Commentary for Kiddushin 116:5
דמר אית ליה דשמואל ומר לית ליה דשמואל
R'Jose son of R'Judah said: He must pay only for the hullin it contains. Surely they differ in this: one Master holds that disposal rights are money, while the other maintains that they are not? - No: all agree that disposal rights are not money, but here, however, the reference is to tebalim which he inherited from the house of his maternal grandfather, a priest, and they differ as to whether unseparated [priestly] dues are regarded as separated: one Master holds that they are regarded as separated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence they have a monetary value to the Israelite, and so the thief must pay for them.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The Talmud now goes back to interpreting the dispute to be about regular tevel, not inherited tevel. They disagree about Shmuel’s rule that giving one grain of wheat as terumah makes the rest of the stack permitted. Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi says that it does, therefore, the thief has to pay back the entire value of what he stole because he could have given only one grain as terumah. R. Yose b. R. Yehudah holds that the person must give the real amount of terumah. Therefore, the thief pays back hullin. The right to give the terumah to whomever he wants is not considered money.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy