Kiddushin, Daf Nun Gimmel, Part 5
Introduction
Today s section discusses betrothal with property belonging to the Temple, the next subject of the mishnah. To make things easier I am replicating my commentary on the mishnah.
ובהקדש במזיד קידש בשוגג לא קידש דברי ר"מ
ר"י אומר בשוגג קידש במזיד לא קידש
[If] with hekdesh (money dedicated to the Temple), if deliberately, he has betrothed her; if unwittingly, he has not, the words of R. Meir.
R. Judah said: if unwittingly, he has betrothed her; if deliberately, he has not.
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.
א"ר יעקב שמעית מינה דר’ יוחנן תרתי שגגת מעשר דר’ יהודה שגגת הקדש דר"מ שניהם אין אשה מתקדשת בהם חדא לפי שאין אשה רוצה וחדא לפי שאין שניהם רוצים ולא ידענא הי מינייהו
R. Jacob said: I heard from R. Yohanan two [reasons for the laws concerning] the unwitting [use of] tithes [for betrothal], according to R. Judah, and the unwitting [use of] hekdesh, according to R. Meir, [that] in both cases a woman is not betrothed with them.
One [reason] is that the woman does not want this, the other, that neither wants this.
But I do not know which is which.
R. Judah had said that if a man unwittingly uses hekdesh for betrothal, she is not betrothed. R. Meir said that if a man unwittingly uses second tithe money, she is not betrothed.
R. Yohanan gives two reasons for why not, but R. Jacob does not remember which goes with which halakhah. Yes, this is a confusing one.
אמר ר’ ירמיה ניחזי אנן מעשר איהי לא ניחא לה משום טרחא דאורחא איהו ניחא ליה דניקני איתתא ממילא אלא הקדש תרוייהו לא ניחא להו דנתחיל הקדש על ידייהו
R. Yirmiyah: Let us consider. As for tithes, she does not want [to be betrothed with them] because of the trouble of the journey; he, however, is pleased that the woman is acquired on her own.
But as for hekdesh, both are unwilling that hekdesh should become desacralized through them.
R. Yirmiyah tries to solve the puzzle. The woman does not want to be betrothed through tithes because she d have to bring them to Jerusalem to use them there. However, there is no reason why the husband won t want to betroth his wife through tithes. He gets a wife without having to use other money.
When it comes to hekdesh, neither want to accidently transform hekdesh into non-sacred property. People are not supposed to do this unless they are specifically redeeming the hekdesh.
ור’ יעקב אמר איפכא מסתברא מי לא איכא למימר מעשר איהי לא ניחא לה משום טירחא דאורחא איהו לא ניחא ליה משום אונסא דאורחא
אלא הקדש בשלמא איהי לא ניחא לה דנתחיל הקדש על ידה אלא איהו מי לא ניחא ליה דניקני איתתא ממילא
But R. Ya akov said the opposite: Can we not say with regard to tithes, she does not want to on account of the trouble of the journey and he does not want to on account of the risks of the journey.
But as for hekdesh, it makes sense that she does not want to so that hekdesh should not be desacralized by her; but as for him, is he not pleased that the woman should become his on her own?
R. Ya akov argues the opposite (of course he does this is just that kind of sugya). Neither want to use tithes for betrothal. She does not want to because of the trouble of the journey. He does not want to lest she loses the second tithes on her journey to Jerusalem and she derives no benefit from them. This will cause her distress, that she received no benefit from her betrothal money.
When it comes to hekdesh, he might be okay that she is betrothed with hekdesh. After all, he gets a wife without spending any extra money.
Thus the sugya ends without us really knowing why each tanna said what he said.