Commentary for Kiddushin 106:7
איתיביה חנוני כבעל הבית דברי ר"מ ר' יהודה אומר חנוני כשולחני
pass out into hullin? - Seeing that the woman is not betrothed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that his statement is null.');"><sup>13</sup></span> how is the money to pass out into hullin? R'Hiyya B'Abin asked R'Hisda: How is it in the case of purchase?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On R. Meir's view, what if one unwittingly buys an article with money belonging to hekdesh; does he acquire it or not?');"><sup>14</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
R. Hiyya b. Avin raises an objection against R. Hisda. The discussion in this baraita is of a person who deposits some money with someone and does not tell him that the money is sacred. If he deposits money in a bundle with a money-changer, the money-changer may not use the money. If he does use it, and it is sacred, then he has committed trespass, because he should not have been using the money. But if not bundled up, the money-changer may use the money, and therefore, he has not committed trespass. Rather the depositor has. If one deposited it with a homeowner, the homeowner may never use the money, whether it is bundled up or not. The tannaim disagree about the status of a storekeeper—is he treated like a homeowner (R. Meir) or like a money-changer (R. Yehudah). But all agree that if the storekeeper used the money, he has trespassed. This implies that the transaction takes effect, meaning that if hekdesh is used to buy goods, the transaction is successful.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy