Commentary for Kiddushin 104:6
ומנין היה יודע אם חושש משום גזל אם לאו הרי שבא בעל הבית ומצאו ואמר לו כלך אצל יפות אם נמצאו יפות מהם תרומתו תרומה ואם לאו אין תרומתו תרומה היו הבעלים מלקטים ומוסיפים בין כך ובין כך תרומתו תרומה
For it was taught: In which case was it ruled that if one separates [terumah] without [the owner's] knowledge, his separation is valid? If one enters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'descends into'.');"><sup>12</sup></span> his neighbour's field, gathers [the crops] and separates [terumah] without permission: and he [the owner] resents it as [akin to] theft, his separation is not valid; otherwise, it is.
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