Kiddushin 106

ולאו ממילא שמעת מינה תרגמה רבין סבא קמיה דרב אמר קרא הוא בהוייתו יהא

But does that not follow automatically?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Israel is likened to terumah and as such designated 'holy to the Lord', it follows that the same applies to terumah.');">¹</span> Rabin the Elder explained it before Rab:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason of the Mishnah with reference to the second tithe.');">²</span> Scripture saith, it is [hu - it must remain in its natural form.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the tithe must be used just as it is given to the Levite, viz., consumed by him, and not diverted to another purpose.');">³</span>

ובהקדש במזיד קידש בשוגג לא קידש דברי ר"מ ר"י אומר בשוגג קידש במזיד לא קידש א"ר יעקב שמעית מינה דר' יוחנן תרתי שגגת מעשר דר' יהודה שגגת הקדש דר"מ שניהם אין אשה מתקדשת בהם

[IF] WITH HEKDESH, IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS BETROTHED HER; IF UNWITTINGLY, HE HAS NOT: THIS IS R'MEIR' S VIEW. R'JUDAH SAID: IF UNWITTINGLY, HE HAS BETROTHED HER; IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS NOT. R'Jacob said: I heard from R'Johanan two [reasons on the laws concerning] the unwitting [use of] tithes [for betrothal], according to R'Judah, and the unwitting [use of] hekdesh, on R'Meir's view, [that] in both cases a woman is not betrothed therewith.

חדא לפי שאין אשה רוצה וחדא לפי שאין שניהם רוצים ולא ידענא הי מינייהו אמר ר' ירמיה ניחזי אנן מעשר איהי לא ניחא לה משום טרחא דאורחא איהו ניחא ליה דניקני איתתא ממילא אלא הקדש תרוייהו לא ניחא להו דנתחיל הקדש על ידייהו

One [reason] is that the woman does not wish it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had she known what it was, she would not have accepted it as kiddushin, and therefore it is betrothal in error.');">⁴</span> the other, that both do not desire it. But I do not know which is which.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which opinion he gave the first reason, and for which the second - The practical difference is this: where the first reason applies - if the woman explicitly declares that she had no objection, the betrothal is valid, and it may be assumed that the man too was willing.');">⁵</span>

ור' יעקב אמר איפכא מסתברא מי לא איכא למימר מעשר איהי לא ניחא לה משום טירחא דאורחא איהו לא ניחא ליה משום אונסא דאורחא אלא הקדש בשלמא איהי לא ניחא לה דנתחיל הקדש על ידה אלא איהו מי לא ניחא ליה דניקני איתתא ממילא

Said R'Jeremiah: Let us consider. As for tithes, she is unwilling because of the trouble of the journey;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It has to be taken to Jerusalem.');">⁶</span> he, however, is pleased that the woman should become his without effort.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Giving her the tithe actually saves him trouble.');">⁷</span>

בעא מיניה רבא מרב חסדא אשה אין מתקדשת מעות מהו שיצאו לחולין אמר ליה אשה אין מתקדשת מעות היאך יצאו לחולין

But as for hekdesh, both are unwilling that hekdesh should be secularised through them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he gives her hekdesh he withdraws it from its sacred ownership and it becomes secular (hullin) . But since this involves a sacrifice, it may be assumed that both are unwilling.');">⁸</span> But R'Jacob maintained: The logic is the reverse. Can we not argued as for tithes, she is unwilling on account Of the trouble of the journey, whilst he is unwilling on account of the risks of the journey.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi offers two explanations: (i) Since the tithe must be consumed in Jerusalem, he must bear the risks of the road-risks to which a woman is more exposed than a man, for until it reaches Jerusalem it has no value. For if she redeems it, the money must be carried to Jerusalem, and so he is in the same position. (ii) Even if he bears no responsibility for the risks of the road, yet if she loses it she may be resentful with him for having betrothed her with something of which she derived no benefit, and therefore he too is displeased. Tosaf. accepts the second.');">⁹</span>

בעא מינה רב חייא בר אבין מרב חסדא במכר מאי אמר ליה אף במכר לא קנה

But as for hekdesh: it is indeed well that she is unwilling that hekdesh is secularised through her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she has no particular benefit therefrom - he would have given her something else.');">¹⁰</span> but is he then unwilling that the woman should become his without effort?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., without any outlay of his own for the present.');">¹¹</span> Raba asked R'Hisda: The woman [it is said.] is not betrothed; does the money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is hekdesh.');">¹²</span>

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.');">¹³</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?');">¹⁴</span>

עד כאן לא קא מיפלגי אלא דמר סבר חנוני כשולחני ומר סבר חנוני כבעל הבית אבל דכולי עלמא אם הוציא מעל רבי מאיר לדבריו דר' יהודה קאמר לדידי אם הוציא נמי לא מעל אלא לדידך אודי לי מיהא דחנוני כבעל הבית ואמר ליה לא כשולחני

- In the case of purchase too, he replied, he gains no title. Thereupon he raised an objection: A shopkeeper ranks as a private individual: this is R'Meir's view. R'Judah maintained: A shopkeeper is as a money-changer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Me'il. 21b. If the Temple treasurer deposits money of hekdesh with a money-changer and it is bound up, he may not use it; if he does, he is liable for trespass, not the treasurer. If loose, he may use it, for the treasurer knows that he is continually in need of change, and by giving it to him loose he tacitly authorizes him to use it: therefore, if he does, the treasurer is liable. But if he deposits it with a private individual, whether loose or bound up, the bailee may not expend it; therefore if he does use it he is liable. A shopkeeper stands midway between the two.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב

Thus, they differ only in so far as one Master holds that a shopkeeper ranks as a money-changer. and the other regards him as a private individual. Yet all [including R'Meir] agree that if he expends it, trespass is committed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, one is liable for trespass only if the money actually becomes hullin: but that in turn demands that the action shall be effective and the purchase valid.');">¹⁶</span> - He argues on R'Judah's opinion. In my view, even if he expends it there is no trespass;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because his action is invalid. (Consequently R. Meir must hold that trespass is possible only when one eats food of hekdesh.)');">¹⁷</span> but even on your view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That expenditure is trespass.');">¹⁸</span> you should at least agree with me that a shopkeeper is as a private individual. To which he answered him: No; he is as a money-changer. Rab said: