Kiddushin 104

והא מתניתין דגזל דידה וקאמר רב אינה מקודשת לא קשיא הא דשדיך הא דלא שדיך

But our Mishnah [deals with] her own robbery,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it states 'IT WAS THEIRS'.');">¹</span> yet Rab said: She is not betrothed? There is no difficulty: in the one case, he had [previously] negotiated [with her for marriage];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then she accepts it as kiddushin, and thereby it ceases to be robbery, as explained.');">²</span>

ההיא איתתא דהוה קא משיא כרעא במשיכלא דמיא אתא ההוא גברא חטף זוזי מחבריה ושדא לה אמר לה מיקדשת לי אתא ההוא גברא לקמיה דרבא אמר לית דחש להא דר' שמעון דאמר סתם גזילה יאוש בעלים הוי

in the other, he had not negotiated. A certain woman was washing her feet in a bowl of water, when a man came, snatched a zuz from his neighbour, threw it to her and exclaimed: 'Thou are betrothed unto me!' Then that man went before Raba, who said to him; None pay regard to R'Simeon's dictum, viz. : Robbery in general involves the owner's abandonment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 1. I.e., if we do not know whether the owner abandons the article or not, we assume that he does. Raba told him that this ruling is disregarded: hence the betrothal was invalid.');">³</span> A certain aris<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tenant-farmer, who pays a certain percentage of his crops as rent.');">⁴</span>

ההוא אריסא דקדיש במוזא דשמכי אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה מאן אחלך והני מילי במוזא אבל כישא מצי אמר ליה אנא שקלי כישא שקיל את כישא כישא כי כישא

betrothed [a woman] with a handful of onions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi. Jast.: leaves of onions, leek.');">⁵</span> When he came before Raba he said to him, 'Who renounced it in your favour? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The onions belong partly to the landlord; did he renounce his portion? I.e., it is theft, and the betrothal is invalid.');">⁶</span> Now, that applies only to a handful;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being an indeterminate quantity.');">⁷</span>

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.');">⁸</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.');">⁹</span> betrothed [a woman] with a measure of beer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Others, reading 'pirzuma', the second run of barley beer.');">¹⁰</span>

דתניא כיצד אמרו תורם שלא מדעת תרומתו תרומה הרי שירד לתוך שדה חבירו וליקט ותרם שלא ברשות אם חושש משום גזל אין תרומתו תרומה ואם לאו תרומתו תרומה

Then the owner of the beer came and found him. Said he to him, 'Why did you not give [her] of this [beer, which is] stronger? ' When he came before Raba, he said to him.' Go to the better' was said only in reference to terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 6. infra.');">¹¹</span>

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'.');">¹²</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.

אבל הכא משום כיסופא הוא דעבד ואינה מקודשת

And how does on know whether he resents it as theft or not? If the owner comes and finds him, and says to him, 'Go to the better [produce]': and better [crops] are found, the separation is valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this proves that he meant what he said.');">¹³</span> if not, it is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he thus sarcastically shewed his resentment. Now, this criterion applies only to terumah, since it must be separated in any case.');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המקדש בחלקו בין קדשי קדשים בין קדשים קלים אינה מקודשת במעשר שני בין שוגג בין מזיד לא קידש דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג לא קידש במזיד קידש

If the owner gathers [crops] and adds [to that already separated], in both cases his separation is valid. But here he acted thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bidding him take stronger beer.');">¹⁵</span> through shame;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being ashamed to express an objection.');">¹⁶</span>

ובהקדש במזיד קידש ובשוגג לא קידש דברי ר' מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג קידש במזיד לא קידש

hence she is not betrothed. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE [A PRIEST] BETROTHS [A WOMAN] WITH HIS PORTION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the sacrifices.');">¹⁷</span> WHETHER [IT IS OF] THE HIGHER OR OF THE LOWER SANCTITY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sacrifices were of two degrees of sanctity: the higher (holy of holies) , e.g., the sin-offering, and the lower (less holy) , e.g., the peace-offering. The former were eaten by priests only; the latter, partly by priests and partly by their Israelite owners.');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> נימא מתניתין דלא כרבי יוסי הגלילי דתניא (ויקרא ה, כא) ומעלה מעל בה' לרבות קדשים קלים שהן ממונו דברי ר' יוסי הגלילי

SHE IS NOT BETROTHED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is regarded as God's, not the priests'.');">¹⁹</span> [IF] WITH SECOND TITHE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the Israelite separated and ate in Jerusalem.');">²⁰</span> WHETHER UNWITTINGLY OR DELIBERATELY, HE DOES NOT BETROTH [HER]: THIS IS R'MEIR'S VIEW.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He regards second tithe too as God's.');">²¹</span>

אפי' תימא ר' יוסי הגלילי כי קאמר ר' יוסי הגלילי מחיים אבל לאחר שחיטה לא מאי טעמא כי קא זכו משלחן גבוה קא זכו

R'JUDAH SAID: IF UNWITTINGLY, HE HAS NOT BETROTHED [HER]; IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS. [IF] WITH HEKDESH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²²</span> IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS BETROTHED HER; IF UNWITTINGLY, HE HAS NOT: THIS IS R'MEIR'S VIEW.

דיקא נמי דקתני המקדש בחלקו בין קדשי קדשים ובין קדשים קלים לא קידש ש"מ

R'JUDAH SAID: IF UNWITTINGLY, HE HAS BETROTHED HER; IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS NOT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasons are explained in the GEMARA:');">²³</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R'Jose the Galilean? For it was taught: [If any one sin] and commit a trespass against the Lord [.

תנו רבנן לאחר פטירתו של ר' מאיר אמר להם רבי יהודה לתלמידיו אל יכנסו תלמידי רבי מאיר לכאן מפני שקנתרנים הם ולא ללמוד תורה הם באים אלא לקפחני בהלכות הם באים דחק סומכוס ונכנס אמר להם כך שנה לי ר' מאיר המקדש בחלקו בין קדשי קדשים ובין קדשים קלים לא קידש

then he shall bring his guilt-offering]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 21. The trespass referred to is repudiation of liability with a false oath.');">²⁴</span> this is to include lower grade sacrifices as his [the individual's] property:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one swears falsely that he did not vow a peace-offering, which is of the lower sanctity, he incurs this sacrifice. Though this law does not hold good in respect to God's property (deduced from, 'and deal falsely with his neighbour' ibid.) , the phrase 'against the Lord' shews that even where there is an element of sanctity this sacrifice is involved. Hence it includes lower grade sacrifices, and thus teaches that these rank as the individual's property; this contradicts the ruling of the MISHNAH:');">²⁵</span> this is R'Jose the Galilean's opinion! - You may even say that it agrees with R'Jose the Galilean: he stated [that view] only whilst it [the animal to be sacrificed] is alive, but not after it is killed.

כעס ר' יהודה עליהם אמר להם לא כך אמרתי לכם אל יכנסו מתלמידי ר"מ לכאן מפני שקנתרנים הם ולא ללמוד תורה הם באים אלא לקפחני בהלכות הם באים וכי אשה בעזרה מנין

What is the reason? When they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner and the Priest.');">²⁶</span> acquire [thereof], it is from the table of the Most High that they acquire [it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., having been sacrificed, it is certainly God's.');">²⁷</span>

אמר ר' יוסי יאמרו מאיר שכב יהודה כעס יוסי שתק דברי תורה מה תהא עליה וכי אין אדם עשוי לקבל קידושין לבתו בעזרה ואין אשה עשויה לעשות לה שליח לקבל קידושיה בעזרה ועוד דחקה ונכנסה מאי

This may be deduced too; because it is stated: IF ONE BETROTHS [A WOMAN] WITH HIS PORTION, WHETHER [IT IS OF] THE HIGHER OR OF THE LOWER SANCTITY, HE HAS NOT BETROTHED HER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'HIS PORTION' implies that it is already divided - viz., after its death.');">²⁸</span> Our Rabbis taught: After R'Meir's demise, R'Judah announced to his disciples, 'Let not R'Meir's disciples enter hither, because they are disputatious and do not come to learn Torah but to overwhelm one with halachoth.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prove one ignorant.');">²⁹</span> Yet Symmachus forced his way through and entered.

תניא ר' יהודה אומר מקודשת ר' יוסי אומר אינה מקודשת אמר ר' יוחנן שניהם מקרא אחד דרשו (במדבר יח, ט) וזה יהיה לך מקדש הקדשים מן האש ר' יהודה סבר לך ולכל צרכיך ור' יוסי סבר כאש מה אש לאכילה אף הוא נמי לאכילה

Said he to them: Thus did R'Meir teach me: If one betroths [a woman] with his portion, whether of the higher or of the lower sanctity, he has not betrothed [her]. Thereupon R'Judah became incensed with them and exclaimed: 'Did I not say to you, Let not R'Meir's disciples enter hither, because they are disputatious and do not come to learn Torah but to overwhelm me with halachoth: how then does a woman come to be in the Temple Court? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sacrifices of the higher sanctity might not be taken out of the Temple Court, not even into the women's compartment. Rashi observes that women were forbidden to enter the Temple Court. Tosaf. holds this to be an error, and explains: how then does a woman come to be in the Temple Court for such a purpose? For that is too unusual to be dealt with.');">³⁰</span> Said R'Jose, Shall it be said: Meir is dead, Judah angry, and Jose silent: what is to become of the words of the Torah?

אמר ר' יוחנן

Cannot a man accept kiddushin on his daughter's behalf in the Temple Court? And cannot a woman authorize a messenger to receive her kiddushin in the Temple Court? Again, what if she forces herself in?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And accepts kiddushin, though she has no right to be there at all, according to Rashi; or, 'forces' is used metaphorically: what if she insists on entering there for that purpose, though it is unusual? (so presumably understood by Tosaf.)');">³¹</span> It was taught: R'Judah said: She is betrothed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When given the priests' portion as kiddushin.');">³²</span> R'Jose ruled: She is not betrothed. Said R'Johanan: Both derive [their views] from the same verse: This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 9.');">³³</span> R'Judah holds, 'thine' [implies] for all thy needs;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which includes betrothal.');">³⁴</span> whereas R'Jose maintains it is as [what is offered on] 'th fire':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. on the altar.');">³⁵</span> just as the fire is for consumption only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The portion belonging to God is consumed by fire on the altar, and cannot be disposed of in any other way.');">³⁶</span> so that too is for consumption [by the priest] only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he cannot put it to any other use.');">³⁷</span> R'Johanan said: