Kiddushin, Daf Nun Daled, Part 1

 

Introduction

In today s section Rav makes a broad statement about R. Meir s view concerning when hekdesh, sacred property, becomes desacralized.

אמר רב חזרנו על כל צדדים של ר"מ ולא מצינו הקדש בשוגג אין מתחלל במזיד מתחלל ומשנתינו בכתנות כהונה שלא בלו הואיל וניתנו ליהנות בהן לפי שלא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת

 

Rav said: We have closely examined R. Meir s views from every angle, and have not found that hekdesh if unwittingly does not become non-sacred and if used intentionally that it does become non-sacred.

But our Mishnah refers to priestly clothing which was not worn out, since they were given for deriving benefit, for the Torah was not given to angels.

 

According to Rav, R. Meir usually holds that if one uses hekdesh unwittingly, the hekdesh does not remain sacred. And if he uses it intentionally then it does not become non-sacred.

However, this is exactly opposite of what R. Meir says about using hekdesh for betrothal in our mishnah. In the mishnah he said that if one used it unwittingly the betrothal is invalid and the hekdesh remains sacred. If used intentionally, the betrothal is valid and the hekdesh becomes non-sacred. Since Rav believes this mishnah to be different from R. Meir s usual opinion, he interprets it as referring to a priest who betroths with his priestly clothing. If he does so unwittingly (I know this is hard to imagine) then she is not betrothed and the clothes remain sacred. This is because the priests may benefit from their clothing even when not performing the worship service. It would simply be too hard to tell the priests that they cannot even wear this clothing when not serving in the Temple and the Torah was not given to angels.

If he intentionally uses them for betrothal, they become non-sacred and she is betrothed.

 

ת"ש כתנות כהונה שבלו מועלין בהם דברי ר"מ מאי לאו אפי’ לא בלו לא בלו דוקא

 

Come and hear: Worn out priestly clothing involves trespass, the words of R. Meir. Does this not refer even to a case where they are not worn out?

No: only when they are worn out.

 

The Talmud not tries to prove that one who unwittingly uses priestly clothing for a non-sacred purpose does commit trespass, against what Rav has just said. The baraita says that once they have worn out, they are susceptible to trespass. But this is only if they have worn out. Before they are worn out, the priest does not trespass even if he wears them when not performing the service.

 

ת"ש מועלים בחדתין ואין מועלים בעתיקים (דברי ר’ יהודה) ר’ מאיר אומר מועלין אף בעתיקים שהיה ר"מ אומר מועלין בשירי הלשכה

ואמאי נימא הואיל וניתנו ליהנות לפי שלא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת דהא חומת העיר ומגדלותיה משירי הלשכה אתו דתנן חומת העיר ומגדלותיה וכל צרכי העיר באין משירי הלשכה

 

Come and hear: Trespass can be committed with the new [shekels], but not with the old.

R. Meir said: Trespass can be committed even with the old shekels; for R. Meir used to say: Trespass can be committed with the surplus of the Chamber.

Yet why; let us say, since they stand to be used, for the Torah was not given to angels [no trespass is committed with them]. For the walls of the city and its towers came out of the Chamber surplus, as we learned: The city wall and its towers and all city requirements were provided for out of the chamber surplus!

 

The issue here is trespass with shekels donated to the Temple. The first opinion holds that one does commit trespass if he uses the new shekels, those donated this year, which will be used to buy sacrifices. But one cannot commit trespass with old shekels, for they are used for Temple maintenance. In contrast, R. Meir holds that one can even commit trespass with money set aside for Temple maintenance, such as the surplus of the Chamber, the money left over after the sacrifices were purchased.

But this is surprising for R. Meir holds the Torah was not given to angels. These shekels will be used pay for the city wall and its towers. People will obviously use these things for secular use. So here we see that one can commit trespass even it is obvious that people will make non-sacred use of them.

לא תימא ר"מ אלא אימא ר’ יהודה

Say not R. Meir, but R. Judah.

 

Change the name of the author of this opinion and presto no more difficulty. It is not R. Meir who holds that one can commit trespass with old shekels. It is R. Judah. Yes, the Talmud does pull this trick from time to time.