Commentary for Kiddushin 104:4
ההוא סרסיא דקדיש בפרומא דשיכרא אתא מריה דשיכרא אשכחיה אמר ליה אמאי לא תיתיב מהאי חריפא אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר לא אמרו כלך אצל יפות אלא לענין תרומה בלבד
but as for a bunch, he [the aris] can say to him [the landowner], 'As I have taken a bunch, do you take one: one bunch is the same as another.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the kiddushin would be valid.');"><sup>8</sup></span> A certain agent-brewer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: who brewed beer from dates supplied to him, receiving a fixed percentage of the profits.');"><sup>9</sup></span> betrothed [a woman] with a measure of beer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Others, reading 'pirzuma', the second run of barley beer.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The brewer used beer that does not belong to him to betroth the woman. When the owner saw what he had done, he asked why he used the weak beer and not the better, stronger, beer. The question is whether this is considered acquiescence to his use of the beer such that the woman is betrothed.
Rava essentially rules that the betrothal is not valid. The actions of the brewer remind him of the case of terumah. The baraita refers to a case where a person separates terumah on another person’s behalf. The separation of terumah is valid if we can ascertain that the owner was satisfied with the separation. If he says to the one who separated—why didn’t you separate from better produce, and there is better produce, then the separation is valid. But if there is no better produce, then he is being sarcastic and the separation is not valid.
If the owner adds more produce to that already separated, then again, the initial separation is valid.
Rava essentially rules that the betrothal is not valid. The actions of the brewer remind him of the case of terumah. The baraita refers to a case where a person separates terumah on another person’s behalf. The separation of terumah is valid if we can ascertain that the owner was satisfied with the separation. If he says to the one who separated—why didn’t you separate from better produce, and there is better produce, then the separation is valid. But if there is no better produce, then he is being sarcastic and the separation is not valid.
If the owner adds more produce to that already separated, then again, the initial separation is valid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
This is the end of Rava’s ruling. In this case, the owner of the beer did not really want the brewer to use his beer to betroth a woman. He was simply embarrassed that poor quality beer was used. But the beer did not belong to the brewer and therefore he cannot betroth with it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy