Commentary for Kiddushin 56:9
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> רשות הגבוה בכסף ורשות ההדיוט בחזקה אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט:
Now, according to Resh Lakish, who maintains that meshikah is explicitly required by Biblical law: it is well if he agrees with R'Shesheth, who rules [that] produce can effect a barter; then he can explain it as R'Shesheth. But if he holds with R'Nahman, that produce cannot effect a barter, whilst money does not effect a title [at all], how can he explain it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, as we have seen, on the original hypothesis either of these is involved.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
Ordinary people cannot acquire movable property by using money (as we have learned already), but the Temple can use money to acquire movable property. So if the Temple’s treasurer wants to buy a cow, once he gives the cow’s owner money the cow is sanctified and belongs to the Temple.
Ordinary people can acquire through hazakah, which here seems to be used in the sense of taking physical possession.
Ordinary people can acquire through hazakah, which here seems to be used in the sense of taking physical possession.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
A verbal declaration is not sufficient to transfer ownership. In other words, if I just pick up an object and say “This belongs to Reuven”, the object does not yet belong to Reuven. However, when it comes to dedicating something to the Temple, a verbal declaration is sufficient. If I state, “This cow belongs to the Temple,” the cow belongs to the Temple and is considered sacred. We can see through both of these sections that the Temple more easily acquires property than does an ordinary human being.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy