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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 2, 2016 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ื ื™ืกืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Kiddushin 52

Abaye and Rava have a disagreement about whether betrothal that cannot be consummated is considered a valid betrothal (meaning that a divorce would or would not be necessary). ย Proofs are brought to disprove Rava – some are rejected but in the end Rava is disproven and the gemara notes that this is one of the 6 arguments between Rava and Abaye where we hold like Abaye. ย Rav derives 4 halachot from the case in the mishna regarding betrothal. ย 1. One can betroth with shemita friuts. 2. One cannot betroth with stolen property even stolen from the woman herself. ย 3. A woman can be a messenger in the betrothal of her husband to someone else. ย 4. The issue above that Rava and Abaye disagree about. ย Some cases are brought where a man betrothed a woman using stolen property or property of someone else in the case where he was a sharecropper and used crops that would ultimately be his. ย The mishna discusses betrothal using sacrificial items, hekdesh and maaser sheni. ย Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about the halacha in these cases.

ื”ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื‘ื ืื ืงื“ืžื• ื•ื›ื ืกื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืžื™ื“ื

the one brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them, and of the two brothers, one performs แธฅalitza with one of the sisters and one, if he so desires, performs levirate marriage with the other sister. If they married the widows before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage, and they are permitted to remain married.

ื“ื•ืงื ืžื™ื—ืœืฅ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ืื‘ืœ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืžื™ื—ืœืฅ ืœื ื“ืงื ืคื’ืข ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื” ืœืฉื•ืง

The Gemara explains the novelty of the latter clause: This is effective specifically if one of the two brothers first performs แธฅalitza and afterward the other brother performs levirate marriage, but if one of the two brothers first performs levirate marriage and afterward the other brother performs แธฅalitza, the levirate marriage would not take effect, as he is possibly encountering a yevama getting married to a member of the public. This is because it is possible that the woman he married was not his yevama but someone elseโ€™s yevama, and until the other manโ€™s brother performs แธฅalitza with her it is still prohibited for her to marry other men.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ ื˜ื‘ื™ื•ืžื™ ืœื–ื” ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืœื–ื” ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื ื•ืช ื•ืืžืจ ืื—ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืชื™ืš ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืœืื—ื“ ืžื‘ื ื™ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื—ืžืฉื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืžืช ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืืจื‘ืขื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืžืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ

The Gemara derives a proof: Come and hear, as the Sage Tavyumei taught the following baraita: If this man had five sons and that man had five daughters, and the first man said: One of your daughters is betrothed to one of my sons, each and every one of the daughters requires five bills of divorce, one from each of the sons, due to the uncertainty of who is betrothed to whom. If one of the sons died before giving his bill of divorce, each and every one of the daughters requires four bills of divorce, one from each of the surviving brothers, and แธฅalitza from one of them, in case she was betrothed to the deceased son. The แธฅalitza of one of the brothers suffices to release her from her levirate bond. According to Rava this betrothal should not be valid, as it is not given to consummation. Why, then, do they each require bills of divorce?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื›ืจื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื”ื ืื—ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืชื™ืš ืœืื—ื“ ืžื‘ื ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื•ื”ื™ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ื™ืขืœ ืงื’ื

And if you would say that here too it is referring to a case where they were identified and later intermingled, that cannot be. This is as the baraita teaches: One of your daughters to one of my sons, indicating that the betrothal could never have been given to consummation, and yet it is a valid betrothal. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rava is a conclusive refutation. The Gemara further notes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye when he has a dispute with Rava with regard to six halakhot, as represented by the mnemonic yod, ayin, lamed, kuf, gimmel, mem: Despair that is not conscious [yeush shelo midaโ€™at], conspiring witnesses [eidim] who are disqualified retroactively, a side post [leแธฅi] standing alone, betrothal [kiddushin] that is not given to consummation, revealing intent with a bill of divorce [get], and an apostate [mumar] who sins rebelliously. Although the halakha generally is in accordance with the opinion of Rava in his disputes with Abaye, in these six cases the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.

ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื—ืžืฉ ื ืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ื•ื ืงื™ื˜ ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ืชืœืช

ยง The mishna teaches: An incident occurred involving five women, and among them were two sisters. And one person gathered a basket of figs that were from their field, and the fruit was of the Sabbatical Year. And he said: You are hereby all betrothed to me with this basket, and one of them accepted it on behalf of all of them. And the Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed. Rav says: One can learn four halakhot from the mishna. The Gemara adds: And Rav held three of them in his hand, i.e., knew what they were, but he was uncertain about the fourth.

ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื“ื™ื“ื” ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืœื”ื ื”ื™ืชื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื”ื™ืชื” ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื“ื”ืคืงืจ ื”ื•ื ื”ื ื“ืฉืืจ ืฉื ื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืข ืœื

Rav clarifies: Learn from it that with regard to one who betroths a woman with produce of the Sabbatical Year, she is betrothed, and you do not say that this produce can be used only for eating and not for any other purpose. And learn from it that if one betroths a woman with a stolen item, even if it was her stolen item, she is not betrothed. You do not say that her accepting from him an item that he stole from her indicates that she released him from his obligation to return it, rendering it his to use in order to betroth her. From where can these two halakhot be deduced? It is from the fact that it teaches that the produce was from their field, and was of the Sabbatical Year, which indicates: The reason it could be used for betrothal is that the produce was of the Sabbatical Year, which causes the figs to be ownerless property. But if it was one of the other years of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, the betrothal would not take effect with stolen property, even if she accepted it for her betrothal.

ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืืฉื” ื ืขืฉื™ืช ืฉืœื™ื— ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจืชื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืขืฉื™ืช ืœื” ืฆืจื”

And learn from it: A woman can become an agent to accept a betrothal for another woman, and this is so even in a situation where she thereby becomes the rival wife of the other, as in the case of the mishna.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื™ืื” ื•ื ื™ื—ืฉื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžืกืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื›ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื

The Gemara asks: And what is the other halakha, the fourth one mentioned by Rav? It is the halakha of betrothal that is not given to consummation. The Gemara suggests: And let Rav also count this halakha. The Gemara explains: He does not do so, because he is uncertain whether the correct interpretation of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Abaye, who maintains that such a betrothal is valid, or whether the correct interpretation of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Rava, which would mean it is not betrothal.

ื›ื™ ืกืœื™ืง ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืœื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืœื ื ืชื™ื™ืืฉื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืื™ื ื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ื ืœื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื–ื” ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉืœื• ื•ื–ื” ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™

The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael he stated this halakha before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said to him: Did Rav actually say so? This indicates that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagreed with the statement of Rav that these halakhot can be learned from the mishna, which leads the Gemara to ask: But didnโ€™t he himself say so? And didnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say: If one robbed another of an item and its owner has not despaired of recovering it, neither of them can consecrate the stolen item? This one, the robber, cannot consecrate it because it is not his, and that one, the owner, cannot consecrate it because it is not in his possession. By the same logic, one should not be able to betroth a woman with stolen property, as it is not his. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan was not objecting to Ravโ€™s opinion, but this is what he said to him: Did Rav actually say in accordance with my opinion?

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื‘ื—ืžืก ื•ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ืื• ืฉื—ื˜ืฃ ืกืœืข ืžื™ื“ื” ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื”ืชื ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื“ื™ื“ื”

The Gemara raises an objection against Ravโ€™s opinion that one cannot betroth a woman with stolen property, from a baraita (Tosefta 4:5): If one betrothed her with an item taken in robbery, in a forced transaction, or in theft, or if he grabbed a sela from her hand and betrothed her with it, she is betrothed. This indicates that one can betroth a woman with stolen property. The Gemara answers: There it is referring to her stolen property, and by accepting it from him as betrothal, she indicates that she has released him from his obligation to return it.

ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืื• ืฉื—ื˜ืฃ ืกืœืข ืžืฉืœื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื“ืขืœืžื ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืฉื™ ืงื ืžืคืจืฉ ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื‘ื—ืžืก ื•ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื—ื˜ืฃ ืกืœืข ืžื™ื“ื” ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื•

The Gemara asks: But from the fact that the last clause of the baraita teaches: Or if he grabbed a sela of hers, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are dealing with property stolen from others. The Gemara explains: These are not two separate cases. Instead, the tanna is explaining his earlier statement: If one betrothed a woman with an item taken in robbery, in a forced transaction, or in theft; how so? For example, if he grabbed a sela from her hand and betrothed her with it.

ื•ื”ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืฉื“ื™ืš ื”ื ื“ืœื ืฉื“ื™ืš

The Gemara questions this analysis: But doesnโ€™t the mishna deal with a case where the stolen item is hers, and yet Rav says she is not betrothed. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, in the baraita, is referring to a situation where he had arranged to betroth her beforehand, which indicates that she has released him from his obligation to return it, but that case, in the mishna, is referring to a situation where he had not arranged his marriage with her, so it is stolen property and she is not betrothed.

ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืžืฉื™ื ื›ืจืขื ื‘ืžืฉื™ื›ืœื ื“ืžื™ื ืืชื ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื—ื˜ืฃ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื•ืฉื“ื ืœื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ืžื™ืงื“ืฉืช ืœื™ ืืชื ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ืช ื“ื—ืฉ ืœื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืกืชื ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ื™ืื•ืฉ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื™

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was washing her feet in a vessel of water. A certain man came along, grabbed a few dinars from another person, and threw them to her, and said to her: You are betrothed to me. That man subsequently came before Rava, to inquire as to the status of the woman. Rava said: There is not anyone who is concerned for this opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: In an ordinary case of robbery the owner has despaired of recovering the stolen item, and it belongs to the robber. Rather, the assumption is that the owner has not despaired of recovering the stolen item. In this case, since the stolen dinars do not belong to the man, his betrothal is of no effect.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืืจื™ืกื ื“ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžื•ื–ื ื“ืฉืžื›ื™ ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืืŸ ืื—ืœืš ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืžื•ื–ื ืื‘ืœ ื›ื™ืฉื ืžืฆื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืฉืงืœื™ ื›ื™ืฉื ืฉืงื™ืœ ืืช ื›ื™ืฉื ื›ื™ืฉื ื›ื™ ื›ื™ืฉื

The Gemara relates another incident: The was a certain sharecropper who betrothed a woman with a handful [bemoza] of onions [deshamkhei] taken from the field where he worked. He came before Rava to ask about the status of the woman. Rava said to him: Who relinquished these onions to you? Since the owner did not allow you to take them, they are stolen property, and the woman is not betrothed. The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to a handful, but if he took a bundle of onions and betrothed a woman with them, the sharecropper can say to the owner: I took a bundle, you take a bundle; one bundle for another bundle. Since in any case they divide the crop between them, it is not considered theft.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืกืจืกื™ื ื“ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืคืจื•ืžื ื“ืฉื™ื›ืจื ืืชื ืžืจื™ื” ื“ืฉื™ื›ืจื ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืœื ืชื™ืชื™ื‘ ืžื”ืื™ ื—ืจื™ืคื ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจื• ื›ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื™ืคื•ืช ืืœื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain brewer [sarseya] who was making date beer for someone, who betrothed a woman with sediment [bifruma] from the beer. The owner of the beer came and found him. The owner said to him: Why donโ€™t you give her the betrothal from this, the sharp sediments that are of better quality than the kind you chose? The brewer came before Rava to ask whether the ownerโ€™s comment indicated that he had relinquished his rights to the sediment, which would mean the woman is betrothed. Rava said to him: The Sages said that if the owner discovers that someone has taken something of his without permission and says: Go to and take the item of better quality, that it is a sign he agrees with the manโ€™s action only with regard to teruma alone, and you did not have the right to use the sediment.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืืžืจื• ืชื•ืจื ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืช ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื”ืจื™ ืฉื™ืจื“ ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืœื™ืงื˜ ื•ืชืจื ืฉืœื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืื ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื–ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื”

The Gemara explains the previous statement: As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 1:5): When did they say that in the case where one separates teruma without the ownerโ€™s consent, his teruma is considered teruma? The baraita clarifies: In a case where there was someone who entered anotherโ€™s field and gathered produce from it, and separated teruma without the ownerโ€™s permission, if the owner is concerned about his actions and view it as robbery, his teruma is not teruma, but if he is not concerned, his teruma is teruma.

ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื–ืœ ืื ืœืื• ื”ืจื™ ืฉื‘ื ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืžืฆืื• ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ื›ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื™ืคื•ืช ืื ื ืžืฆืื• ื™ืคื•ืช ืžื”ื ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื”ื™ื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžืœืงื˜ื™ื ื•ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื”

The baraita continues: And from where would the gatherer know whether he should be concerned that the owner objects and views it as robbery or not? If the owner came and found him separating teruma and said to him: Go to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that, then if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma, since the owner is assumed to have been sincere and pleased that the other has separated teruma from his produce. But if not, his teruma is not teruma, as it may be assumed that the owner was angry at him and was speaking sarcastically. The baraita adds: If the owners were gathering and adding to the teruma he had separated, indicating that they agree to his act of separation, either way, whether or not better-quality produce was found, his teruma is considered teruma.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื™ืกื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช

Rava concludes the explanation of his ruling: This halakha applies only to teruma, which is a mitzva that the owner must in any case perform. But here, in the case of the brewer who betrothed a woman with sediment from the beer, the owner acts because of embarrassment, and while he does not feel comfortable protesting, he did not in fact relinquish his rights to the sediment, and she is not betrothed.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื–ื™ื“ ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ืงื™ื“ืฉ

MISHNA: With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he did so with offerings of lesser sanctity, she is not betrothed. One who betroths a woman with second tithe, whether unwittingly or intentionally, has not betrothed her; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he did so unwittingly he has not betrothed her, but if he did so intentionally he has betrothed her.

ื•ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื•ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ

And with regard to one who betroths a woman with consecrated property belonging to the Temple treasury, if he does so intentionally he has betrothed her, and if he does so unwittingly he has not betrothed her; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says the opposite: If he does so unwittingly he has betrothed her, but if he does so intentionally he has not betrothed her.

ื’ืžืณ ื ื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืžืขืœื” ืžืขืœ ื‘ื”ืณ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื”ืŸ ืžืžื•ื ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the obligation to bring an offering for taking a false oath concerning unlawful possession of the property of another: โ€œIf any one sin, and he commits a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighborโ€ (Leviticus 5:21). As the verse is discussing property belonging to another, the phrase โ€œa trespass against the Lordโ€ serves to include in the obligation of an offering a false oath with regard to possession of offerings of lesser sanctity of another person, which are the property of the owner; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the portion of an offering of lesser sanctity that the priest receives belongs to him, so he should be able to betroth a woman with it.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื™ ืงื ื–ื›ื• ืžืฉืœื—ืŸ ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืงื ื–ื›ื•

The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says that an offering of lesser sanctity belongs to its owner only while the animal is still alive, but after its slaughter it does not belong to the priest who receives portions from it. What is the reason for this? When the priests receive their portion after the animal has been slaughtered they receive their portion from the table of the Most High, and do not own the portion itself.

ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he used offerings of lesser sanctity, has not betrothed her. The mishna does not speak of a priest who betroths a woman with a living offering of lesser sanctity but of one who betroths with the portion of the slaughtered animal he has received. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that it is only in this case that she is not betrothed.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืื—ืจ ืคื˜ื™ืจืชื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื• ืืœ ื™ื›ื ืกื• ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœื›ืืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืงื ืชืจื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ืœื ืœืœืžื•ื“ ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื ื‘ืื™ื ืืœื ืœืงืคื—ื ื™ ื‘ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื”ื ื‘ืื™ื ื“ื—ืง ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื•ื ื›ื ืก ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ื›ืš ืฉื ื” ืœื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ

The Sages taught: After the death of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda said to his students: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here into our house of study, because they are vexatious [kanteranim]. And they do not come to study Torah, but rather they come to overwhelm me with halakhot. Sumakhos, a student of Rabbi Meir, pushed and entered anyway. He said to them: This is what Rabbi Meir taught me: With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of the offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he used offerings of lesser sanctity, he has not betrothed her.

ื›ืขืก ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืขืœื™ื”ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืœื ื›ืš ืืžืจืชื™ ืœื›ื ืืœ ื™ื›ื ืกื• ืžืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœื›ืืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืงื ืชืจื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ืœื ืœืœืžื•ื“ ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื ื‘ืื™ื ืืœื ืœืงืคื—ื ื™ ื‘ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื”ื ื‘ืื™ื ื•ื›ื™ ืืฉื” ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ืžื ื™ืŸ

Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yehuda became angry with his students. He said to them: Didnโ€™t I say this to you: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here into our house of study, because they are vexatious? And they do not come to study Torah, but rather they come to overwhelm me with halakhot. Rabbi Yehuda explained his objection to the statement of Rabbi Meir: This halakha is not relevant, as from where would a woman appear in the Temple courtyard? Women may not enter the area of the Temple courtyard where the priests eat the offerings of the most sacred order, so there is no reason to address an impossible scenario.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื™ืืžืจื• ืžืื™ืจ ืฉื›ื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ืขืก ื™ื•ืกื™ ืฉืชืง ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืชื•ืจื” ืžื” ืชื”ื ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœืงื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืชื• ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ืขื•ื“ ื“ื—ืงื” ื•ื ื›ื ืกื” ืžืื™

Rabbi Yosei, who was present, said: They will say: Meir died, Yehuda grew angry, and Yosei remained silent; what will become of the words of Torah? He said: In fact, this halakha is relevant; but isnโ€™t it common for a man to accept betrothal for his daughter in the Temple courtyard? There is no need to give the betrothal item directly to the woman; it can be given to her father. And additionally, isnโ€™t it common for a woman to designate an agent for herself to accept her betrothal in the courtyard? And furthermore: What would be the halakha if the woman pushed and entered? Since it is possible for her to do so, the halakha in such a case must be determined.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืงืจื ืื—ื“ ื“ืจืฉื• ื–ื” ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœืš ืžืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœืš ื•ืœื›ืœ ืฆืจื›ื™ืš ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ืืฉ ืžื” ืืฉ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืืฃ ื”ื•ื ื ืžื™ ืœืื›ื™ืœื”

It is taught in a baraita that the Sages discussed the issue of a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of offerings of the most sacred order: Rabbi Yehuda says she is betrothed, and Rabbi Yosei says she is not betrothed. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Both of them derived their opinions from one verse, which states that the priests have a right to a portion of offerings of the most sacred order, but they explained it in different ways. The verse states: โ€œThis shall be yours of the most holy things, reserved from the fireโ€ (Numbers 18:9). Rabbi Yehuda holds that the term โ€œyoursโ€ indicates that the portion the priest receives is intended for you, i.e., a priest, and for all your needs, including betrothing a woman. And Rabbi Yosei holds that the verse compares the priestโ€™s portion to the fire on the altar: Just as the portion burned on the fire is for the fireโ€™s consumption, so too, the priestโ€™s portion is also for consumption alone, and not for any other purpose.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 52

ื”ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื‘ื ืื ืงื“ืžื• ื•ื›ื ืกื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืžื™ื“ื

the one brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them, and of the two brothers, one performs แธฅalitza with one of the sisters and one, if he so desires, performs levirate marriage with the other sister. If they married the widows before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage, and they are permitted to remain married.

ื“ื•ืงื ืžื™ื—ืœืฅ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ืื‘ืœ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืžื™ื—ืœืฅ ืœื ื“ืงื ืคื’ืข ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื” ืœืฉื•ืง

The Gemara explains the novelty of the latter clause: This is effective specifically if one of the two brothers first performs แธฅalitza and afterward the other brother performs levirate marriage, but if one of the two brothers first performs levirate marriage and afterward the other brother performs แธฅalitza, the levirate marriage would not take effect, as he is possibly encountering a yevama getting married to a member of the public. This is because it is possible that the woman he married was not his yevama but someone elseโ€™s yevama, and until the other manโ€™s brother performs แธฅalitza with her it is still prohibited for her to marry other men.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ ื˜ื‘ื™ื•ืžื™ ืœื–ื” ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืœื–ื” ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื ื•ืช ื•ืืžืจ ืื—ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืชื™ืš ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืœืื—ื“ ืžื‘ื ื™ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื—ืžืฉื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืžืช ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืืจื‘ืขื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืžืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ

The Gemara derives a proof: Come and hear, as the Sage Tavyumei taught the following baraita: If this man had five sons and that man had five daughters, and the first man said: One of your daughters is betrothed to one of my sons, each and every one of the daughters requires five bills of divorce, one from each of the sons, due to the uncertainty of who is betrothed to whom. If one of the sons died before giving his bill of divorce, each and every one of the daughters requires four bills of divorce, one from each of the surviving brothers, and แธฅalitza from one of them, in case she was betrothed to the deceased son. The แธฅalitza of one of the brothers suffices to release her from her levirate bond. According to Rava this betrothal should not be valid, as it is not given to consummation. Why, then, do they each require bills of divorce?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื›ืจื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื”ื ืื—ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืชื™ืš ืœืื—ื“ ืžื‘ื ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื•ื”ื™ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ื™ืขืœ ืงื’ื

And if you would say that here too it is referring to a case where they were identified and later intermingled, that cannot be. This is as the baraita teaches: One of your daughters to one of my sons, indicating that the betrothal could never have been given to consummation, and yet it is a valid betrothal. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rava is a conclusive refutation. The Gemara further notes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye when he has a dispute with Rava with regard to six halakhot, as represented by the mnemonic yod, ayin, lamed, kuf, gimmel, mem: Despair that is not conscious [yeush shelo midaโ€™at], conspiring witnesses [eidim] who are disqualified retroactively, a side post [leแธฅi] standing alone, betrothal [kiddushin] that is not given to consummation, revealing intent with a bill of divorce [get], and an apostate [mumar] who sins rebelliously. Although the halakha generally is in accordance with the opinion of Rava in his disputes with Abaye, in these six cases the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.

ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื—ืžืฉ ื ืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ื•ื ืงื™ื˜ ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ืชืœืช

ยง The mishna teaches: An incident occurred involving five women, and among them were two sisters. And one person gathered a basket of figs that were from their field, and the fruit was of the Sabbatical Year. And he said: You are hereby all betrothed to me with this basket, and one of them accepted it on behalf of all of them. And the Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed. Rav says: One can learn four halakhot from the mishna. The Gemara adds: And Rav held three of them in his hand, i.e., knew what they were, but he was uncertain about the fourth.

ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื“ื™ื“ื” ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืœื”ื ื”ื™ืชื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื”ื™ืชื” ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื“ื”ืคืงืจ ื”ื•ื ื”ื ื“ืฉืืจ ืฉื ื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืข ืœื

Rav clarifies: Learn from it that with regard to one who betroths a woman with produce of the Sabbatical Year, she is betrothed, and you do not say that this produce can be used only for eating and not for any other purpose. And learn from it that if one betroths a woman with a stolen item, even if it was her stolen item, she is not betrothed. You do not say that her accepting from him an item that he stole from her indicates that she released him from his obligation to return it, rendering it his to use in order to betroth her. From where can these two halakhot be deduced? It is from the fact that it teaches that the produce was from their field, and was of the Sabbatical Year, which indicates: The reason it could be used for betrothal is that the produce was of the Sabbatical Year, which causes the figs to be ownerless property. But if it was one of the other years of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, the betrothal would not take effect with stolen property, even if she accepted it for her betrothal.

ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืืฉื” ื ืขืฉื™ืช ืฉืœื™ื— ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจืชื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืขืฉื™ืช ืœื” ืฆืจื”

And learn from it: A woman can become an agent to accept a betrothal for another woman, and this is so even in a situation where she thereby becomes the rival wife of the other, as in the case of the mishna.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืกื•ืจื™ื ืœื‘ื™ืื” ื•ื ื™ื—ืฉื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžืกืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื›ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื

The Gemara asks: And what is the other halakha, the fourth one mentioned by Rav? It is the halakha of betrothal that is not given to consummation. The Gemara suggests: And let Rav also count this halakha. The Gemara explains: He does not do so, because he is uncertain whether the correct interpretation of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Abaye, who maintains that such a betrothal is valid, or whether the correct interpretation of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Rava, which would mean it is not betrothal.

ื›ื™ ืกืœื™ืง ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืœื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืœื ื ืชื™ื™ืืฉื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืื™ื ื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ื ืœื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื–ื” ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉืœื• ื•ื–ื” ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™

The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael he stated this halakha before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said to him: Did Rav actually say so? This indicates that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagreed with the statement of Rav that these halakhot can be learned from the mishna, which leads the Gemara to ask: But didnโ€™t he himself say so? And didnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say: If one robbed another of an item and its owner has not despaired of recovering it, neither of them can consecrate the stolen item? This one, the robber, cannot consecrate it because it is not his, and that one, the owner, cannot consecrate it because it is not in his possession. By the same logic, one should not be able to betroth a woman with stolen property, as it is not his. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan was not objecting to Ravโ€™s opinion, but this is what he said to him: Did Rav actually say in accordance with my opinion?

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื‘ื—ืžืก ื•ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ืื• ืฉื—ื˜ืฃ ืกืœืข ืžื™ื“ื” ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื”ืชื ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื“ื™ื“ื”

The Gemara raises an objection against Ravโ€™s opinion that one cannot betroth a woman with stolen property, from a baraita (Tosefta 4:5): If one betrothed her with an item taken in robbery, in a forced transaction, or in theft, or if he grabbed a sela from her hand and betrothed her with it, she is betrothed. This indicates that one can betroth a woman with stolen property. The Gemara answers: There it is referring to her stolen property, and by accepting it from him as betrothal, she indicates that she has released him from his obligation to return it.

ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืื• ืฉื—ื˜ืฃ ืกืœืข ืžืฉืœื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื“ืขืœืžื ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืฉื™ ืงื ืžืคืจืฉ ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื‘ื—ืžืก ื•ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื—ื˜ืฃ ืกืœืข ืžื™ื“ื” ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื•

The Gemara asks: But from the fact that the last clause of the baraita teaches: Or if he grabbed a sela of hers, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are dealing with property stolen from others. The Gemara explains: These are not two separate cases. Instead, the tanna is explaining his earlier statement: If one betrothed a woman with an item taken in robbery, in a forced transaction, or in theft; how so? For example, if he grabbed a sela from her hand and betrothed her with it.

ื•ื”ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืฉื“ื™ืš ื”ื ื“ืœื ืฉื“ื™ืš

The Gemara questions this analysis: But doesnโ€™t the mishna deal with a case where the stolen item is hers, and yet Rav says she is not betrothed. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, in the baraita, is referring to a situation where he had arranged to betroth her beforehand, which indicates that she has released him from his obligation to return it, but that case, in the mishna, is referring to a situation where he had not arranged his marriage with her, so it is stolen property and she is not betrothed.

ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืžืฉื™ื ื›ืจืขื ื‘ืžืฉื™ื›ืœื ื“ืžื™ื ืืชื ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื—ื˜ืฃ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื•ืฉื“ื ืœื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ืžื™ืงื“ืฉืช ืœื™ ืืชื ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ืช ื“ื—ืฉ ืœื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืกืชื ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ื™ืื•ืฉ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื™

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was washing her feet in a vessel of water. A certain man came along, grabbed a few dinars from another person, and threw them to her, and said to her: You are betrothed to me. That man subsequently came before Rava, to inquire as to the status of the woman. Rava said: There is not anyone who is concerned for this opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: In an ordinary case of robbery the owner has despaired of recovering the stolen item, and it belongs to the robber. Rather, the assumption is that the owner has not despaired of recovering the stolen item. In this case, since the stolen dinars do not belong to the man, his betrothal is of no effect.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืืจื™ืกื ื“ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžื•ื–ื ื“ืฉืžื›ื™ ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืืŸ ืื—ืœืš ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืžื•ื–ื ืื‘ืœ ื›ื™ืฉื ืžืฆื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืฉืงืœื™ ื›ื™ืฉื ืฉืงื™ืœ ืืช ื›ื™ืฉื ื›ื™ืฉื ื›ื™ ื›ื™ืฉื

The Gemara relates another incident: The was a certain sharecropper who betrothed a woman with a handful [bemoza] of onions [deshamkhei] taken from the field where he worked. He came before Rava to ask about the status of the woman. Rava said to him: Who relinquished these onions to you? Since the owner did not allow you to take them, they are stolen property, and the woman is not betrothed. The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to a handful, but if he took a bundle of onions and betrothed a woman with them, the sharecropper can say to the owner: I took a bundle, you take a bundle; one bundle for another bundle. Since in any case they divide the crop between them, it is not considered theft.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืกืจืกื™ื ื“ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืคืจื•ืžื ื“ืฉื™ื›ืจื ืืชื ืžืจื™ื” ื“ืฉื™ื›ืจื ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืœื ืชื™ืชื™ื‘ ืžื”ืื™ ื—ืจื™ืคื ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจื• ื›ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื™ืคื•ืช ืืœื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain brewer [sarseya] who was making date beer for someone, who betrothed a woman with sediment [bifruma] from the beer. The owner of the beer came and found him. The owner said to him: Why donโ€™t you give her the betrothal from this, the sharp sediments that are of better quality than the kind you chose? The brewer came before Rava to ask whether the ownerโ€™s comment indicated that he had relinquished his rights to the sediment, which would mean the woman is betrothed. Rava said to him: The Sages said that if the owner discovers that someone has taken something of his without permission and says: Go to and take the item of better quality, that it is a sign he agrees with the manโ€™s action only with regard to teruma alone, and you did not have the right to use the sediment.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืืžืจื• ืชื•ืจื ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืช ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื”ืจื™ ืฉื™ืจื“ ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืœื™ืงื˜ ื•ืชืจื ืฉืœื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืื ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื–ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื”

The Gemara explains the previous statement: As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 1:5): When did they say that in the case where one separates teruma without the ownerโ€™s consent, his teruma is considered teruma? The baraita clarifies: In a case where there was someone who entered anotherโ€™s field and gathered produce from it, and separated teruma without the ownerโ€™s permission, if the owner is concerned about his actions and view it as robbery, his teruma is not teruma, but if he is not concerned, his teruma is teruma.

ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื–ืœ ืื ืœืื• ื”ืจื™ ืฉื‘ื ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืžืฆืื• ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ื›ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื™ืคื•ืช ืื ื ืžืฆืื• ื™ืคื•ืช ืžื”ื ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื”ื™ื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžืœืงื˜ื™ื ื•ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื”

The baraita continues: And from where would the gatherer know whether he should be concerned that the owner objects and views it as robbery or not? If the owner came and found him separating teruma and said to him: Go to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that, then if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma, since the owner is assumed to have been sincere and pleased that the other has separated teruma from his produce. But if not, his teruma is not teruma, as it may be assumed that the owner was angry at him and was speaking sarcastically. The baraita adds: If the owners were gathering and adding to the teruma he had separated, indicating that they agree to his act of separation, either way, whether or not better-quality produce was found, his teruma is considered teruma.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื™ืกื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช

Rava concludes the explanation of his ruling: This halakha applies only to teruma, which is a mitzva that the owner must in any case perform. But here, in the case of the brewer who betrothed a woman with sediment from the beer, the owner acts because of embarrassment, and while he does not feel comfortable protesting, he did not in fact relinquish his rights to the sediment, and she is not betrothed.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื–ื™ื“ ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ืงื™ื“ืฉ

MISHNA: With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he did so with offerings of lesser sanctity, she is not betrothed. One who betroths a woman with second tithe, whether unwittingly or intentionally, has not betrothed her; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he did so unwittingly he has not betrothed her, but if he did so intentionally he has betrothed her.

ื•ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื•ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ

And with regard to one who betroths a woman with consecrated property belonging to the Temple treasury, if he does so intentionally he has betrothed her, and if he does so unwittingly he has not betrothed her; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says the opposite: If he does so unwittingly he has betrothed her, but if he does so intentionally he has not betrothed her.

ื’ืžืณ ื ื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืžืขืœื” ืžืขืœ ื‘ื”ืณ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื”ืŸ ืžืžื•ื ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the obligation to bring an offering for taking a false oath concerning unlawful possession of the property of another: โ€œIf any one sin, and he commits a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighborโ€ (Leviticus 5:21). As the verse is discussing property belonging to another, the phrase โ€œa trespass against the Lordโ€ serves to include in the obligation of an offering a false oath with regard to possession of offerings of lesser sanctity of another person, which are the property of the owner; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the portion of an offering of lesser sanctity that the priest receives belongs to him, so he should be able to betroth a woman with it.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื™ ืงื ื–ื›ื• ืžืฉืœื—ืŸ ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืงื ื–ื›ื•

The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says that an offering of lesser sanctity belongs to its owner only while the animal is still alive, but after its slaughter it does not belong to the priest who receives portions from it. What is the reason for this? When the priests receive their portion after the animal has been slaughtered they receive their portion from the table of the Most High, and do not own the portion itself.

ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he used offerings of lesser sanctity, has not betrothed her. The mishna does not speak of a priest who betroths a woman with a living offering of lesser sanctity but of one who betroths with the portion of the slaughtered animal he has received. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that it is only in this case that she is not betrothed.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืื—ืจ ืคื˜ื™ืจืชื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื• ืืœ ื™ื›ื ืกื• ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœื›ืืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืงื ืชืจื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ืœื ืœืœืžื•ื“ ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื ื‘ืื™ื ืืœื ืœืงืคื—ื ื™ ื‘ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื”ื ื‘ืื™ื ื“ื—ืง ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื•ื ื›ื ืก ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ื›ืš ืฉื ื” ืœื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื—ืœืงื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ

The Sages taught: After the death of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda said to his students: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here into our house of study, because they are vexatious [kanteranim]. And they do not come to study Torah, but rather they come to overwhelm me with halakhot. Sumakhos, a student of Rabbi Meir, pushed and entered anyway. He said to them: This is what Rabbi Meir taught me: With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of the offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he used offerings of lesser sanctity, he has not betrothed her.

ื›ืขืก ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืขืœื™ื”ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืœื ื›ืš ืืžืจืชื™ ืœื›ื ืืœ ื™ื›ื ืกื• ืžืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœื›ืืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืงื ืชืจื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ืœื ืœืœืžื•ื“ ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื ื‘ืื™ื ืืœื ืœืงืคื—ื ื™ ื‘ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื”ื ื‘ืื™ื ื•ื›ื™ ืืฉื” ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ืžื ื™ืŸ

Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yehuda became angry with his students. He said to them: Didnโ€™t I say this to you: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here into our house of study, because they are vexatious? And they do not come to study Torah, but rather they come to overwhelm me with halakhot. Rabbi Yehuda explained his objection to the statement of Rabbi Meir: This halakha is not relevant, as from where would a woman appear in the Temple courtyard? Women may not enter the area of the Temple courtyard where the priests eat the offerings of the most sacred order, so there is no reason to address an impossible scenario.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื™ืืžืจื• ืžืื™ืจ ืฉื›ื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ืขืก ื™ื•ืกื™ ืฉืชืง ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืชื•ืจื” ืžื” ืชื”ื ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœืงื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืชื• ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ืขื•ื“ ื“ื—ืงื” ื•ื ื›ื ืกื” ืžืื™

Rabbi Yosei, who was present, said: They will say: Meir died, Yehuda grew angry, and Yosei remained silent; what will become of the words of Torah? He said: In fact, this halakha is relevant; but isnโ€™t it common for a man to accept betrothal for his daughter in the Temple courtyard? There is no need to give the betrothal item directly to the woman; it can be given to her father. And additionally, isnโ€™t it common for a woman to designate an agent for herself to accept her betrothal in the courtyard? And furthermore: What would be the halakha if the woman pushed and entered? Since it is possible for her to do so, the halakha in such a case must be determined.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืงืจื ืื—ื“ ื“ืจืฉื• ื–ื” ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœืš ืžืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœืš ื•ืœื›ืœ ืฆืจื›ื™ืš ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ืืฉ ืžื” ืืฉ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืืฃ ื”ื•ื ื ืžื™ ืœืื›ื™ืœื”

It is taught in a baraita that the Sages discussed the issue of a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of offerings of the most sacred order: Rabbi Yehuda says she is betrothed, and Rabbi Yosei says she is not betrothed. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Both of them derived their opinions from one verse, which states that the priests have a right to a portion of offerings of the most sacred order, but they explained it in different ways. The verse states: โ€œThis shall be yours of the most holy things, reserved from the fireโ€ (Numbers 18:9). Rabbi Yehuda holds that the term โ€œyoursโ€ indicates that the portion the priest receives is intended for you, i.e., a priest, and for all your needs, including betrothing a woman. And Rabbi Yosei holds that the verse compares the priestโ€™s portion to the fire on the altar: Just as the portion burned on the fire is for the fireโ€™s consumption, so too, the priestโ€™s portion is also for consumption alone, and not for any other purpose.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says:

Scroll To Top