Kiddushin, Daf Nun Het, Part 4

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to talk about whether benefit of discretion counts as money.

 

נימא כתנאי הגונב טבלו של חבירו משלם לו דמי טבלו של חבירו דברי רבי

ר’ יוסי בר’ יהודה אומר אינו משלם אלא דמי חולין שבו

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר טובת הנאה ממון ומר סבר טובת הנאה אינה ממון

 

Shall we say that it is a dispute between tannaim? [For it was taught.] He who steals his neighbor s tevel must pay him the value of his tevel, the words of Rabbi.

R. Yose son of R. Yehudah said: He must pay only for the hullin it contains.

Do they not differ over this: one Master holds that the benefit of discretion counts as money and one holds that it does not?

 

Tevel is untithed produce. If one steals tevel from another, he clearly must pay back the value of the hullin, non-sacred portions. But does he have to pay back the terumah, which would have had to have gone to the priests anyways? Rabbi says he must pay back the terumah value. This could be because he holds that the one from whom the terumah was stolen has now lost the rights to give it to whom he wants. And this benefit counts as money.

 

לא דכולי עלמא טובת הנאה אינה ממון והכא בטבלים שנפלו לו מבית אבי אמו כהן ובמתנות שלא הורמו כמי שהורמו דמיין קמיפלגי מר סבר כמי שהורמו דמיין ומ"ס לאו כמי שהורמו דמיין

 

No: all agree that the benefit of discretion does not count as money. And here we are dealing with tevel produce he inherited from the house of his maternal grandfather, a priest, and they differ as to whether unseparated [priestly] gifts are regarded as separated: one Master holds that they are regarded as separated, and the other that they are not.

 

The tevel stolen here was not from the produce of the person from whom it was stolen, meaning it was not grown on his land. Rather, he inherited it from his maternal grandfather who was a priest. The terumah is part of the inheritance, but the person who inherited can sell it. The question is do we consider this terumah as being stolen? If we consider the terumah to have already been separated, then the grandson inherited the terumah and the thief must pay it back. If we consider the terumah not to have been separated, then the grandson must separate the terumah and give it to a priest. So the thief only stole from him the benefit of discretion which does not count as money.

 

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא כמי שהורמו דמיין וטובת הנאה אינה ממון והכא בדשמואל קמיפלגי דאמר שמואל חיטה אחת פוטרת את הכרי דמר אית ליה דשמואל ומר לית ליה דשמואל

 

And if you want you can say, all agree that they are regarded as separated, and the benefit of discretion is not money. And here they disagree about Shmuel s statement, for Shmuel said: One grain of wheat exempts the whole stack: One Master accepts Shmuel’s ruling; the other does not accept it.

 

The Talmud now goes back to interpreting the dispute to be about regular tevel, not inherited tevel. They disagree about Shmuel s rule that giving one grain of wheat as terumah makes the rest of the stack permitted. Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi says that it does, therefore, the thief has to pay back the entire value of what he stole because he could have given only one grain as terumah. R. Yose b. R. Yehudah holds that the person must give the real amount of terumah. Therefore, the thief pays back hullin. The right to give the terumah to whomever he wants is not considered money.

 

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא לית להו דשמואל והכא היינו טעמא דרבי דקנסוהו רבנן לגנב

 

If you want you can say: No one agrees with Shmuel s rule, but Rabbi’s reason is that the rabbis penalized the thief.

 

The next explanation is that Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi simply penalizes the priest by making him have to pay back the full value of what he stole. Why should he luck out just because what he stole was tevel?

 

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא אית להו דשמואל והכא היינו טעמא דרבי יוסי בר’ יהודה דקנסוהו רבנן לבעל הבית דלא איבעי ליה לשהויה לטיבליה

 

If you want you can say: all agree with Shmuel; but R. Yose son of R. Judah’s reason is that the Rabbis penalized the owner, for he should not have held on to his tevel.

 

Alternatively we can explain that the rabbis do not make the thief pay back the value of the terumah because they are penalizing the owner for holding on to tevel and not separating the terumah before it was stolen. One should always strive to separate terumah as soon as possible so that people do not accidentally eat untithed produce.