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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 8, 2016 | 诇壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Kiddushin 58

There are two potential sources for learning that deriving benefit from non sacrificial animals slaughtered in the azara is forbidden. 聽An opinion of Rabbi Shimon that聽disagrees with our mishna states that one can marry a woman with money that was used to acquire this animal. 聽A contradiction is raised against his opinion and resolved. 聽How do we derive that if one were to sell any items that is forbidden to derive benefit from, the marriage would be valid? 聽The next mishna relates to the issue of ovat hanaa.聽What is that and is it considered to have monetary value or not? 聽How each opinion fits in with our mishna is discussed. 聽The amoraim debate the issue and the gemara then tries to prove that it is also a tannaitic debate. 聽However that opinion is rejected and various ways to understand that tannaitic debate are considered.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛专讗讜讬诐 诇讬拽专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讻谉 诪讬谉 讛诪讻砖讬专 讜诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讞讬讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讞讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻讘讛诪讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讜驻讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜

which are fit to be sacrificed. From where do I know to include blemished animals in this prohibition? I include blemished animals since they are at least of the type that is fit to be sacrificed. And from where do I know to include the undomesticated animal in this prohibition? I include the undomesticated animal since it is rendered fit for consumption by means of slaughtering, like a domesticated animal. From where do I know to include birds, as the Torah does not mention slaughter with regard to birds, in this prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he slaughters it,鈥 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 as well as 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 employing the addition term 鈥渋t鈥 each time. These three verses teach that one may not eat from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 砖讞讟 讬砖诇讬讻谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讻诇讘讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诇讘 转砖诇讻讜谉 讗转讜 讗讜转讜 讗转讛 诪砖诇讬讱 诇讻诇讘 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪砖诇讬讱 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛

The baraita continues: One might have thought that he may not slaughter a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard ab initio, but if he did slaughter it, he may cast it before the dogs, i.e., derive benefit from it. The verse states: 鈥淭herefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs鈥 (Exodus 22:30), which teaches that although one is prohibited from eating the meat of a tereifa, one may derive benefit from it. The word 鈥渋t鈥 serves to emphasize and exclude: You may cast it, i.e., a tereifa, to the dogs, but you may not cast non-sacred animals that have been slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, as it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them.

讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞讬讗 讛诪拽讚砖 讘驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讘讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗诇诪讗 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara relates: Mar Yehuda found Rav Yosef and Rav Shmuel, son of Rabba bar bar 岣na, standing at the entrance of Rabba鈥檚 study hall. He said to them: It is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a firstborn donkey, with meat cooked in milk, or with non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon says she is betrothed, and the Rabbis say she is not betrothed. Apparently, according to Rabbi Shimon, the prohibition against deriving benefit from non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is not by Torah law, which is why the betrothal takes effect.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛 讬砖专驻讜 讜讻谉 讞讬讛 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讘注讝专讛 讗讬砖转讬拽讜

And Mar Yehuda raises a contradiction against this inference from a different baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred, domesticated, animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard must be burned, as well as a non-sacred undomesticated animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. This indicates that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. They were silent and had no answer.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻诇讙讗 讗讜拽诪讬谞讻讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟专讬驻讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛

They came before Rabba and told him about this difficulty. He said to them: A quarrelsome person has put you up to asking this question. With what are we dealing here in the first baraita? We are dealing with a case where it was slaughtered and found to be a tereifa, and Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning that an act of slaughter which does not render the animal permitted to be eaten is not called slaughter, so the animal does not have the status of a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讟专讬驻讛 讜讻谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟专讬驻讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讘注讝专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, 岣llin 2:4): With regard to one who slaughters a known tereifa, as well as one who slaughters an animal and it was found to be a tereifa, and this and that were non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon permits one to derive benefit from them, as explained previously. And the Rabbis prohibit one from deriving benefit from them, since they do not distinguish between an act of slaughter that does render the animal permitted to be eaten and one that does not. It is only in a case where the man betrothed her with a tereifa that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard that Rabbi Shimon says she is betrothed, but not when the animal was not a tereifa.

诪讻专谉 讜拽讬讚砖 讘讚诪讬讛谉 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪谞诇谉 诪讚讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讬讬转 讞专诐 讻诪讛讜 讻诇 砖讗转讛 诪讛讬讬讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讜讛讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬诐 砖讘转讜专讛 砖专讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if one sold any of the items from which one is prohibited to derive benefit and betrothed a woman with the money received from their sale, she is betrothed. With regard to the possibility of deriving benefit from money received in exchange for items from which benefit is forbidden, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is permitted? The Gemara answers: It is from the fact that the Merciful One reveals in the Torah with regard to an object of idol worship: 鈥淎nd you shall be banned like it鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26), which teaches that anything that you cause to come from it, i.e., in exchange for it, is like it. It can be understood by inference that with regard to all the other prohibitions of the Torah, monies received for items from which benefit is forbidden are permitted.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜砖讘讬注讬转 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara suggests: But let us derive a general principle concerning other prohibitions from the case of idolatry. The Gemara answers: This derivation is not applied, because an object of idol worship and produce of the Sabbatical Year are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter, since both prohibitions also extend to the money obtained for them, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases.

注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖 转讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪讛 拽讜讚砖 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讚诪讬讛

The Gemara clarifies: The source indicating that this is true of an object of idol worship is what we said. What is the source indicating that this halakha applies to produce of the Sabbatical Year? The verse states: 鈥淚t is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:12), from which it is derived: Just as consecrated property transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed, so too, produce of the Sabbatical Year, which has the same status as the Jubilee Year, transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed. Consequently, money used to acquire the produce of the Sabbatical Year will be subject to the same halakhot as the produce itself.

讗讬 诪讛 拽讜讚砖 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讚诪讬讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讛讬讛 讘讛讜讬讬转讛 转讛讗

If so, one could also say that just as with consecrated property, it transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and becomes desacralized, so too, produce of the Sabbatical Year should transfer its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and becomes desacralized. Nevertheless, the verse states: 鈥淪hall be,鈥 meaning: As it is, so it shall be, indicating that the Sabbatical-Year produce does not become desacralized.

讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 讘砖专 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪转讘注专讬诐 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讬爪讗 讘砖专 谞讻谞住讜 讚讙讬诐 讘讚讙讬诐 讬讬谉 讬爪讗讜 讚讙讬诐 谞讻谞住 讬讬谉 讘讬讬谉 砖诪谉 讬爪讗 讬讬谉 谞讻谞住 砖诪谉 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讞专讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 谞转驻住 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜驻讬专讬 注爪诪讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara explains: How so? If one purchased meat with produce of the Sabbatical Year, both these and those, i.e., the meat and the produce, are disposed of in the Sabbatical Year. The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect with regard to the meat as well. It is treated like the produce, and must be disposed of when the obligation to dispose of the Sabbatical-Year produce goes into effect. If he then purchases fish with this meat, the meat loses its consecrated status, and the fish assumes the consecrated state. If he then purchases wine with these fish, the fish loses its consecrated status and the wine assumes the consecrated state. If he then purchases oil with the wine, the wine loses has its consecrated status and the oil assumes the consecrated state. How so? The final item purchased has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year transferred to it, and the Sabbatical-Year produce itself remains forbidden.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讻讬 讞专诐 讛讜讗 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. But according to the one who says that they do teach their common aspect to apply to other cases, what can be said? Why is it not learned from these examples that money received from the sale of an item from which benefit is forbidden, is likewise forbidden? The Gemara answers: Expressions of restriction are written in both cases. Here, with regard to idol worship, it is written: 鈥淔or it is banned鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26), which indicates only that it is banned, i.e., has its prohibition extend to money received from its sale, while other prohibited items are not. And there, with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year, it is written: 鈥淚t is a Jubilee鈥 (Leviticus 25:12), which teaches that with regard to 鈥渋t,鈥 yes, this halakha applies; but this halakha does not apply to anything else.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讜转 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讘诪转谞讜转 讜讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇

MISHNA: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach of an animal, which are given as gifts to priests, or with the water of purification, which is sprinkled on an impure person during the purification rite for impurity imparted by a corpse, or with the ashes of purification, which were mixed with the water sprinkled on an impure person during the purification rite for impurity imparted by a corpse, in all of these cases she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite, not a priest or a Levite.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讜转 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讘诪转谞讜转 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 驻专讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇

GEMARA: Ulla says: The benefit of discretion, i.e., the benefit accrued from the option of giving teruma and tithes to whichever priest or Levite one chooses, does not have monetary value. Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla from the mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with gifts, with the water of purification, or with the ashes of the red heifer, she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite. This indicates that although an Israelite cannot consume the priestly gifts, he may nevertheless betroth a woman with them, since he possesses the option to give them to the priest or Levite of his choice. That benefit has monetary value, and it is that value that he uses to betroth a woman, who can then give them to whichever priest or Levite she chooses.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 讟讘诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 讜拽讗 住讘专 诪转谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉

Ulla said to him: You have misunderstood the case of the mishna, since here the case is with an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was a priest, and the tanna of the mishna holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. The untithed produce is not viewed as one entity, but rather is viewed as a mixture of regular produce, teruma, and tithes. This teruma belonged to his grandfather, who was a priest. Since he has inherited this teruma, he has ownership rights to it in addition to the benefit of discretion. While he cannot consume this produce because he is an Israelite, he can sell it to a priest and keep the money. Since it has actual value, it can be used to betroth a woman.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诪诪讜谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讜转 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讘诪转谞讜转 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 驻专讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗讜 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 讟讘诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉

With regard to this issue, Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin inquired of Rav Huna: Does the benefit of discretion have monetary value, or does it not have monetary value? Rav Huna said to him: You learned it in the mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with gifts, or with the water of purification, or with the ashes of the red heifer, she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite. This indicates that the benefit of discretion has monetary value. Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin said to him: But didn鈥檛 we establish it, in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as referring to an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was a priest?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜爪讗讛 讗转 讗讬讻住讬祝 讛讜讗 住讘专 诪砖诪注转讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 专讘 讗住讬 讚讛讜爪诇 拽讗讬 讻讜转讬讱

Rav Huna said to him: You are out [hotza鈥檃]. Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin was embarrassed, as he thought Rav Huna told him he was out, i.e., wrong, due to the halakha he stated. Sensing Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin鈥檚 embarrassment, Rav Huna said to him: This is what I said: You are a Hutzla鈥檃, as Rav Asi, from the town of Huzal, stands in accordance with your opinion.

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛讙讜谞讘 讟讘诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪砖诇诐 诇讜 讚诪讬 讟讘诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诪诪讜谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. The baraita (Tosefta, Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 3:9) taught: One who steals another鈥檚 untithed produce pays him the full value of the other鈥檚 untithed produce; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He pays only the value of the non-sacred produce that it contains. What, is it not the case that they disagree about this issue: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that the benefit of discretion has monetary value, so he must be compensated beyond the value of the non-sacred produce; and one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and only the non-sacred produce is of value to the owner.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讟讘诇讬诐 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 讜讘诪转谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and here the case is with an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was a priest. And they disagree with regard to the question of whether or not gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that they are considered as though they have been separated, which means that the grandson inherited the teruma itself from his grandfather, so the thief must repay him the value of the terumot and tithes as well. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that such gifts are not considered as though they have been separated; and the produce is viewed as regular untithed produce, where the Israelite has only the benefit of discretion, which is of no monetary value.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉 讜讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讬讟讛 讗讞转 驻讜讟专转 讗转 讛讻专讬

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the gifts are considered as though they have been separated, and that the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value. The case is not concerning an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother鈥檚 father; rather, it is concerning regular untithed produce, and here they disagree with regard to a statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: By Torah law, even one grain given as teruma exempts the entire heap, since the Torah does not specify a minimum amount for teruma.

讚诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

As one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, so the thief must pay the value of the untithed produce as well, since the owner can say that he would separate a single grain as teruma for the entire heap and the rest would remain non-sacred produce. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, which means that when the owner makes his claim he must subtract at least one-sixtieth of the total amount as teruma.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇讙谞讘

And if you wish, say instead that everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel; and here, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Although the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and by right should not lead to reimbursement, the Sages penalized the thief. If he did not need to pay for the teruma contained in the produce, he would have been able to keep it, as no priest has the legal ability to demand that the teruma be given specifically to him.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇砖讛讜讬讛 诇讟讬讘诇讬讛

And if you wish, say instead that everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and here, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: The Sages penalized the owner, since he should not have left his untithed produce in that state, and should have separated teruma without delay.

转谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讜转 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讘诪转谞讜转 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 驻专讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛谞讜讟诇 砖讻专 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬讜 讘讟诇讬诐 诇讛注讬讚 注讚讜转讜 讘讟诇讛 诇讛讝讜转 讜诇拽讚砖 诪讬诪讬讜 诪讬 诪注专讛 讜讗驻专讜 讗驻专 诪拽诇讛

We learned in the mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with the gifts given to priests, or with the water of purification, or with the ashes of the red heifer, in all of these cases she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from the following baraita (Tosefta, Bekhorot 3:5): With regard to one who accepts payment to judge, his judgments are nullified. Similarly, with regard to one who accepts payment to testify, his testimony is nullified. With regard to one who accepts payment to sprinkle the purification water on one who was impure from impurity imparted by a corpse, or to sanctify the purification water by placing the ashes of the red heifer in them, his water is considered cave water, which is generally foul, and his ashes are burnt ashes. Using these items to betroth a woman is analogous to being paid for them, so they should be considered as having no monetary value, and the betrothal should not take effect.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讻专 讛讘讗讛 讜诪讬诇讜讬 讻讗谉 讘砖讻专 讛讝讗讛 讜拽讬讚讜砖

Abaye said: This is not difficult, since here, the mishna is referring to one who betroths a woman with the value of the payment for bringing and filling the vessel with the purification waters, for which one is permitted to accept payment. Performing this act for the woman is comparable to giving her an item of value, since she will not have to pay someone to bring and fill the vessel for her. There, the baraita dealing with one who accepts payment for sprinkling or sanctifying the water is referring to payment for the actual sprinkling and sanctifying.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 驻专讛 讜拽转谞讬 讛转诐 诇讛讝讜转 讜诇拽讚砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: According to this answer, the language of the mishna and the baraita is also precise, as it teaches here, in the mishna, that she is betrothed with the water of purification or with the ashes of purification, which indicates that the water and ashes have not yet been mixed together; and it teaches there, in the baraita: To sprinkle or to sanctify, indicating that he receives payment for the actual sprinkling and sanctification. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the correct explanation of the mishna and the baraita.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗讬砖 诪拽讚砖

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 爪讗 讜拽讚砖 诇讬 讗砖讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讛诇讱 讜拽讚砖讛 诇注爪诪讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇砖谞讬 讜讻谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜拽讬讚砖讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇砖谞讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: With regard to one man who says to another: Go and betroth so-and-so to me, and the latter went and betrothed her to himself, she is betrothed to the second man. And similarly, with regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after thirty days, and another man came and betrothed her within those thirty days, she is betrothed to the second man. This is a full-fledged betrothal, so that if she is an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest, she may partake of teruma.

诪注讻砖讬讜 讜诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜拽讬讚砖讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讗讜 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

If the first man said to the woman: You are hereby betrothed to me from now, and only after thirty days shall the betrothal take effect, and another man came and betrothed her within those thirty days, there is uncertainty whether she is betrothed or whether she is not betrothed to each of them. Consequently, if she was the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest, or the daughter of a priest betrothed to an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma. Since her betrothal is uncertain, the daughter of a non-priest cannot be considered the wife of a priest, and similarly a priest鈥檚 daughter who is doubtfully married to an Israelite loses her right to partake of teruma as the daughter of a priest.

讙诪壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 爪讗 讜拽讚砖 转谞讗 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讗诇讗 砖谞讛讙 讘讜 诪谞讛讙 专诪讗讜转 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讛诇讱 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛诇讱 讘专诪讗讜转

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in the case of one man who says to another: Go and betroth so-and-so to me, and the latter went and betrothed her to himself, she is betrothed to the second man. A tanna taught concerning this issue: What he did is done; it is effective and the woman is betrothed to the second man, but he has treated him, i.e., the first man, in a deceitful manner, and it is prohibited to act in this fashion. The Gemara explains: And the tanna of our mishna, when he teaches the apparently superfluous term: Went, also indicates that he went and acted deceitfully.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜

搂 The Gemara asks a question concerning the language of the mishna: What is different here that the mishna teaches: With regard to one man who says to another,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 58

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 58

讛专讗讜讬诐 诇讬拽专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讻谉 诪讬谉 讛诪讻砖讬专 讜诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讞讬讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讞讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻讘讛诪讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讜驻讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜

which are fit to be sacrificed. From where do I know to include blemished animals in this prohibition? I include blemished animals since they are at least of the type that is fit to be sacrificed. And from where do I know to include the undomesticated animal in this prohibition? I include the undomesticated animal since it is rendered fit for consumption by means of slaughtering, like a domesticated animal. From where do I know to include birds, as the Torah does not mention slaughter with regard to birds, in this prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he slaughters it,鈥 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 as well as 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 employing the addition term 鈥渋t鈥 each time. These three verses teach that one may not eat from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 砖讞讟 讬砖诇讬讻谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讻诇讘讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诇讘 转砖诇讻讜谉 讗转讜 讗讜转讜 讗转讛 诪砖诇讬讱 诇讻诇讘 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪砖诇讬讱 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛

The baraita continues: One might have thought that he may not slaughter a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard ab initio, but if he did slaughter it, he may cast it before the dogs, i.e., derive benefit from it. The verse states: 鈥淭herefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs鈥 (Exodus 22:30), which teaches that although one is prohibited from eating the meat of a tereifa, one may derive benefit from it. The word 鈥渋t鈥 serves to emphasize and exclude: You may cast it, i.e., a tereifa, to the dogs, but you may not cast non-sacred animals that have been slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, as it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them.

讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞讬讗 讛诪拽讚砖 讘驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讘讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗诇诪讗 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara relates: Mar Yehuda found Rav Yosef and Rav Shmuel, son of Rabba bar bar 岣na, standing at the entrance of Rabba鈥檚 study hall. He said to them: It is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a firstborn donkey, with meat cooked in milk, or with non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon says she is betrothed, and the Rabbis say she is not betrothed. Apparently, according to Rabbi Shimon, the prohibition against deriving benefit from non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is not by Torah law, which is why the betrothal takes effect.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛 讬砖专驻讜 讜讻谉 讞讬讛 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讘注讝专讛 讗讬砖转讬拽讜

And Mar Yehuda raises a contradiction against this inference from a different baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred, domesticated, animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard must be burned, as well as a non-sacred undomesticated animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. This indicates that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. They were silent and had no answer.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻诇讙讗 讗讜拽诪讬谞讻讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟专讬驻讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛

They came before Rabba and told him about this difficulty. He said to them: A quarrelsome person has put you up to asking this question. With what are we dealing here in the first baraita? We are dealing with a case where it was slaughtered and found to be a tereifa, and Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning that an act of slaughter which does not render the animal permitted to be eaten is not called slaughter, so the animal does not have the status of a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讟专讬驻讛 讜讻谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟专讬驻讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讘注讝专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, 岣llin 2:4): With regard to one who slaughters a known tereifa, as well as one who slaughters an animal and it was found to be a tereifa, and this and that were non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon permits one to derive benefit from them, as explained previously. And the Rabbis prohibit one from deriving benefit from them, since they do not distinguish between an act of slaughter that does render the animal permitted to be eaten and one that does not. It is only in a case where the man betrothed her with a tereifa that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard that Rabbi Shimon says she is betrothed, but not when the animal was not a tereifa.

诪讻专谉 讜拽讬讚砖 讘讚诪讬讛谉 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪谞诇谉 诪讚讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讬讬转 讞专诐 讻诪讛讜 讻诇 砖讗转讛 诪讛讬讬讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讜讛讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬诐 砖讘转讜专讛 砖专讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if one sold any of the items from which one is prohibited to derive benefit and betrothed a woman with the money received from their sale, she is betrothed. With regard to the possibility of deriving benefit from money received in exchange for items from which benefit is forbidden, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is permitted? The Gemara answers: It is from the fact that the Merciful One reveals in the Torah with regard to an object of idol worship: 鈥淎nd you shall be banned like it鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26), which teaches that anything that you cause to come from it, i.e., in exchange for it, is like it. It can be understood by inference that with regard to all the other prohibitions of the Torah, monies received for items from which benefit is forbidden are permitted.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜砖讘讬注讬转 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara suggests: But let us derive a general principle concerning other prohibitions from the case of idolatry. The Gemara answers: This derivation is not applied, because an object of idol worship and produce of the Sabbatical Year are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter, since both prohibitions also extend to the money obtained for them, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases.

注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖 转讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪讛 拽讜讚砖 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讚诪讬讛

The Gemara clarifies: The source indicating that this is true of an object of idol worship is what we said. What is the source indicating that this halakha applies to produce of the Sabbatical Year? The verse states: 鈥淚t is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:12), from which it is derived: Just as consecrated property transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed, so too, produce of the Sabbatical Year, which has the same status as the Jubilee Year, transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed. Consequently, money used to acquire the produce of the Sabbatical Year will be subject to the same halakhot as the produce itself.

讗讬 诪讛 拽讜讚砖 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讚诪讬讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讛讬讛 讘讛讜讬讬转讛 转讛讗

If so, one could also say that just as with consecrated property, it transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and becomes desacralized, so too, produce of the Sabbatical Year should transfer its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and becomes desacralized. Nevertheless, the verse states: 鈥淪hall be,鈥 meaning: As it is, so it shall be, indicating that the Sabbatical-Year produce does not become desacralized.

讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 讘砖专 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪转讘注专讬诐 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讬爪讗 讘砖专 谞讻谞住讜 讚讙讬诐 讘讚讙讬诐 讬讬谉 讬爪讗讜 讚讙讬诐 谞讻谞住 讬讬谉 讘讬讬谉 砖诪谉 讬爪讗 讬讬谉 谞讻谞住 砖诪谉 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讞专讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 谞转驻住 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜驻讬专讬 注爪诪讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara explains: How so? If one purchased meat with produce of the Sabbatical Year, both these and those, i.e., the meat and the produce, are disposed of in the Sabbatical Year. The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect with regard to the meat as well. It is treated like the produce, and must be disposed of when the obligation to dispose of the Sabbatical-Year produce goes into effect. If he then purchases fish with this meat, the meat loses its consecrated status, and the fish assumes the consecrated state. If he then purchases wine with these fish, the fish loses its consecrated status and the wine assumes the consecrated state. If he then purchases oil with the wine, the wine loses has its consecrated status and the oil assumes the consecrated state. How so? The final item purchased has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year transferred to it, and the Sabbatical-Year produce itself remains forbidden.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讻讬 讞专诐 讛讜讗 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. But according to the one who says that they do teach their common aspect to apply to other cases, what can be said? Why is it not learned from these examples that money received from the sale of an item from which benefit is forbidden, is likewise forbidden? The Gemara answers: Expressions of restriction are written in both cases. Here, with regard to idol worship, it is written: 鈥淔or it is banned鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26), which indicates only that it is banned, i.e., has its prohibition extend to money received from its sale, while other prohibited items are not. And there, with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year, it is written: 鈥淚t is a Jubilee鈥 (Leviticus 25:12), which teaches that with regard to 鈥渋t,鈥 yes, this halakha applies; but this halakha does not apply to anything else.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讜转 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讘诪转谞讜转 讜讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇

MISHNA: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach of an animal, which are given as gifts to priests, or with the water of purification, which is sprinkled on an impure person during the purification rite for impurity imparted by a corpse, or with the ashes of purification, which were mixed with the water sprinkled on an impure person during the purification rite for impurity imparted by a corpse, in all of these cases she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite, not a priest or a Levite.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讜转 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讘诪转谞讜转 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 驻专讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇

GEMARA: Ulla says: The benefit of discretion, i.e., the benefit accrued from the option of giving teruma and tithes to whichever priest or Levite one chooses, does not have monetary value. Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla from the mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with gifts, with the water of purification, or with the ashes of the red heifer, she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite. This indicates that although an Israelite cannot consume the priestly gifts, he may nevertheless betroth a woman with them, since he possesses the option to give them to the priest or Levite of his choice. That benefit has monetary value, and it is that value that he uses to betroth a woman, who can then give them to whichever priest or Levite she chooses.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 讟讘诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 讜拽讗 住讘专 诪转谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉

Ulla said to him: You have misunderstood the case of the mishna, since here the case is with an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was a priest, and the tanna of the mishna holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. The untithed produce is not viewed as one entity, but rather is viewed as a mixture of regular produce, teruma, and tithes. This teruma belonged to his grandfather, who was a priest. Since he has inherited this teruma, he has ownership rights to it in addition to the benefit of discretion. While he cannot consume this produce because he is an Israelite, he can sell it to a priest and keep the money. Since it has actual value, it can be used to betroth a woman.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诪诪讜谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讜转 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讘诪转谞讜转 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 驻专讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗讜 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 讟讘诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉

With regard to this issue, Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin inquired of Rav Huna: Does the benefit of discretion have monetary value, or does it not have monetary value? Rav Huna said to him: You learned it in the mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with gifts, or with the water of purification, or with the ashes of the red heifer, she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite. This indicates that the benefit of discretion has monetary value. Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin said to him: But didn鈥檛 we establish it, in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as referring to an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was a priest?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜爪讗讛 讗转 讗讬讻住讬祝 讛讜讗 住讘专 诪砖诪注转讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 专讘 讗住讬 讚讛讜爪诇 拽讗讬 讻讜转讬讱

Rav Huna said to him: You are out [hotza鈥檃]. Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin was embarrassed, as he thought Rav Huna told him he was out, i.e., wrong, due to the halakha he stated. Sensing Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin鈥檚 embarrassment, Rav Huna said to him: This is what I said: You are a Hutzla鈥檃, as Rav Asi, from the town of Huzal, stands in accordance with your opinion.

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛讙讜谞讘 讟讘诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪砖诇诐 诇讜 讚诪讬 讟讘诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诪诪讜谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. The baraita (Tosefta, Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 3:9) taught: One who steals another鈥檚 untithed produce pays him the full value of the other鈥檚 untithed produce; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He pays only the value of the non-sacred produce that it contains. What, is it not the case that they disagree about this issue: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that the benefit of discretion has monetary value, so he must be compensated beyond the value of the non-sacred produce; and one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and only the non-sacred produce is of value to the owner.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讟讘诇讬诐 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 讜讘诪转谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and here the case is with an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was a priest. And they disagree with regard to the question of whether or not gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that they are considered as though they have been separated, which means that the grandson inherited the teruma itself from his grandfather, so the thief must repay him the value of the terumot and tithes as well. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that such gifts are not considered as though they have been separated; and the produce is viewed as regular untithed produce, where the Israelite has only the benefit of discretion, which is of no monetary value.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉 讜讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讬讟讛 讗讞转 驻讜讟专转 讗转 讛讻专讬

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the gifts are considered as though they have been separated, and that the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value. The case is not concerning an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother鈥檚 father; rather, it is concerning regular untithed produce, and here they disagree with regard to a statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: By Torah law, even one grain given as teruma exempts the entire heap, since the Torah does not specify a minimum amount for teruma.

讚诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

As one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, so the thief must pay the value of the untithed produce as well, since the owner can say that he would separate a single grain as teruma for the entire heap and the rest would remain non-sacred produce. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, which means that when the owner makes his claim he must subtract at least one-sixtieth of the total amount as teruma.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇讙谞讘

And if you wish, say instead that everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel; and here, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Although the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and by right should not lead to reimbursement, the Sages penalized the thief. If he did not need to pay for the teruma contained in the produce, he would have been able to keep it, as no priest has the legal ability to demand that the teruma be given specifically to him.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇砖讛讜讬讛 诇讟讬讘诇讬讛

And if you wish, say instead that everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and here, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: The Sages penalized the owner, since he should not have left his untithed produce in that state, and should have separated teruma without delay.

转谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 讘转专讜诪讜转 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讜讘诪转谞讜转 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 驻专讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛谞讜讟诇 砖讻专 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬讜 讘讟诇讬诐 诇讛注讬讚 注讚讜转讜 讘讟诇讛 诇讛讝讜转 讜诇拽讚砖 诪讬诪讬讜 诪讬 诪注专讛 讜讗驻专讜 讗驻专 诪拽诇讛

We learned in the mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with the gifts given to priests, or with the water of purification, or with the ashes of the red heifer, in all of these cases she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from the following baraita (Tosefta, Bekhorot 3:5): With regard to one who accepts payment to judge, his judgments are nullified. Similarly, with regard to one who accepts payment to testify, his testimony is nullified. With regard to one who accepts payment to sprinkle the purification water on one who was impure from impurity imparted by a corpse, or to sanctify the purification water by placing the ashes of the red heifer in them, his water is considered cave water, which is generally foul, and his ashes are burnt ashes. Using these items to betroth a woman is analogous to being paid for them, so they should be considered as having no monetary value, and the betrothal should not take effect.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讻专 讛讘讗讛 讜诪讬诇讜讬 讻讗谉 讘砖讻专 讛讝讗讛 讜拽讬讚讜砖

Abaye said: This is not difficult, since here, the mishna is referring to one who betroths a woman with the value of the payment for bringing and filling the vessel with the purification waters, for which one is permitted to accept payment. Performing this act for the woman is comparable to giving her an item of value, since she will not have to pay someone to bring and fill the vessel for her. There, the baraita dealing with one who accepts payment for sprinkling or sanctifying the water is referring to payment for the actual sprinkling and sanctifying.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讘讗驻专 驻专讛 讜拽转谞讬 讛转诐 诇讛讝讜转 讜诇拽讚砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: According to this answer, the language of the mishna and the baraita is also precise, as it teaches here, in the mishna, that she is betrothed with the water of purification or with the ashes of purification, which indicates that the water and ashes have not yet been mixed together; and it teaches there, in the baraita: To sprinkle or to sanctify, indicating that he receives payment for the actual sprinkling and sanctification. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the correct explanation of the mishna and the baraita.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗讬砖 诪拽讚砖

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 爪讗 讜拽讚砖 诇讬 讗砖讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讛诇讱 讜拽讚砖讛 诇注爪诪讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇砖谞讬 讜讻谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜拽讬讚砖讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇砖谞讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: With regard to one man who says to another: Go and betroth so-and-so to me, and the latter went and betrothed her to himself, she is betrothed to the second man. And similarly, with regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after thirty days, and another man came and betrothed her within those thirty days, she is betrothed to the second man. This is a full-fledged betrothal, so that if she is an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest, she may partake of teruma.

诪注讻砖讬讜 讜诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜拽讬讚砖讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讗讜 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

If the first man said to the woman: You are hereby betrothed to me from now, and only after thirty days shall the betrothal take effect, and another man came and betrothed her within those thirty days, there is uncertainty whether she is betrothed or whether she is not betrothed to each of them. Consequently, if she was the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest, or the daughter of a priest betrothed to an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma. Since her betrothal is uncertain, the daughter of a non-priest cannot be considered the wife of a priest, and similarly a priest鈥檚 daughter who is doubtfully married to an Israelite loses her right to partake of teruma as the daughter of a priest.

讙诪壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 爪讗 讜拽讚砖 转谞讗 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讗诇讗 砖谞讛讙 讘讜 诪谞讛讙 专诪讗讜转 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讛诇讱 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛诇讱 讘专诪讗讜转

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in the case of one man who says to another: Go and betroth so-and-so to me, and the latter went and betrothed her to himself, she is betrothed to the second man. A tanna taught concerning this issue: What he did is done; it is effective and the woman is betrothed to the second man, but he has treated him, i.e., the first man, in a deceitful manner, and it is prohibited to act in this fashion. The Gemara explains: And the tanna of our mishna, when he teaches the apparently superfluous term: Went, also indicates that he went and acted deceitfully.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜

搂 The Gemara asks a question concerning the language of the mishna: What is different here that the mishna teaches: With regard to one man who says to another,

Scroll To Top