Kiddushin 92

ושמע מינה מעות בעלמא חוזרים

[iii] Money in general is returnable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one gives money for kiddushin, which for some reason is invalid, the money is not a gift but a deposit, and returnable; otherwise, even if the first only is worth a perutah, the kiddushin is valid. For when he completes his statement, the first dates, already eaten, are neither a debt, since they need not be returned, nor a gift, not having been given as such. It would therefore be as though he had stated: Be thou betrothed unto me with this (the first date) , but let not the betrothal take effect until I have given you some more,' in which case she becomes betrothed when she receives the others even if the first has been consumed.');">¹</span> It was stated: If one betroths his sister:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which of course is invalid.');">²</span> Rab said: The money is returnable; Samuel ruled: The money is a gift.

איתמר המקדש אחותו רב אמר מעות חוזרים ושמואל אמר מעות מתנה רב אמר מעות חוזרים אדם יודע שאין קידושין תופסין באחותו וגמר ונתן לשום פקדון ולימא לה לשום פקדון סבר לא מקבלה

Rab said: The money is returnable: one knows that kiddushin with a sister is invalid, hence he resolved and gave it as a deposit. Then let him tell her that it is a deposit? - He thought that she would not accept it. But Samuel holds, the money is a gift; one knows that kiddushin with a sister is invalid, and therefore he resolved and gave it as a gift.

ושמואל סבר מעות מתנה אדם יודע שאין קידושין תופסין באחותו וגמר ונתן לשום מתנה ונימא לה לשום מתנה סבר כסיפא לה מילתא

Then let him tell her that it is a gift? - He thought that she would feel humiliated. Rabina raised an objection: If one separates his hallah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³</span> from the flour, it is not hallah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture wrote, Of the first of your dough (Num. XV, 20) .');">⁴</span>

מתיב רבינא המפריש חלתו קמח אינו חלה וגזל ביד כהן ואמאי גזל ביד כהן נימא אדם יודע שאין מפרישים חלה קמח ונתן לשם מתנה

and is robbery in the priest's hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he does return it.');">⁵</span> Now why is it robbery in the priest's hand? Let us say that a man knows that hallah is not separated from flour, and therefore he resolved and gave it as a gift? - There it is different, as it may result in wrong.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'desolation'.');">⁶</span>

שאני התם דנפיק חורבה מינה זימנין דאית ליה לכהן פחות מחמש רבעים קמח והאי אליש ליה בהדי הדדי וקסבר נתקנה עיסתו ואתי למיכלה בטיבלה

For the priest may happen to possess less than five quarters of flour and this besides; he will then knead them together and think that his dough is fit [to be eaten], and thus come to eat it in the state of tebel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos. Five quarters of a kab of flour is the smallest quantity liable to hallah; further, even a priest must separate hallah on dough from which no separation has been made, though he keeps it for himself. Now, if he possesses less, and this completes the quantity, he thinks that it is hallah, and so not liable, and therefore kneads it together with the rest without separating hallah.');">⁷</span> But you say that a man knows that hallah is not separated from flour! - He knows, yet not fully.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he knows and does not know'.');">⁸</span> He knows that hallah is not separated from flour, yet not fully: for he thinks, What is the reason?

והאמרת אדם יודע שאין מפרישים חלה קמח יודע ואינו יודע יודע שאין מפריש חלה קמח ואינו יודע דסבר טעמייהו מאי משום טירחא דכהן וטירחא דכהן אחילתיה

Because of the priest trouble;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he should have it ready, without the trouble of kneading it.');">⁹</span> well, the priest has forgiven his trouble.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he thinks therefore that it is hallah after all.');">¹⁰</span> Yet let it be terumah [i.e., hallah], but that it shall not be eaten until hallah has been separated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'brought forth',');">¹¹</span>

ותיהוי תרומה ולא תאכל עד שיוציא עליה חלה ממקום אחר מי לא תנן מן הנקוב על שאינו נקוב תרומה ולא תאכל עד שיוציא עליה תרומה ומעשר ממקום אחר

for it from elsewhere?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from a different dough.');">¹²</span> Did we not learn: [If one separates terumah] from a perforated [pot] for [the produce grown in] an unperforated pot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Produce grown in a pot whose bottom is perforated and is thus connected with the earth is liable to terumah; if unperforated, it is not liable. - Thus he separates what is liable for what is not.');">¹³</span> it is terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that the priest need not return it.');">¹⁴</span>

בתרי מני צאית בחד מנא לא צאית

but it may not be eaten until terumah and tithes are separated for it from elsewhere!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is actually tebel, as there was no liability for the unperforated pot. - Produce becomes real terumah only when the separation is made on account of corn that is liable thereto. - Hence the same would apply to hallah.');">¹⁵</span> In respect of two utensils he will obey, but not in respect of one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a priest is told that the produce separated as terumah from a perforated pot upon an unperforated one is not really terumah, and is itself liable, he obeys, as he recognises a distinction between the two. But when told that the hallah separated from flour is not hallah, though the separation is from the same utensil, he will refuse to separate hallah upon that itself.');">¹⁶</span> Alternatively: the priest will indeed obey; but the owner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Israelite who separated it in the first place.');">¹⁷</span>

ואיבעית אימא לעולם כהן מיצת ציית וקסבר בעל הבית נתקנה עיסתו ואתי למיכל בטיבלא

will think that his dough has been made fit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas it has not.');">¹⁸</span> and so come to eat it in a state of tebel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for this reason the dough must be returned.');">¹⁹</span> But you have said that 'a man knows that hallah is not separated from flour'? - He knows, but not fully.

והאמרת אדם יודע שאין מפרישין חלה קמח יודע ואינו יודע יודע שאין מפרישין חלה קמח ואינו יודע דסבר טעמא מאי משום טירחא דכהן טירחא דכהן קבלה עליה

He knows that hallah is not separated from flour. Yet he does not know: for he thinks, what is the reason? On account of the priest's trouble: but he [the priest] has undertaken that trouble.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he accepted it.');">²⁰</span>

ותיהוי תרומה ויחזור ויתרום מי לא תנן משאינו נקוב על הנקוב תרומה ויחזור ויתרום הא אוקימנא בתרי מאני צאית בחד מנא לא צאית

Yet let it be terumah [i.e., hallah], but that he [the Israelite] shall make another separation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without making it necessary for the priest to return it.');">²¹</span> Did we not learn: [If one separates terumah] from an unperforated pot upon [the contents of] a perforated one, it is terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that the priest need not return it.');">²²</span> yet he must make another separation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule is that both that which is separated as terumah and that for which it is separated must be liable to terumah. Here the former is not, and hence another separation must be made. - The same should apply here.');">²³</span>

ולא צאית והתנן התורם קישות ונמצא מרה אבטיח ונמצאת סרוח תרומה ויחזור ויתרום שאני התם דמדאורייתא תרומה מעליא היא

- But we have explained it that he obeys in respect to two utensils, but not in respect of one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 232, n. 9; the same holds good of an Israelite,');">²⁴</span> Does he then not obey? Surely we learnt: If one separates a cucumber [as terumah] and it is found to be bitter, or a melon, and it is found to be putrid, it is terumah, but he must make another separation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the separation was made from the same utensil which contained the rest. It is obvious that we do not fear that he will disobey, for if we did, the first would have to be returned to ensure a second separation.');">²⁵</span>

מדרבי אלעאי דא"ר אלעאי מנין לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה שנאמר (במדבר יח, לב) ולא תשאו עליו חטא בהרימכם את חלבו אם אינו קדוש נשיאות חטא למה מכאן לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה

- There it is different, for by Biblical law it is proper terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it cannot be returned, as the Israelite will mix it with the other produce, which is forbidden. On the other hand, even if he refuses to make a second separation, no harm is done, since the first was Biblically valid and the produce is no longer tebel.');">²⁶</span> by R'Elai's [dictum]. For R'Ilai said: How do we know that if one separates from inferior [produce] for choice, the terumah is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his terumah is terumah'.');">²⁷</span>

אמר רבא

Because it is said, and ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, whet ye have heaved from it the best thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 32. This implies that one bears sin if he does not heave the best.');">²⁸</span> now, if it is not hallowed, why bear sin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his action would simply be void.');">²⁹</span> Hence it follows that if one separates from inferior for choice [produce], his separation is terumah. Raba said [reverting to the Mishnah]: