Kiddushin, Daf Nun Vav, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s sugya continues the discussion of using second tithe money for acquisitions. Yesterday we said that if a man intentionally uses it for betrothal, the betrothal is valid because the woman knows that the second tithe remains holy and she will take it to Jerusalem and use it there. Today, the Talmud raises a difficulty on this notion.

 

מתקיף לה ר’ ירמיה והרי בהמה טמאה עבדים וקרקעות דאדם יודע שאין מעות מעשר שני מתחללין עליהן ותנן אין לוקחים בהמה טמאה עבדים וקרקעו’ במעות מעשר שני אפי’ בירושלים ואם לקח יאכל כנגדן

 

R. Yirmiyah raised a difficulty: But what of unclean animals, slaves, and real estate, about which a person knows that second-tithe money is not descralized by purchasing them; yet we learned: Unclean animals, slaves, and land may not be bought with second-tithe money, even in Jerusalem; and if he does purchase [them], he must eat their equivalent in value?

 

People should know, according to R. Yirmiyah, that if one buys items that cannot be eaten the money is not desacralized. Second tithe money should be used to buy food to be eaten in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, if one does use second tithe money to buy these things, the sale is valid. He then takes other coins and states that they become second tithe in place of the coins that are in the hand of the seller. Then he brings these coins to Jerusalem and consumes them there (essentially he is penalized by having to spend twice as much). So why is this not the rule with kiddushin? Why don t we make the man who betrothed the woman redeem the coins and bring them to Jerusalem? Why make the woman bring them?

 

אלא הכא באשה חבירה עסקינן דידעה

 

Rather here [in the mishnah] we are dealing with a woman who is a haverah, who knows.

 

The woman in the mishnah knows that second tithe remains holy and therefore she will bring the coins the man gave her to Jerusalem. But in a regular case, of a woman who does not know that second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem, the man who betrothed her must himself redeem the coins he gave her and bring them to Jerusalem.

אמר מר אם לקח יאכל כנגדן ואמאי יחזרו דמיו למקומם כי התם אמר שמואל כשברח

 

The Master said: If he does purchase [them], he must eat their equivalent in value.

Yet why: let the money return to its place, like the other case?

Shmuel said: This refers to a case where the seller fled.

 

The mishnah we just saw says that if one buys things that cannot be eaten, he redeems those coins, brings the equivalent value in their place, and uses those coins to buy food in Jerusalem.

But R. Yehudah said that if one intentionally tries to desacralize second tithe coins, the coins remain holy. They return to their place and the sale is nullified.

Shmuel says that the mishnah here refers to a case where the seller fled and therefore the coins cannot be returned to him. They cannot return to their place. In such a case, he may redeem them and use the new coins to buy food in Jerusalem.

וטעמא דברח הא לא ברח קנסינן למוכר

Thus, the reason is that he has fled, but otherwise, we penalize the seller.

 

If the seller leaves town, then the purchaser redeems the coins. But if the seller is still around, then he is penalized because he has to return the money and the sale is nullified.

 

ונקנסיה ללוקח

לאו עכברא גנב אלא חורא גנב

ואי לא עכברא חורא מאי קעביד מסתברא כל היכא דאיכא איסורא התם קנסינן

 

But let us penalize the purchaser?

It is not the mouse steals, but the hole that steals!

Yet but for the mouse, what harm is done by the hole!

It is reasonable that where the transgression lies, there we impose a penalty.

 

Why not penalize the purchaser by making him take an equivalent amount of money and bring it up to Jerusalem? Why penalize the seller? After all, what did he do wrong?

The first answer is that a mouse cannot steal an item unless he has a hole to put it in. The seller is at fault, for had he not accepted the money, the purchaser would not have been able to use it.

But, the Talmud continues, come on the mouse is the one who stole it? How can you let him off the hook (I m definitely picturing Jerry as I m learning this)?

The final answer is that the seller is penalized because he is the one that has the money. Note that the penalty is only the nullification of the sale. He is not really out of any money.