ami: Conclude from it that in the case of one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, since she is not betrothed with a date that she has already eaten. And conclude from it that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, her mind is focused on the peruta although the debt is far larger, and she will be betrothed. In the latter case, although the value of the dates she ate was more than the value of the last date, which was merely worth one peruta, she is nevertheless betrothed.


讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪注讜转 讘注诇诪讗 讞讜讝专讬诐


And conclude from it that generally, money that was given for a betrothal that did not take effect is returned. It is not viewed as a gift, but as a loan that must be repaid. This is evident from the fact that all the dates except the last one are considered a loan that must be repaid.


讗讬转诪专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讞讜转讜 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇讛


It was stated: In the case of one who betroths his sister by giving her money, Rav says: The money of the betrothal must be returned by his sister, as this betrothal does not take effect. And Shmuel says: This money is considered to be a gift that she may keep. The Gemara clarifies their respective opinions. Rav says: The money must be returned, since a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give the money to her for the sake of a deposit. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And let him explicitly say to her that he is giving her the money for the sake of a deposit. The Gemara answers: He thought she would not accept it from him.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 住讘专 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗


And Shmuel maintains: The money is considered to be a gift, because a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give the money to her for the sake of a gift. The Gemara again raises a difficulty: And let him explicitly say to her that he is giving it to her for the sake of a gift. The Gemara answers: He thought it would be embarrassing to her and she would refuse to accept the money. He therefore attempted to give it to her by an alternative method.


诪转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 讞诇转讜 拽诪讞 讗讬谞讜 讞诇讛 讜讙讝诇 讘讬讚 讻讛谉 讜讗诪讗讬 讙讝诇 讘讬讚 讻讛谉 谞讬诪讗 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬诐 讞诇讛 拽诪讞 讜谞转谉 诇砖诐 诪转谞讛


Ravina raises an objection from a mishna (岣lla 2:5): In the case of one who separates his 岣lla, the portion of dough that must be given to a priest, from flour, before it has been made into dough, the portion he has separated is not 岣lla. Since the Torah states: 鈥淥f the first of your dough you shall set apart鈥 (Numbers 15:20), 岣lla can be separated only from dough. And if the priest fails to return the flour it is considered stolen property in the priest鈥檚 possession. Ravina asks: And why is it stolen property in the priest鈥檚 possession? In this case too, let us say as Shmuel does: A person knows that one cannot separate 岣lla from flour, and he gave the flour for the sake of a gift.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚谞驻讬拽 讞讜专讘讛 诪讬谞讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 驻讞讜转 诪讞诪砖 专讘注讬诐 拽诪讞 讜讛讗讬 讗诇讬砖 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜拽住讘专 谞转拽谞讛 注讬住转讜 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讘讟讬讘诇讛


The Gemara answers: There it is different. The priest must return the flour because otherwise a ruinous situation may emerge from it. How so? Sometimes the priest has, on his own, less than five-fourths of a kav of flour, i.e., he has less than the amount necessitating the separation of 岣lla, and he also has this flour, which gives him a total of more than five-fourths of a kav, the amount necessitating the separation of 岣lla. He will knead all this flour together and will think his dough has been made ready with regard to 岣lla, since he did not have enough of his own flour to require the separation of 岣lla and he had added flour that had been separated as 岣lla to it. And he will then come to eat it in its untithed state, as the flour he received was not in fact 岣lla. Therefore, the Sages required him to return the flour.


讜讛讗诪专转 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬诐 讞诇讛 拽诪讞 讬讜讚注 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 讞诇讛 拽诪讞 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讚住讘专 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讬专讞讗 讚讻讛谉 讜讟讬专讞讗 讚讻讛谉 讗讞讬诇转讬讛


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that a person knows that one may not separate 岣lla from flour? How can the priest make such an error? The Gemara answers: He knows the halakha but he does not know the reason for the halakha. He knows that one cannot separate 岣lla from flour, but he does not know the reason, as he thinks: What is the reason one may not separate 岣lla from flour? Due to the labor of the priest, i.e., to prevent the priest from having to knead it himself. And as far as the labor of the priest goes, he thinks: I have relinquished the right to have the non-priest knead it for me.


讜转讬讛讜讬 转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 转讗讻诇 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讛 讞诇讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪谉 讛谞拽讜讘 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 转讗讻诇 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专


The Gemara asks a question based on a comparison to a similar case: But why must the priest go to the effort of returning the flour to its owner? Let the separated flour be considered teruma, i.e., 岣lla, by rabbinic law, and it should not be eaten by the priest until he removes 岣lla for it from somewhere else, in order to make it ready to be eaten. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Demai 5:10): If one separated teruma from produce grown in a perforated pot, which is obligated in terumot and tithes by Torah law, for produce that had grown in a non-perforated pot, which is not obligated in terumot and tithes according to Torah law; although the separating of teruma did not take effect, and the putative teruma is still untithed produce, it is considered to be teruma and remains in the possession of the priest, and it may not be eaten until he removes teruma and tithes for it from somewhere else. The same halakha should apply in the case of the 岣lla.


讘转专讬 诪谞讬 爪讗讬转 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 诇讗 爪讗讬转


The Gemara answers: With regard to things that are in two separate containers, the priest will listen. Since the priest is well aware of the difference between a perforated and a non-perforated pot, he will accept the ruling of the Sages to separate teruma an additional time. With regard to something that is in one container, he will not listen. He does not see any difference between receiving flour or dough, and he will not accept the ruling of the Sages to separate 岣lla an additional time. Consequently, they required him to return the flour.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讛谉 诪讬爪转 爪讬讬转 讜拽住讘专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞转拽谞讛 注讬住转讜 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讘讟讬讘诇讗


And if you wish, say that the tanna has a different concern: Actually, a priest will listen even with regard to something in a single container, and the concern is that the prior owner of the flour will think that his dough has been made ready to eat and he will come to eat it in its untithed state.


讜讛讗诪专转 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讞诇讛 拽诪讞 讬讜讚注 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讞诇讛 拽诪讞 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讚住讘专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讬专讞讗 讚讻讛谉 讟讬专讞讗 讚讻讛谉 拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that a person knows that one may not separate 岣lla from flour? The Gemara answers: He knows the halakha but he does not know the reason for the halakha. He knows that one cannot separate 岣lla from flour, but he does not know the reason, as he thinks: What is the reason one may not separate 岣lla from flour? It is due to the labor of the priest. And as far as the labor of the priest goes, he thinks: The priest has accepted that task upon himself.


讜转讬讛讜讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转专讜诐 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 注诇 讛谞拽讜讘 转专讜诪讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转专讜诐 讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘转专讬 诪讗谞讬 爪讗讬转 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 诇讗 爪讗讬转


The Gemara makes a suggestion based on a comparison to a similar case: But let it be teruma, i.e., 岣lla, and he should separate teruma again. Didn鈥檛 we learn a similar idea in a mishna (Demai 5:10): If one separated teruma from produce grown in a non-perforated pot for the produce of a perforated pot, it is teruma by rabbinic law, but he must separate teruma again to render the produce grown in the perforated pot ready to eat. The Gemara answers: We have already established that with regard to things that are in two separate containers, one will listen, but with regard to something that is in one container, one will not listen.


讜诇讗 爪讗讬转 讜讛转谞谉 讛转讜专诐 拽讬砖讜转 讜谞诪爪讗 诪专讛 讗讘讟讬讞 讜谞诪爪讗转 住专讜讞 转专讜诪讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转专讜诐 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转专讜诪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讬讗


The Gemara questions this assumption: And will one not listen to a ruling to separate teruma a second time from a single container? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Terumot 3:1): In the case of one who separated a cucumber as teruma to give to a priest, and that cucumber was found to be so bitter that it was inedible, or if he separated a melon and it was found to be spoiled, his separation is still teruma, but he must separate teruma again? The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is full-fledged teruma by Torah law, and even if he does not listen and separate teruma again, no Torah law will be violated.


诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 诪谞讬谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讘讛专讬诪讻诐 讗转 讞诇讘讜 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 谞砖讬讗讜转 讞讟讗 诇诪讛 诪讻讗谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛


What is the source from which it is extrapolated that it is full-fledged teruma by Torah law? It is from a statement of Rabbi Ilai, for Rabbi Ilai says: From where is it derived that one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, i.e., in order to fulfill the obligation of separating teruma from the high-quality produce, that his teruma is teruma? As it is stated with regard to teruma: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof鈥 (Numbers 18:32). The verse is saying to give the best part as teruma, and one who gives a bad portion has committed a transgression. Nevertheless, the verse indicates that the separated produce is teruma; if it were not sacred as teruma why would one bear a sin? If one鈥檚 action were to no effect, he has not sinned. From here it is derived that if one separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, his teruma is teruma.


讗诪专 专讘讗


Rava said:


Scroll To Top