Kiddushin, Daf Nun Gimmel, Part 6

 

Introduction

Today s sugya discusses the status of the sacred money used for betrothal.

 

בעא מיניה רבא מרב חסדא אשה אין מתקדשת מעות מהו שיצאו לחולין

אמר ליה אשה אין מתקדשת מעות היאך יצאו לחולין

 

Rava asked R. Hisda: The woman is not betrothed; does the money become non-sacred?

He said to him: The woman is not betrothed, how could the money become non-sacred?

 

Since the act of betrothal is not valid, the money retains its sacredness.

 

בעא מינה רב חייא בר אבין מרב חסדא במכר מאי?

אמר ליה אף במכר לא קנה

 

R. Hiyya b. Abin asked R. Hisda: What is the rule in the case of purchase?

He said to him: In the case of purchase too, he does not acquire.

 

If a person tries to use sacred money to buy something, the acquisition is not successful.

 

איתיביה חנוני כבעל הבית דברי ר"מ

ר’ יהודה אומר חנוני כשולחני

עד כאן לא קא מיפלגי אלא דמר סבר חנוני כשולחני ומר סבר חנוני כבעל הבית אבל דכולי עלמא אם הוציא מעל

 

He raised an objection against him: A shopkeeper is reckoned as a private individual, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah holds: A shopkeeper is reckoned as a money-changer.

Thus, they differ only in so far as one Master holds that a shopkeeper counts as a money-changer and the other says he counts as a private individual.

Yet all [including R. Meir] agree that if he uses the money, he has committed trespass.

 

R. Hiyya b. Avin raises an objection against R. Hisda. The discussion in this baraita is of a person who deposits some money with someone and does not tell him that the money is sacred. If he deposits money in a bundle with a money-changer, the money-changer may not use the money. If he does use it, and it is sacred, then he has committed trespass, because he should not have been using the money. But if not bundled up, the money-changer may use the money, and therefore, he has not committed trespass. Rather the depositor has. If one deposited it with a homeowner, the homeowner may never use the money, whether it is bundled up or not. The tannaim disagree about the status of a storekeeper is he treated like a homeowner (R. Meir) or like a money-changer (R. Yehudah). But all agree that if the storekeeper used the money, he has trespassed. This implies that the transaction takes effect, meaning that if hekdesh is used to buy goods, the transaction is successful.

 

רבי מאיר לדבריו דר’ יהודה קאמר לדידי אם הוציא נמי לא מעל אלא לדידך אודי לי מיהא דחנוני כבעל הבית ואמר ליה לא כשולחני

R. Meir is arguing against R. Yehudah s opinion. In my view, even if he uses the money he has not committed trespass; but even according to your view, you should at least agree with me that a shopkeeper is like a private individual. And he answered him: No; he is like a money-changer.

 

The Talmud reads R. Meir as only arguing against R. Yehudah, not expressing his own opinion. According to R. Meir s own opinion, no matter what, the storekeeper has not committed trespass. The money remains holy and the goods are not acquired. In the dispute, he is speaking to R. Yehudah to you, the shopkeeper should be like a private individual. He should never be allowed to use the money. R. Yehudah responds that he is like a money-changer. If the money was not bundled up, then he may use it and he would not be liable for trespass.