Kiddushin 51a (נא.) — the Talmud in English

Produce that is tevel with regard to ma'aser rishon: one takes a tenth of it and says, “This produce shall be ma'aser for the rest of the produce.” The ma'aser is thereby permitted for consumption, because the designation “ma'aser” has taken effect upon it, while the rest of the produce is permitted, since he separated the ma'aser in order to render it fit.

But

one who separates an excessive amount of ma'aser,

who separated more than a tenth of the produce:

His produce

is indeed

properly prepared,

for within what he separated there is a tenth upon which the designation “ma'aser” has taken effect,

but

the

tithes are improperly prepared,

and he may not eat them at all. Since the amount exceeding the prescribed measure has been designated “ma'aser,” he did not permit it by separating the ma'aser, as he did the rest of the produce. And since the designation “ma'aser” cannot take effect beyond the prescribed measure, it follows that the excess itself remains tevel with regard to ma'aser. It is mixed together with the properly prepared ma'aser produce, and therefore everything is prohibited.

And according to Rabba, this poses a difficulty: Since he separated more than the measure of ma'aser at one time—something he could not do after he had already separated the proper measure of ma'aser—if so,

why

is his produce properly prepared, while his tithes are improperly prepared? Surely the designation “ma'aser” should not have taken effect even upon the proper measure of ma'aser! And therefore

let us say: “

Anything that cannot take effect one after another cannot take effect even simultaneously,”

and the ma'aser should not take effect at all.

He

answered

him

—Rabba answered Abaye:

The case of ma'aser is different, as it can exist in portions,

that is,

if one says: “

Let half of each grain of wheat become consecrated,”

it becomes consecrated. [If he had said, “Let half of each grain of these wheat grains become consecrated with the sanctity of ma'aser,” the ma'aser would take effect in this manner.] Therefore, when he separates more than the prescribed measure at one time, it can be said that the designation “ma'aser” takes effect upon all the produce proportionately. But when he consecrates two sisters, it is impossible to say that a partial consecration takes effect upon each of them; therefore, the kiddushin does not take effect at all.

Had he said, “Let half of each wheat grain of these wheat grains be consecrated with the sanctity of tithe,” the tithe would take effect in this manner. Therefore, when he separates at one time more than the prescribed measure, one may say that the designation “tithe” is seized by all the produce according to the calculation. But when he consecrated two sisters, it is impossible to say that a little consecration will be seized by each one; therefore the consecration did not take effect at all.

How does one separate the animal tithe? He gathers all the lambs, or all the calves, into a pen, and makes a small opening so that two will not leave simultaneously. When they leave the pen one after another, he begins counting them with a staff: one, two, three, four, five, six,

seven, eight, nine, and the tenth that emerges, he marks with red dye and says, “This is ma'aser.”

If he erred and called the one that emerged tenth “ninth,” and the one that emerged after it he called “tenth,” the first is consecrated with the sanctity of animal ma'aser, while the second has the sanctity of a shelamim offering.

We raise another objection to Rabba:

But there is animal ma'aser, which cannot exist in portions,

for if he counted nine lambs, he may no longer take two lambs and say: “Half of each of them shall be animal ma'aser,” so that each of them would be offered partially as animal ma'aser.

Nor does it exist

even

one after another: Once he has called the tenth lamb “tenth,” if he again calls the one that emerged after it “tenth,” it is not consecrated at all with the sanctity of animal ma'aser.

[No translation segment supplied.]

And

nevertheless

Rabba himself said

:

If two emerged as the tenth, and he called them:

“Tenth,”

then

the tenth and the eleventh are intermingled with one another—

that is, the sanctity of animal ma'aser took effect upon one of them, while the other is consecrated with the sanctity of a shelamim offering. Its status is like that of the eleventh animal that he called “tenth” after he had mistakenly called the preceding animal “ninth,” in which case it is consecrated with the sanctity of a shelamim offering. This animal, too, was called “tenth” after he had called the preceding one “ninth”—

However, it is not known which one is consecrated with the sanctity of animal ma'aser and which one with the sanctity of a shelamim offering. Therefore, they must both be left to graze until they develop a blemish, and he brings another animal and says: “Wherever the shelamim offering is, its sanctity shall be transferred to this animal,” and he offers that animal as a shelamim. Both original animals may then be eaten: the shelamim has been redeemed wherever it is, while the other, which is animal ma'aser, may be eaten by its owner once it has developed a blemish.

Now this presents a difficulty to Rabba: Why does the sanctity of animal ma'aser take effect at all when two animals emerge as the tenth? If, after he had called one of them “tenth,” he had called the companion that came after it “tenth,” it would not have been consecrated at all. If so, when two emerged as the tenth and he called them “tenth,” we should say that the sanctity of animal ma'aser does not take effect upon either of them, because “Anything that cannot take effect one after another cannot take effect even simultaneously”!

And we answer:

Animal ma'aser is different, as it exists even in a case of error,

for if he erred in calling the tenth by its name, it is nevertheless ma'aser.

For

this

we learned

in tractate Bekhorot:

If he called the ninth “

tenth,”

and the tenth

he called “

ninth,”

and the eleventh

he called “

tenth,”

then

all three are consecrated.

How so?

The ninth, which he called “tenth,” may be eaten once it develops a blemish; the tenth, which he called “ninth,” is animal ma'aser; and the eleventh is offered as a shelamim. This law is derived from the verses.

Therefore, just as the designation takes effect in a case of error—since he mistakenly called it “ninth”—so too it takes effect when the eleventh emerged together with it, and it does not lose its designation on account of this.

This too is the Gemara’s intention here: Since the emergence of the tenth animal sanctifies it even when he erred and did not call it “the tenth,” this is sanctity that arises on its own, and we do not apply to it the principle, “Anything that cannot take effect one after the other cannot take effect all at once.” [However, from Rashi’s discussion of a thanksgiving-offering, which cannot take effect through an error, it appears that he does not explain the matter this way; see the comment of the Chazon Ish on Rashi there ; and the words of Tosafot Rid, who raised the objection that, concerning two prohibitions that took effect simultaneously, we should say, “Anything that cannot take effect one after the other cannot take effect all at once,” also demonstrate that he did not accept Tosafot’s principle, as written in Birkat Avraham ; see Birkat Avraham.

One who brings a thanksgiving offering brings with it twenty esronim of fine flour. From ten esronim he makes ten leavened loaves, and from ten esronim he makes thirty unleavened loaves: ten loaves baked in an oven, ten wafers, and ten scalded loaves. The total number of loaves is forty.

The slaughter of the thanksgiving offering consecrates the loaves of the thanksgiving offering.

We raise another objection to Rabba:

The

loaves of a thanksgiving offering cannot exist in a case of error,

for if he slaughtered the thanksgiving offering on the basis of forty loaves, intending black loaves, and white loaves were found instead—loaves that had not been in his mind—the loaves were not consecrated, since this is an erroneous consecration, which is not a consecration according to Beit Hillel.

Nor do they exist one after another,

for if he slaughtered the offering on the basis of forty loaves and then stated concerning another forty loaves that they too should become consecrated, the additional loaves were not consecrated, because it is the slaughter of the offering that consecrates the loaves.

And

nevertheless

it was stated:

Concerning a thanksgiving offering that was slaughtered on the basis of eighty loaves,

that is, he brought eighty loaves to the Temple courtyard together with the thanksgiving offering:

Hezekiah said: Forty of them become consecrated

loaves

from among

the

eighty

that he brought.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Not even

forty

of the eighty become consecrated,

and all the loaves remain non-sacred, because “Anything that cannot take effect one after another cannot take effect even simultaneously.”

Hezekiah was Rabbi Yoḥanan’s teacher, and the halakha follows him when his student disputes him. This therefore poses a difficulty from his words to Rabba: Why did the forty become consecrated? We should say, “Anything that cannot take effect one after another cannot take effect even simultaneously.”

And we answer: What, is it not the case that

it was stated concerning this

that

Rabbi Zeira said: Everyone—

Hezekiah and Rabbi Yoḥanan—

agrees that wherever one says: “

Let forty of them become consecrated” [

let them become consecrated]

from among the eighty,

that is, if he intended only forty loaves to become consecrated, while he brought the rest as replacements, so that if these were lost or became impure, the others would take their place—then

forty

of the eighty become consecrated.

And everyone agrees that if he said: “

Forty shall not become consecrated unless eighty become consecrated,”

that is, he did not intend forty to become consecrated unless all eighty became consecrated, as was established by examining him and he said, “I intended all of them”—then

forty

of the eighty do not become consecrated, because “Anything that cannot take effect one after another cannot take effect even simultaneously.”

They do not dispute—

Hezekiah and Rabbi Yoḥanan—

except in an unspecified case:

One—

Hezekiah—

holds: He intended the additional forty as replacements,

and he does not want more than forty to become consecrated. Therefore, forty of the eighty became consecrated.

And the other—

Rabbi Yoḥanan—

holds: He intended a large offering,

and therefore not even forty became consecrated, because “Anything that cannot take effect one after another cannot take effect even simultaneously.”

a. Here the Gemara returns to Rava’s words, in which he challenged the reasoning of Rami bar Ḥama, who explained the reason for the Mishna’s ruling—that one who betroths a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her sister, simultaneously has not betrothed them—on the basis of the verse, “And a woman together with her sister you shall not take, to make them rivals.” Rava challenged this: If so, he should not be liable for karet. For this reason Rava explained the reason for the Mishna according to Rabba’s principle: “Anything that cannot take effect one after another cannot take effect even simultaneously.”

b. Later in the sugya, the dispute between Abaye and Rava is explained concerning one who performed kiddushin that does not enable him to have relations with the woman—for example, one who betroths one of two sisters. Since he is uncertain which one is his wife and which one is her sister, he cannot have relations with either of them. This is called “kiddushin that is not fit for consummation,” and Rava holds that such kiddushin does not take effect.

And

we raise an objection to

Rava: Why did he need to explain it

—why was Rava required to explain the reason for our Mishna—

according to Rabba’s principle!?

But

it already follows

from the reason of our Mishna that even if you should say that one of the women is betrothed, since there is uncertainty—he does not know which of them is betrothed to him and which is his wife’s sister—he cannot have relations with either of them. It follows that they are

“kiddushin that is not fit for consummation,”

they are, and Rava himself maintains later that such kiddushin is not kiddushin. Why, then, did Rava not explain the reason for our Mishna in this manner!?

And we answer: Rava

stated this according to the position of Rami bar Ḥama,

meaning: According to your approach, by which you derive the reason for the Mishna from the verse, “And a woman together with her sister you shall not take, to make them rivals,” there is a difficulty with your words: If so, why does the verse say, “and their souls shall be cut off”? This shows that you need not say that the verse is speaking of a case in which he betrothed them simultaneously. Rather, the verse may always be speaking of a case in which he betrothed them one after another; nevertheless, neither of them is betrothed by virtue of Rabba’s principle: “Anything that cannot take effect one after another cannot take effect even simultaneously.”

It was stated: Kiddushin that is not fit for consummation,

for example, one who betroths one of two sisters, with whom he cannot have relations with even one of them, since each may be his wife’s sister—they disputed this matter, Abaye and Rava:

Abaye said: It is valid kiddushin.

Rava said: They are not betrothals.

Rava said: Bar Ahina

the name of a Sage

explained it to me

the reason for the matter, in such a way that I can bring proof for it from the verse: "

As it is written [Deuteronomy 24]: "

When a man takes a wife

with money

and consummates the marriage,”

it follows that the Torah made betrothals performed with money conditional upon the permissibility of consummation, and this teaches:

Betrothals that are fit for consummation are valid betrothals; betrothals that are not fit for consummation are not valid betrothals.

And we challenge Rava from the fact that

we learned

in our Mishna:

One who betroths a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her sister, simultaneously: they are not betrothed,

because anything that cannot take effect one after the other cannot take effect simultaneously.

But

if he betrothed "

one of a woman and her daughter"

without specifying which one,

or "

one

of a woman and her sister"

without specifying which one, then she is

betrothed—

And why!?

For

these are betrothals that are not fit for consummation,

and

this is a refutation of Rava

who said: They are not valid betrothals!?

Rava could say to you: And according to your reasoning

that you hold that they are valid betrothals,

say

to you

the latter clause

of our Mishna, from which it can be proved in accordance with my position that “betrothals that are not fit for consummation are valid betrothals”:

For it teaches in the latter clause:

An incident occurred involving five women, among them two sisters. One person gathered a basket of figs, and it belonged to them, and it was produce of the Sabbatical Year, and he said: "

Behold, all of you are betrothed to me with this basket,”

and the Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed—

and it follows:

It is the sisters who are not betrothed; but the unrelated women are betrothed—

And if so, that the unrelated women are betrothed,

what are the circumstances

in which the Mishna is speaking?

If you say

that it is according to its simple meaning, for example

that he said

the one performing the betrothal: “Behold,

all of you

are betrothed to me,” then it is impossible to say this, because if so, even the unrelated women would not be betrothed, as this is like "

Acquire—you and the donkey,”

and "

Acquire

you and the donkey"

does not acquire,

that is: One who gives a gift to a person who has been born together with a fetus in its mother’s womb, which is like a donkey that is not fit to acquire, acquires neither the person who has been born, since he did not grant to this one without the other—

And here too, since he betrothed the unrelated women simultaneously with the sisters, who are like a donkey in whom betrothals do not take effect, it would follow by law that even the unrelated women should not be betrothed.