Kiddushin, Daf Nun Bet, Part 5

 

Introduction

This mishnah deals with attempts to betroth using various different types of sanctified property. The real question is, does the property belong to the one using it such that his betrothal is effective?

 

מתני׳ המקדש בחלקו בין קדשי קדשים בין קדשים קלים אינה מקודשת

 

If he [a priest] betroths [a woman] with his portion, whether it is of higher holiness or of lower holiness, she is not betrothed.

 

Portions of many sacrifices go to the priests who eat them. However, a priest cannot use them as his betrothal money because these portions are not considered to be his possessions. Rather, the priest s right to them is limited to his or other priests eating. Since for kiddushin to be effective the man must own that which he gives to the woman, the priest s portion in sacrifices may not be used.

 

במעשר שני בין שוגג בין מזיד לא קידש דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג לא קידש במזיד קידש

 

[If one betroths] with second tithe, whether unwittingly or deliberately, he has not betrothed [her]: the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: if unwittingly, he has not betrothed [her]; if deliberately, he has betrothed [her].

 

Second tithe must be taken to Jerusalem and there it may be eaten by its owner. According to Rabbi Meir, second tithe does not belong to its owners. It is sanctified property kadosh and just as portions of sacrifices cannot be used for kiddushin, so too second tithe cannot be used. Rabbi Judah says that second tithe does belong to its owner.Therefore if he deliberately did kiddushin with it, she is betrothed. However, if he unwittingly uses the second tithe for kiddushin then she is not betrothed for this was a mistaken act of kiddushin.

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

 

[If] with sanctified property, if deliberately, he has betrothed her; if unwittingly, he has not betrothed [her], the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: if unwittingly, he has betrothed her; if deliberately, he has not betrothed her.

 

Sanctified property can become non-sanctified property if it is redeemed. However, if it is not redeemed then it remains sanctified and cannot be used for betrothal. According to Rabbi Meir, if the man intentionally uses sanctified property as his betrothal money, he is in essence redeeming it. The betrothal is valid and the man will owe to the Temple the value of that which he gave to the woman. However, if he does so unwittingly, then the sanctified property is not redeemed and therefore the betrothal is invalid.

Rabbi Judah disagrees on both counts. He holds that one who intentionally uses the sanctified property for betrothal does not thereby redeem it, therefore the betrothal is invalid. However, if he unwittingly uses the sanctified property this is considered me ilah improper use of sacred property. In such cases the object which was misappropriated loses its sacred status and the person who misappropriated the property owes the Temple the value of the object plus one-fifth and must bring a guilt offering. The key for our purposes is that the object is no longer sacred, and therefore the betrothal is valid.

 

גמ׳ נימא מתניתין דלא כרבי יוסי הגלילי דתניא (ויקרא ה, כא) ומעלה מעל בה’ לרבות קדשים קלים שהן ממונו דברי ר’ יוסי הגלילי

 

GEMARA. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Yose Hagalili? For it was taught: [If anyone sin] and commit a trespass against the Lord [. . . then he shall bring his guilt-offering] (Leviticus 5:21) this comes to include sacrifices of lower holiness, which are the property of the owner, the words of R. Yose Hagalili.

 

According to our mishnah, sacrifices of lower holiness do not belong to their owners. This does not agree with R. Yose Hagalili who says that lower holiness sacrifices belong to the person who brought them. A person who makes improper use of them has trespassed even though the animal belongs to him.

 

אפי’ תימא ר’ יוסי הגלילי כי קאמר ר’ יוסי הגלילי מחיים אבל לאחר שחיטה לא

מאי טעמא כי קא זכו משלחן גבוה קא זכו

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

 

You may even say that it agrees with R. Yose Hagalili: For when he stated [his view] it applied only when the animal is still alive, but not after it has been slaughtered.

What is the reason? When they acquire it, it is from the table of the Most High that they acquire [it].

This may be deduced too; because it is stated: If he [a priest] betroths [a woman] with his portion, whether it is of higher holiness or of lower holiness, she is not betrothed.

 

The Talmud resolves the mishnah even with R. Yose Hagalili. When he said that the animal belongs to the person who brings it, he was referring to a live animal, before it was slaughtered. Once slaughtered, portions of the animal go to the priest. But these portions are not the property of the priest, they belong to God. When the mishnah said that priests cannot betroth with their portions, it was referring to the portions allotted to the priest, and these portions refer to parts of slaughtered animals.