Kiddushin, Daf Nun Gimmel, Part 1
Introduction
This week s daf continues to discuss a priest who betroths with his portion.
אמר ר’ יוחנן נמנו וגמרו המקדש בחלקו בין קדשי קדשים ובין קדשים קלים לא קידש
ורב אמר עדיין היא מחלוקת
R. Yohanan said: They took a vote and it was resolved: He who betroths with his portion, whether of the higher or of the lower sanctity, has not betrothed.
But Rav holds: The dispute continues.
So now we have a dispute about whether there is a dispute. Those rabbis sure love their disputes!
אמר אביי כוותיה דר’ יוחנן מסתברא דתניא מנין שאין חולקים מנחות כנגד זבחים ת"ל (ויקרא ז, ט) וכל מנחה אשר תאפה בתנור (ויקרא ז, י) לכל בני אהרן תהיה
Abaye said: Reason supports R. Yohanan. For it was taught: How do we know that meal-offerings are not apportioned in exchange for sacrifices? Scripture says, and every meal-offering that is baked in the oven . . . it shall be for all the sons of Aaron (Leviticus 7:10).
Abaye is now going to quote a long baraita that in its totality supports R. Yohanan. The details of this baraita are not relevant for our sugya, but I will still, of course, explain them briefly. The main message of the baraita is that the priests may not exchange one sacrificial gift (meat, fowl or meal-offering) for another.
Priests who receive meal-offerings as part of their portions may not demand to exchange them for sacrificial meat.
יכול לא יחלקו מנחות כנגד זבחים שלא קמו תחתיהם בדלות אבל יחלקו מנחות כנגד עופות שהרי קמו תחתיהן בדלות ת"ל (ויקרא ז, ט) וכל נעשה במרחשת לכל בני אהרן תהיה
I might have thought that meal-offerings may not be apportioned in exchange for sacrifices, seeing that they cannot replace them in poverty, yet meal-offerings may be apportioned in exchange for fowl-offerings, since they do replace them in poverty: Scripture says, and all that is prepared in the deep pan . . . it shall be for all the sons of Aaron (Leviticus 7:9).
Meal-offerings can take the place of bird offerings for the poor if the poor cannot afford a bird offering, they can bring a meal-offering. Therefore, I might have thought that they are exchangeable. They are not.
יכול לא יחלקו מנחות כנגד עופות שהללו מיני דמים והללו מיני קמחים אבל יחלקו עופות כנגד זבחים שהללו והללו מיני דמים ת"ל (ויקרא ז, ט) על מחבת
I might have thought that meal-offerings cannot be apportioned in exchange for fowl-offerings, since the latter are types of blood and the former are types of flour, but fowl-offerings may be apportioned in exchange for [animal] sacrifices, since both are types of blood; Scripture says, and on the griddle (Leviticus 7:9).
Animal sacrifices may also not be exchanged for bird sacrifices even though both are types of blood.
יכול לא יחלקו עופות כנגד זבחים שהללו מעשיהם ביד והללו מעשיהם בכלי אבל יחלקו מנחות כנגד מנחות שהללו והללו מעשיהם ביד ת"ל (ויקרא ז, י) וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן לכל בני אהרן
I might have thought, fowl-offerings may not be apportioned in exchange for animal sacrifices, since these are made by hand, whereas these are made with a utensil; but meal-offerings may be apportioned in exchange for meal-offerings, since both are prepared by hand: Scripture says, and every meal-offering mingled with oil . . . shall be for all the sons of Aaron (Leviticus 7:10.
Fowl offerings are killed by pinching off their necks, whereas animal sacrifices are slaughtered with a knife. Thus one may not exchange one for the other. But meal offerings are all made with utensils. So maybe priests could exchange one meal-offering for another. They may not.
יכול לא יחלקו מחבת כנגד מרחשת ומרחשת כנגד מחבת שזו מעשיהם רכים וזו מעשיהם קשים אבל יחלקו מחבת כנגד מחבת ומרחשת כנגד מרחשת שהללו והללו מעשיהם קשים אי נמי מעשיהם רכים ת"ל (ויקרא ז, י) וחרבה לכל בני אהרן תהיה
I might have thought that a baking pan [offering] may not be apportioned in exchange for a frying pan [offering], or a frying pan [offering] in exchange for a baking pan [offering], because one is made soft and the other hard; but that one baking pan [offering] may be apportioned in exchange for another, and one frying pan [offering] may be apportioned in exchange for another, since both are hard or both are soft; Scripture says, or dry, shall be for all the sons of Aaron (Leviticus 7:10).
Even the same type of meal-offering may not be apportioned one in exchange for the other.
יכול לא יחלקו בקדש הקדשים אבל יחלקו בקדשים קלים ת"ל (ויקרא ז, י) איש כאחיו וסמיך ליה (ויקרא ז, יב) אם על תודה כשם שאין חולקין בקדשי קדשים כך אין חולקים בקדשים קלים
I might have thought that sacrifices of the higher sanctity may not be [so] apportioned, yet those of the lower sanctity may be; Scripture says: [all the sons of Aaron shall have], one man as his brother, (Leviticus 7:10) and next to this it says, if [he offers it] for a thanksgiving just as higher sanctity sacrifices may not be [so] apportioned, so also offerings of the lower sanctity.
The same rules apply for all types of sacrifices higher and lower ones. The thanksgiving offering is a sacrifice of lower sanctity.
איש איש חולק אפי’ בעל מום ואין הקטן חולק ואפי’ תם סתם ספרא מני ר’ יהודה והוא קאמר דלית בה דין חלוקה כלל ש"מ
A man [this teaches]: a man takes a share, even if he has a blemish, but not a minor, even if he is without blemish.
Now, who is the author of an anonymous teaching in the Sifra? R. Judah: And he states that nothing may be apportioned in exchange. Learn from this.
The baraita now concludes by saying that priests with blemishes receives sacrificial portions, but not minors.
The entire prohibition of exchanging one portion for another implies that a priest cannot use his portion for anything, even to betroth a woman. The Sifra is the midrash on Leviticus, and the Talmud assumes its author is R. Judah. Thus, R. Judah does not believe that a priest can use his portion, whereas earlier he said that he can. We can assume that he retracted his opinion and that no one holds that a priest may use his portion to betroth a woman. This accords with R. Yohanan and opposes Rav.