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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 3, 2016 | 讻状讛 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讜

  • 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 53

Study Guide Kiddushin 53. There are differences of opinion regarding marrying a woman with kodshai kodshim, kodshai kalim,maaser sheni, and 聽between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. 聽Some think that Rabbi Yehuda eventually agreed with Rabbi Meir about the kodshai kodshim and kodshai kalim. That possibility is then proven by the gemara. 聽The differences between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda maaser sheni聽and hekdesh are analyzed and explained.

谞诪谞讜 讜讙诪专讜 讛诪拽讚砖 讘讞诇拽讜 讘讬谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讘讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讜专讘 讗诪专 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪住转讘专讗

They counted the opinions among the Sages, and they concluded: With regard to one 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 the offerings of lesser sanctity, he has not betrothed her, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And Rav says: It is still a matter of dispute and they did not reach that conclusion. Abaye said: It is reasonable to rule in accordance with the report of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that the halakha was decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬诐 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪谞讞讛 讗砖专 转讗驻讛 讘转谞讜专 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

Abaye quotes an extended baraita indicating that even Rabbi Yehuda accepted that the halakha was decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that priests may not receive a share of meal-offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings, i.e., they may not exchange their portion of a meal-offering for the meat of an animal sacrifice of which they did not receive a portion? The verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal-offering that is baked in the oven鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have鈥 (Leviticus 7:9鈥10). This verse emphasizes that the sons of Aaron must divide the meal-offering equally among themselves, without exchanging it for a portion of any other offering.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖诇讗 拽诪讜 转讞转讬讛诐 讘讚诇讜转 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 注讜驻讜转 砖讛专讬 拽诪讜 转讞转讬讛谉 讘讚诇讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 谞注砖讛 讘诪专讞砖转 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of meal-offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings since they do not substitute for them in the case of poverty. Even one who is too poor to afford to bring an animal offering, e.g., in the case of a sin-offering determined on a sliding scale, does not bring a meal-offering in its stead. Since meal-offerings can never be brought in place of animal offerings, there is clearly no connection between them. But perhaps they may receive a share of meal-offerings in exchange for portions of bird-offerings, since they do substitute for them in the case of poverty. If one is so destitute that he cannot afford to bring a bird-offering he brings a meal-offering. Therefore, the same verse states: 鈥淎nd all that is prepared in the deep pan鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have,鈥 again stressing that all must have an equal share in that meal-offering.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 注讜驻讜转 砖讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 拽诪讞讬诐 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 注讜驻讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛诇诇讜 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注诇 诪讞讘转

The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of meal-offerings in exchange for portions of bird-offerings since these, bird-offerings, are types of offer-ings that involve blood sprinkled on the altar, and those, meal-offerings, are types of offerings made of flour. But perhaps they may receive a share of portions of bird-offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings, since both categories are types of offerings that involve blood sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, the same verse states: 鈥淎nd on a griddle,鈥 a seemingly superfluous phrase, which teaches that one may not receive a share even of bird-offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 注讜驻讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛诇诇讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 讘讬讚 讜讛诇诇讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讞讜转 砖讛诇诇讜 讜讛诇诇讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 讘讬讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪谞讞讛 讘诇讜诇讛 讘砖诪谉 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉

The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of bird-offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings because the actions, i.e., killing, of these birds is by hand, by pinching the neck, and the actions, i.e., killing, of those animals is with a utensil, by slaughtering with a knife. But perhaps they may receive a share of meal-offerings in exchange for portions of other meal-offerings, since the actions with both these and those are by hand. Therefore, the next verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal-offering mingled with oil鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have鈥 (Leviticus 7:10).

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪讞讘转 讻谞讙讚 诪专讞砖转 讜诪专讞砖转 讻谞讙讚 诪讞讘转 砖讝讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 专讻讬诐 讜讝讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 拽砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪讞讘转 讻谞讙讚 诪讞讘转 讜诪专讞砖转 讻谞讙讚 诪专讞砖转 砖讛诇诇讜 讜讛诇诇讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 拽砖讬诐 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪注砖讬讛诐 专讻讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞专讘讛 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of a meal-offering prepared on a griddle in exchange for portions of a mealoffering prepared in a deep pan, or portions of a meal-offering prepared in a deep pan in exchange for portions of a mealoffering prepared on a griddle, since the actions with this deep pan result in a soft product, and the actions with that griddle result in a hard product. But perhaps they may receive a share of a meal-offering prepared on a griddle in exchange for the portions of a meal-offering prepared on a griddle, or a share of a meal-offering prepared in a deep pan in exchange for portions of a meal-offering prepared in a deep pan, since the actions with both these and those result in a hard product, in the case of a griddle, or alternatively, with regard to a deep pan, the actions result in a soft product. Therefore, the same verse states: 鈥淥r dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have鈥 (Leviticus 7:10).

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 讘拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讻讗讞讬讜 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讗诐 注诇 转讜讚讛 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讻讱 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., meal-offerings, in exchange for a portion of another similar offering, but they may receive a share of offerings of lesser sanctity in exchange for a portion of another similar offering. Therefore, the same verse states with regard to meal-offerings: 鈥淪hall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another鈥 (Leviticus 7:10), and near it appears the verse: 鈥淚f he offers it for a thanks-offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:12), from which is derived: Just as one may not receive a share of one offering in exchange for a portion of another similar offering in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, so too, one may not receive a share of one offering in exchange for a portion of another similar offering in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., a thanks-offering.

讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讞讜诇拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讛拽讟谉 讞讜诇拽 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转诐 住转诐 住驻专讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讜讗 拽讗诪专 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讻诇诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The baraita expounds this verse further: It states: 鈥淥ne as well as another [ish ke鈥檃岣v],鈥 which teaches that with regard to priests, a man [ish] who is an adult receives a share even if he is blemished, but a priest who is a minor may not receive a share even if he is unblemished. This baraita is found in the Sifra, a collection of halakhic midrashim on the book of Leviticus. And who is the tanna to whom unattributed statements in the Sifra are assigned? It is Rabbi Yehuda, and here he says that no law of receiving a share applies to it at all, which means that priests cannot exchange one portion of any type of offering for another portion, so they cannot use it to betroth a woman. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion and subscribes to the opinion that a priest does not own the portion of the offerings he receives.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻专讘 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛爪谞讜注讬诐 诪讜砖讻讬谉 讗转 讬讚讬讛诐 讜讛讙专讙专谞讬诐 讞讜诇拽讬诐 诪讗讬 讞讜诇拽讬诐 讞讜讟驻讬诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖讞讟祝 讞诇拽讜 讜讞诇拽 讞讘专讜 讜讛讬讜 拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞诪爪谉 注讚 讬讜诐 诪讜转讜

Rava said: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 13:7): When the priests receive their portion of the shewbread each week, the modest ones withdraw their hands and do not take it, and the gluttons receive all the shares of the bread. This indicates that offerings may be apportioned according to the priests鈥 wishes. The Gemara rejects this: What is the meaning of receive the shares? It does not mean that they exchange one portion for another with halakhic sanction; it means that they would snatch their colleagues鈥 portions, as it teaches in the latter clause of that same baraita: An incident occurred involving one who snatched his share and his colleague鈥檚 share, and they called him ben 岣mtzan, son of the snatcher, until the day he died.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讗诇讛讬 驻诇讟谞讬 诪讬讚 专砖注 诪讻祝 诪注讜诇 讜讞讜诪抓 专讘讛 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诇诪讚讜 讛讬讟讘 讚专砖讜 诪砖驻讟 讗砖专讜 讞诪讜抓

Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: What is the verse from which is derived that 岣mtzan means one who snatches? The verse states: 鈥淢y God, rescue me out of the hand of the wicked, out of the grasp of the unrighteous and grasping man [岣metz]鈥 (Psalms 71:4). Rabba said: It is derived from here: 鈥淟earn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed [岣motz]鈥 (Isaiah 1:17), i.e., restore property stolen from victims of theft.

诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜讙讙 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 诪讝讬讚 拽讬讚砖 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙诪专讗 讜讻诇 诪注砖专 讛讗专抓 诪讝专注 讛讗专抓 诪驻专讬 讛注抓 诇讛壮 讛讜讗 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 诇讛壮 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诇拽讚砖 讘讜 讗砖讛

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? From where does Rabbi Meir derive that second tithe cannot be used for betrothal? Rav A岣, son of Rava, says in the name of tradition: The verse states: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord鈥檚; it is holy to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:30). This verse indicates that it is for the Lord, but not for betrothing a woman with it.

讛专讬 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讚讻转讬讘 讻谉 转专讬诪讜 讙诐 讗转诐 转专讜诪转 讛壮 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇讛壮

The Gemara questions this derivation from several instances where similar wording is employed in a different verse, yet one may use those items for betrothal. But there is teruma of the tithe, about which it is written: 鈥淪o you also shall set apart a gift of the Lord of all your tithes鈥 (Numbers 18:28)? And we learned in a mishna (58a): With regard to one who betroths a woman with teruma, she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: Teruma of the tithe is different, as 鈥渢o the Lord鈥 is not written with regard to it, indicating that it can be used for betrothal.

讜讛专讬 讞诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 转转谞讜 诇讛壮 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讜转 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: But there is 岣lla, the portion of dough that one must separate and give to a priest, about which it is written: 鈥淥f the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:21)? And we also learned in that same mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, of which 岣lla is one type, she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: Although the verse does write 鈥渢o the Lord,鈥 岣lla is different, as the word 鈥渉oly鈥 was not written with regard to it.

讜讛专讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖 转讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇讛壮

The Gemara asks: But there is produce of the Sabbatical Year, about which it is written: 鈥淚t is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:12)? And we learned by inferring from a mishna (50b) that in the case of one who betroths a woman with produce of the Sabbatical Year, she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: With regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year, the verse writes 鈥渉oly,鈥 but 鈥渢o the Lord鈥 is not written with regard to it.

讜讛专讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 拽讚砖 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛壮 专讗砖讬转 转讘讜讗转讛 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讛讜讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But there is teruma, about which it is written: 鈥淭he Jewish people are the Lord鈥檚 holy portion, His first fruits of the increase鈥 (Jeremiah 2:3)? And we learned in a mishna (58a) that in the case of one who betroths a woman with teruma, she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: That verse was written with regard to the Jewish people, who are called the Lord鈥檚 holy portion, but not with regard to teruma itself.

讜诇讗讜 诪诪讬诇讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专讙诪讛 专讘讬谉 住讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 you understand it by itself from this verse? Since the verse compares the Jewish people to teruma, the categorization of 鈥渉oly鈥 evidently applies to teruma as well. Ravin the Elder interpreted it before Rav: The difference is that with regard to tithe the verse states: 鈥淚t is for the Lord,鈥 which indicates: As it is, it should be, as consecrated.

讜讘讛拽讚砖 讘诪讝讬讚 拽讬讚砖 讘砖讜讙讙 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 拽讬讚砖 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪注讬转 诪讬谞讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专转讬 砖讙讙转 诪注砖专 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讙讙转 讛拽讚砖 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖谞讬讛诐 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讛诐

搂 The mishna teaches: And if he betrothed 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 did so unwittingly he has betrothed her, but if he does so intentionally he has not betrothed her. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said: I learned two halakhot from Rabbi Yo岣nan, the halakha of an unwitting error involving tithe according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the halakha of an unwitting error involving consecrated items according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. In both of these cases the woman is not betrothed with the items.

讞讚讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗砖讛 专讜爪讛 讜讞讚讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 诪注砖专 讗讬讛讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讟专讞讗 讚讗讜专讞讗 讗讬讛讜 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚谞讬拽谞讬 讗讬转转讗 诪诪讬诇讗 讗诇讗 讛拽讚砖 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讚谞转讞讬诇 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讬讚讬讬讛讜

He proceeds to explain. One of these halakhot is because the woman does not want to become betrothed with the item, and the reason for the other is because neither the man nor the woman wants it. He adds: And I do not know which of them is due to the woman alone, and which is due to both parties. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Let us see which reason is applicable to which case. It must be that with regard to second tithe, which may be eaten only in Jerusalem, it is not satisfactory for her to be betrothed with it due to the trouble of transporting it all the way to Jerusalem to enjoy it, whereas it is satisfactory for him to betroth her with it, since he acquires a woman by itself, i.e., by the tithe alone, without having to spend additional money of his own. But in the case of consecrated items, it is not satisfactory for the two of them that consecrated property be desacralized by their using it for betrothal.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪注砖专 讗讬讛讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讬专讞讗 讚讗讜专讞讗 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜谞住讗 讚讗讜专讞讗 讗诇讗 讛拽讚砖 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讛讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 讚谞转讞讬诇 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讬讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讛讜 诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚谞讬拽谞讬 讗讬转转讗 诪诪讬诇讗

And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said the opposite is more reasonable. Couldn鈥檛 it be said that in the case of second tithe it is not satisfactory for her to be betrothed with it due to the trouble of transporting it all the way, and it is not satisfactory for him to betroth her with it due to the danger of an accident along the way. If the second tithe gets lost on the way to Jerusalem, she will not have derived any benefit from it. It will cause her distress to think she received nothing for her betrothal, and he does not want cause her distress. But in the case of consecrated items, granted that with regard to her, it is not satisfactory for her that consecrated property be desacralized through her, but why wouldn鈥檛 it be satisfactory for him to acquire a woman by itself, without the expenditure of redeeming a consecrated item? Therefore, the reasons for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement cannot be determined by logic alone.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诪转拽讚砖转 诪注讜转 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讗讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诪转拽讚砖转 诪注讜转 讛讬讗讱 讬爪讗讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉

Rava inquired of Rav 岣sda: According to Rabbi Meir, a woman cannot be betrothed by receiving consecrated money, but what is the halakha with regard to the money he gives her for betrothal: Does the money become desacralized as a result of the act of betrothal, as is usually the case when one uses a consecrated item for his own benefit? Rav 岣sda said to him: If the woman is not betrothed, how can the money become desacralized? Since the money has not actually been used, nothing has changed with regard to its status.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讘诪讻专 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 讘诪讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin inquired of Rav 岣sda: What is the halakha with regard to a sale: If one unwittingly uses consecrated money to purchase an item, does the sale take effect? Rav 岣sda said to him: Even with regard to a sale he does not acquire the item.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讞谞讜谞讬 讻讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞谞讜谞讬 讻砖讜诇讞谞讬

Rav 岣yya bar Avin raised an objection to him: The halakha is that if a man deposited a bundle of money with a money changer, the latter may not use the money. If the money changer untied the bundle and used the money, and it turned out that it was consecrated, the money changer is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property, since he acted without the permission of the depositor. If the money was not in a bundle, the money changer has the right to use it, since the depositor knows that a money changer frequently distributes money. Consequently, in this case, if the money was consecrated, it is the depositor who is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property, since the money changer is considered to have acted with his awareness. If one deposited the money with a homeowner, i.e., not a money changer, the latter may not use it in either case, and he is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property if he does. With regard to a storekeeper, the tanna鈥檌m disagree: The same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a homeowner; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yehuda says: The same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a money changer.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 讞谞讜谞讬 讻砖讜诇讞谞讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讞谞讜谞讬 讻讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讘诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 诪注诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽讗诪专 诇讚讬讚讬 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪注诇 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讗讜讚讬 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讚讞谞讜谞讬 讻讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻砖讜诇讞谞讬

The Gemara analyzes this: They disagree only with regard to that issue: As one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a money changer, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a homeowner. But everyone agrees that if the storekeeper did spend the money, he has misused consecrated property. This indicates that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whatever transaction he performed did take effect. The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Meir stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as follows: According to me, if he spent the money he has also not misused consecrated property, but according to you, at least concede to me that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a homeowner. And Rabbi Yehuda said to him: No, I do not concede to you even with regard to this point, as I hold that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a money changer.

讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara records a discussion as to the reasons for the rulings of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rav 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 53

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 53

谞诪谞讜 讜讙诪专讜 讛诪拽讚砖 讘讞诇拽讜 讘讬谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讘讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讜专讘 讗诪专 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪住转讘专讗

They counted the opinions among the Sages, and they concluded: With regard to one 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 the offerings of lesser sanctity, he has not betrothed her, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And Rav says: It is still a matter of dispute and they did not reach that conclusion. Abaye said: It is reasonable to rule in accordance with the report of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that the halakha was decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬诐 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪谞讞讛 讗砖专 转讗驻讛 讘转谞讜专 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

Abaye quotes an extended baraita indicating that even Rabbi Yehuda accepted that the halakha was decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that priests may not receive a share of meal-offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings, i.e., they may not exchange their portion of a meal-offering for the meat of an animal sacrifice of which they did not receive a portion? The verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal-offering that is baked in the oven鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have鈥 (Leviticus 7:9鈥10). This verse emphasizes that the sons of Aaron must divide the meal-offering equally among themselves, without exchanging it for a portion of any other offering.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖诇讗 拽诪讜 转讞转讬讛诐 讘讚诇讜转 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 注讜驻讜转 砖讛专讬 拽诪讜 转讞转讬讛谉 讘讚诇讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 谞注砖讛 讘诪专讞砖转 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of meal-offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings since they do not substitute for them in the case of poverty. Even one who is too poor to afford to bring an animal offering, e.g., in the case of a sin-offering determined on a sliding scale, does not bring a meal-offering in its stead. Since meal-offerings can never be brought in place of animal offerings, there is clearly no connection between them. But perhaps they may receive a share of meal-offerings in exchange for portions of bird-offerings, since they do substitute for them in the case of poverty. If one is so destitute that he cannot afford to bring a bird-offering he brings a meal-offering. Therefore, the same verse states: 鈥淎nd all that is prepared in the deep pan鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have,鈥 again stressing that all must have an equal share in that meal-offering.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 注讜驻讜转 砖讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 拽诪讞讬诐 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 注讜驻讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛诇诇讜 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注诇 诪讞讘转

The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of meal-offerings in exchange for portions of bird-offerings since these, bird-offerings, are types of offer-ings that involve blood sprinkled on the altar, and those, meal-offerings, are types of offerings made of flour. But perhaps they may receive a share of portions of bird-offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings, since both categories are types of offerings that involve blood sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, the same verse states: 鈥淎nd on a griddle,鈥 a seemingly superfluous phrase, which teaches that one may not receive a share even of bird-offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 注讜驻讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛诇诇讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 讘讬讚 讜讛诇诇讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讞讜转 砖讛诇诇讜 讜讛诇诇讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 讘讬讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪谞讞讛 讘诇讜诇讛 讘砖诪谉 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉

The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of bird-offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings because the actions, i.e., killing, of these birds is by hand, by pinching the neck, and the actions, i.e., killing, of those animals is with a utensil, by slaughtering with a knife. But perhaps they may receive a share of meal-offerings in exchange for portions of other meal-offerings, since the actions with both these and those are by hand. Therefore, the next verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal-offering mingled with oil鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have鈥 (Leviticus 7:10).

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪讞讘转 讻谞讙讚 诪专讞砖转 讜诪专讞砖转 讻谞讙讚 诪讞讘转 砖讝讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 专讻讬诐 讜讝讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 拽砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪讞讘转 讻谞讙讚 诪讞讘转 讜诪专讞砖转 讻谞讙讚 诪专讞砖转 砖讛诇诇讜 讜讛诇诇讜 诪注砖讬讛诐 拽砖讬诐 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪注砖讬讛诐 专讻讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞专讘讛 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of a meal-offering prepared on a griddle in exchange for portions of a mealoffering prepared in a deep pan, or portions of a meal-offering prepared in a deep pan in exchange for portions of a mealoffering prepared on a griddle, since the actions with this deep pan result in a soft product, and the actions with that griddle result in a hard product. But perhaps they may receive a share of a meal-offering prepared on a griddle in exchange for the portions of a meal-offering prepared on a griddle, or a share of a meal-offering prepared in a deep pan in exchange for portions of a meal-offering prepared in a deep pan, since the actions with both these and those result in a hard product, in the case of a griddle, or alternatively, with regard to a deep pan, the actions result in a soft product. Therefore, the same verse states: 鈥淥r dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have鈥 (Leviticus 7:10).

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 讘拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讻讗讞讬讜 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讗诐 注诇 转讜讚讛 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讻讱 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., meal-offerings, in exchange for a portion of another similar offering, but they may receive a share of offerings of lesser sanctity in exchange for a portion of another similar offering. Therefore, the same verse states with regard to meal-offerings: 鈥淪hall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another鈥 (Leviticus 7:10), and near it appears the verse: 鈥淚f he offers it for a thanks-offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:12), from which is derived: Just as one may not receive a share of one offering in exchange for a portion of another similar offering in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, so too, one may not receive a share of one offering in exchange for a portion of another similar offering in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., a thanks-offering.

讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讞讜诇拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讛拽讟谉 讞讜诇拽 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转诐 住转诐 住驻专讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讜讗 拽讗诪专 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讻诇诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The baraita expounds this verse further: It states: 鈥淥ne as well as another [ish ke鈥檃岣v],鈥 which teaches that with regard to priests, a man [ish] who is an adult receives a share even if he is blemished, but a priest who is a minor may not receive a share even if he is unblemished. This baraita is found in the Sifra, a collection of halakhic midrashim on the book of Leviticus. And who is the tanna to whom unattributed statements in the Sifra are assigned? It is Rabbi Yehuda, and here he says that no law of receiving a share applies to it at all, which means that priests cannot exchange one portion of any type of offering for another portion, so they cannot use it to betroth a woman. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion and subscribes to the opinion that a priest does not own the portion of the offerings he receives.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻专讘 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛爪谞讜注讬诐 诪讜砖讻讬谉 讗转 讬讚讬讛诐 讜讛讙专讙专谞讬诐 讞讜诇拽讬诐 诪讗讬 讞讜诇拽讬诐 讞讜讟驻讬诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖讞讟祝 讞诇拽讜 讜讞诇拽 讞讘专讜 讜讛讬讜 拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞诪爪谉 注讚 讬讜诐 诪讜转讜

Rava said: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 13:7): When the priests receive their portion of the shewbread each week, the modest ones withdraw their hands and do not take it, and the gluttons receive all the shares of the bread. This indicates that offerings may be apportioned according to the priests鈥 wishes. The Gemara rejects this: What is the meaning of receive the shares? It does not mean that they exchange one portion for another with halakhic sanction; it means that they would snatch their colleagues鈥 portions, as it teaches in the latter clause of that same baraita: An incident occurred involving one who snatched his share and his colleague鈥檚 share, and they called him ben 岣mtzan, son of the snatcher, until the day he died.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讗诇讛讬 驻诇讟谞讬 诪讬讚 专砖注 诪讻祝 诪注讜诇 讜讞讜诪抓 专讘讛 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诇诪讚讜 讛讬讟讘 讚专砖讜 诪砖驻讟 讗砖专讜 讞诪讜抓

Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: What is the verse from which is derived that 岣mtzan means one who snatches? The verse states: 鈥淢y God, rescue me out of the hand of the wicked, out of the grasp of the unrighteous and grasping man [岣metz]鈥 (Psalms 71:4). Rabba said: It is derived from here: 鈥淟earn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed [岣motz]鈥 (Isaiah 1:17), i.e., restore property stolen from victims of theft.

诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜讙讙 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 诪讝讬讚 拽讬讚砖 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙诪专讗 讜讻诇 诪注砖专 讛讗专抓 诪讝专注 讛讗专抓 诪驻专讬 讛注抓 诇讛壮 讛讜讗 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 诇讛壮 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诇拽讚砖 讘讜 讗砖讛

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? From where does Rabbi Meir derive that second tithe cannot be used for betrothal? Rav A岣, son of Rava, says in the name of tradition: The verse states: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord鈥檚; it is holy to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:30). This verse indicates that it is for the Lord, but not for betrothing a woman with it.

讛专讬 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讚讻转讬讘 讻谉 转专讬诪讜 讙诐 讗转诐 转专讜诪转 讛壮 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇讛壮

The Gemara questions this derivation from several instances where similar wording is employed in a different verse, yet one may use those items for betrothal. But there is teruma of the tithe, about which it is written: 鈥淪o you also shall set apart a gift of the Lord of all your tithes鈥 (Numbers 18:28)? And we learned in a mishna (58a): With regard to one who betroths a woman with teruma, she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: Teruma of the tithe is different, as 鈥渢o the Lord鈥 is not written with regard to it, indicating that it can be used for betrothal.

讜讛专讬 讞诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 转转谞讜 诇讛壮 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讜转 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: But there is 岣lla, the portion of dough that one must separate and give to a priest, about which it is written: 鈥淥f the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:21)? And we also learned in that same mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, of which 岣lla is one type, she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: Although the verse does write 鈥渢o the Lord,鈥 岣lla is different, as the word 鈥渉oly鈥 was not written with regard to it.

讜讛专讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖 转讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇讛壮

The Gemara asks: But there is produce of the Sabbatical Year, about which it is written: 鈥淚t is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:12)? And we learned by inferring from a mishna (50b) that in the case of one who betroths a woman with produce of the Sabbatical Year, she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: With regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year, the verse writes 鈥渉oly,鈥 but 鈥渢o the Lord鈥 is not written with regard to it.

讜讛专讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 拽讚砖 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛壮 专讗砖讬转 转讘讜讗转讛 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讛讜讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But there is teruma, about which it is written: 鈥淭he Jewish people are the Lord鈥檚 holy portion, His first fruits of the increase鈥 (Jeremiah 2:3)? And we learned in a mishna (58a) that in the case of one who betroths a woman with teruma, she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: That verse was written with regard to the Jewish people, who are called the Lord鈥檚 holy portion, but not with regard to teruma itself.

讜诇讗讜 诪诪讬诇讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专讙诪讛 专讘讬谉 住讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 you understand it by itself from this verse? Since the verse compares the Jewish people to teruma, the categorization of 鈥渉oly鈥 evidently applies to teruma as well. Ravin the Elder interpreted it before Rav: The difference is that with regard to tithe the verse states: 鈥淚t is for the Lord,鈥 which indicates: As it is, it should be, as consecrated.

讜讘讛拽讚砖 讘诪讝讬讚 拽讬讚砖 讘砖讜讙讙 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 拽讬讚砖 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪注讬转 诪讬谞讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专转讬 砖讙讙转 诪注砖专 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讙讙转 讛拽讚砖 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖谞讬讛诐 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讛诐

搂 The mishna teaches: And if he betrothed 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 did so unwittingly he has betrothed her, but if he does so intentionally he has not betrothed her. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said: I learned two halakhot from Rabbi Yo岣nan, the halakha of an unwitting error involving tithe according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the halakha of an unwitting error involving consecrated items according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. In both of these cases the woman is not betrothed with the items.

讞讚讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗砖讛 专讜爪讛 讜讞讚讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 诪注砖专 讗讬讛讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讟专讞讗 讚讗讜专讞讗 讗讬讛讜 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚谞讬拽谞讬 讗讬转转讗 诪诪讬诇讗 讗诇讗 讛拽讚砖 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讚谞转讞讬诇 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讬讚讬讬讛讜

He proceeds to explain. One of these halakhot is because the woman does not want to become betrothed with the item, and the reason for the other is because neither the man nor the woman wants it. He adds: And I do not know which of them is due to the woman alone, and which is due to both parties. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Let us see which reason is applicable to which case. It must be that with regard to second tithe, which may be eaten only in Jerusalem, it is not satisfactory for her to be betrothed with it due to the trouble of transporting it all the way to Jerusalem to enjoy it, whereas it is satisfactory for him to betroth her with it, since he acquires a woman by itself, i.e., by the tithe alone, without having to spend additional money of his own. But in the case of consecrated items, it is not satisfactory for the two of them that consecrated property be desacralized by their using it for betrothal.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪注砖专 讗讬讛讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讬专讞讗 讚讗讜专讞讗 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜谞住讗 讚讗讜专讞讗 讗诇讗 讛拽讚砖 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讛讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 讚谞转讞讬诇 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讬讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讛讜 诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚谞讬拽谞讬 讗讬转转讗 诪诪讬诇讗

And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said the opposite is more reasonable. Couldn鈥檛 it be said that in the case of second tithe it is not satisfactory for her to be betrothed with it due to the trouble of transporting it all the way, and it is not satisfactory for him to betroth her with it due to the danger of an accident along the way. If the second tithe gets lost on the way to Jerusalem, she will not have derived any benefit from it. It will cause her distress to think she received nothing for her betrothal, and he does not want cause her distress. But in the case of consecrated items, granted that with regard to her, it is not satisfactory for her that consecrated property be desacralized through her, but why wouldn鈥檛 it be satisfactory for him to acquire a woman by itself, without the expenditure of redeeming a consecrated item? Therefore, the reasons for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement cannot be determined by logic alone.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诪转拽讚砖转 诪注讜转 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讗讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诪转拽讚砖转 诪注讜转 讛讬讗讱 讬爪讗讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉

Rava inquired of Rav 岣sda: According to Rabbi Meir, a woman cannot be betrothed by receiving consecrated money, but what is the halakha with regard to the money he gives her for betrothal: Does the money become desacralized as a result of the act of betrothal, as is usually the case when one uses a consecrated item for his own benefit? Rav 岣sda said to him: If the woman is not betrothed, how can the money become desacralized? Since the money has not actually been used, nothing has changed with regard to its status.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讘诪讻专 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 讘诪讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin inquired of Rav 岣sda: What is the halakha with regard to a sale: If one unwittingly uses consecrated money to purchase an item, does the sale take effect? Rav 岣sda said to him: Even with regard to a sale he does not acquire the item.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讞谞讜谞讬 讻讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞谞讜谞讬 讻砖讜诇讞谞讬

Rav 岣yya bar Avin raised an objection to him: The halakha is that if a man deposited a bundle of money with a money changer, the latter may not use the money. If the money changer untied the bundle and used the money, and it turned out that it was consecrated, the money changer is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property, since he acted without the permission of the depositor. If the money was not in a bundle, the money changer has the right to use it, since the depositor knows that a money changer frequently distributes money. Consequently, in this case, if the money was consecrated, it is the depositor who is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property, since the money changer is considered to have acted with his awareness. If one deposited the money with a homeowner, i.e., not a money changer, the latter may not use it in either case, and he is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property if he does. With regard to a storekeeper, the tanna鈥檌m disagree: The same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a homeowner; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yehuda says: The same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a money changer.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 讞谞讜谞讬 讻砖讜诇讞谞讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讞谞讜谞讬 讻讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讘诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 诪注诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽讗诪专 诇讚讬讚讬 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪注诇 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讗讜讚讬 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讚讞谞讜谞讬 讻讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻砖讜诇讞谞讬

The Gemara analyzes this: They disagree only with regard to that issue: As one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a money changer, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a homeowner. But everyone agrees that if the storekeeper did spend the money, he has misused consecrated property. This indicates that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whatever transaction he performed did take effect. The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Meir stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as follows: According to me, if he spent the money he has also not misused consecrated property, but according to you, at least concede to me that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a homeowner. And Rabbi Yehuda said to him: No, I do not concede to you even with regard to this point, as I hold that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a money changer.

讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara records a discussion as to the reasons for the rulings of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rav says:

Scroll To Top