Kiddushin, Daf Mem Vav, Part 4

 

Introduction

One cannot betroth one s sister. But what happens to the money if one tries to do so. Does the money go back to the one who gave it? This is related to the issue that came up at the very end of yesterday s sugya.

 

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

 

It was stated: One who betroths his sister: Rav ruled: The money returns [to the man]; And Shmuel ruled: The money is a gift.

Rav said: The money returns: A man knows that kiddushin with his 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.

 

Rav says that the money returns to the giver and that we assume that he gave it to his sister to hold on to as a deposit. She must give it back to him. He did not tell her he was giving it to her as a deposit because he was concerned she would not accept it.

 

ושמואל סבר מעות מתנה אדם יודע שאין קידושין תופסין באחותו וגמר ונתן לשום מתנה

ונימא לה לשום מתנה סבר כסיפא לה מילתא

 

And Shmuel holds the money is a gift; for a man knows that kiddushin with his sister is invalid, and therefore he resolved and gave it as a gift.

Then let him tell her that it is a gift? He thought that it would be embarrassing.

 

Shmuel agrees that the man knew that the kiddushin would not be valid, but he assumes that the man gave his sister the money as a gift. He did not tell her it was a gift because he thought she would be embarrassed to receive a gift from him (evidently she was not embarrassed that he asked her to marry him!).

 

מתיב רבינא המפריש חלתו קמח אינו חלה וגזל ביד כהן

ואמאי גזל ביד כהן נימא אדם יודע שאין מפרישים חלה קמח ונתן לשם מתנה

 

Ravina raised an objection: If one separates his hallah from the flour, it is not hallah, and it is robbery in the priest’s hand.

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?

 

Hallah, a portion of one s dough given to a priest, is supposed to be separated from the dough and not from flour. If one separates it as flour, it is not hallah and if he gives it to the priest, the priest must return it. We do not assume that the man knew that he should not separate dough from flour and that he gave it as a gift to the priest. This is a difficulty on Shmuel who said that we do make such an assumption when it comes to kiddushin.

 

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

 

There it is different, as it may result in a transgression. For the priest may happen to possess less than five quarters of flour and this [flour given to him]; 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 tevel.

 

Shmuel resolves the difficulty by noting that this situation could lead to a problem. The priest might have some flour of his own that he wants to knead and bake. If this flour alone is less than five quarters of a kav, it is not liable for hallah. When he adds this flour in, he will think he need not separate hallah because this extra flour already had the mandatory hallah removed. Now when he eats the bread, he will be eating tevel, produce that has not had the appropriate gifts removed.

 

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

 

But didn t you say that a man knows that hallah is not separated from flour!

He knows, yet he does not really know.He knows that hallah is not separated from flour, yet he does not really know: for he thinks: What is the reason? Because of the priest’s trouble; and the priest has forgiven his trouble.

 

How could the priest make such a mistake he should know that one does not separate hallah from flour? The answer is that people know that one should not separate hallah from flour, but they might err in the reasoning. They might think that its because giving the priest dough is easier for the priest. And if the priest is okay with receiving it as flour, then the hallah separation is valid. But this is not true this separation is not valid at all.

So the difficulty on Shmuel is resolved if the priest keeps this flour, a problem might occur. But no problem will occur if the woman keeps the kiddushin money.