Kiddushin 52b — the Talmud in English

And

we raise an objection to the Gemara’s answer, that the beraita is dealing with property stolen from her, and therefore she is betrothed, for this does not resolve Rav’s position, since

this Mishna [

our Mishna]

is [also] of property stolen from her, since he betrothed her with their property,

and

Rav said

to prove from our Mishna that she

is not betrothed

with this stolen property [if the produce had not belonged to the Sabbatical year]!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

For

this—

the beraita in which it is explained that when the property stolen from her is used, she is betrothed—deals with a case

where he had made a match with her

before he betrothed her with her stolen property, and in this manner Rav admits that we say: Since she accepted it for the sake of betrothal, she forgave him.

This—

our Mishna and Rav’s words—are

where he had not made a match with her,

but he placed the stolen property in her hand and betrothed her with it, for in this manner she is not betrothed.

An incident involving

a certain woman who was washing her feet in a bowl of water; a certain man came, snatched money from his fellow, and threw it to her,

and

said to her: “

Are you betrothed to me”!

And

that man came before Rava. [

An incident involving a woman who was washing her feet in a bowl of water: one man came, snatched money from his fellow, threw it into the woman’s hand, and said to her: “Become betrothed to me”! And that man came before Rava to ask what would be the status of his betrothal.]

He said

to him Rava:

There is no one who takes account of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: Unspecified theft is the owners’ despair of its recovery [

there is no one who takes account of the view of Rabbi Shimon, who holds: Unspecified theft is the owners’ despair of its recovery], and we do not presume that the one robbed despaired; therefore she is not betrothed to you.

An incident involving

a certain sharecropper,

a sharecropper who worked another’s field for one-half, one-third, or one-quarter,

who betrothed with a measure of onions [

a handful filled with onions] that he took from his field,

came

the sharecropper

before Rava

to ask him whether the betrothal had taken effect.

Rava said to him

Rava to the sharecropper:

Who released it to you [

who forgave you the share of the owner of the field]!? Therefore she is not betrothed.

And this applies specifically to a measure

that requires division,

but with a bundle [

a bundle of vegetables], whose manner is to be divided into bundles, and all the bundles are equal,

he can say to him

the sharecropper to the owner of the field:

I took a bundle [

I took a bundle of vegetables from my portion];

take

also

a bundle [

take another bundle corresponding to it], for

a bundle is like a bundle,

that is, they are all equal.

An incident involving

a certain brewer who betrothed with a piece of pressed date pulp; the owner of the beer came and found him,

and

said to him: Why did you not take from the better ones!?

He came before Rava: [

An incident involving a sharecropper who worked in a brewery producing date beer, took pressed dates belonging to the owner of the brewery, and betrothed a woman with them; when the owner of the brewery came, he said to the sharecropper: Why do you not give her the better dates, which contain a little moisture, to place in other water and make beer from them? And the sharecropper came to ask Rava what would be the status of his betrothal]—if the owner had not told him to take the better dates, she certainly would not have been betrothed, because these dates were not designated for division, as the sharecropper took his portion from the beer; however, when the owner said this, he apparently revealed that he was pleased with the sharecropper’s taking of his dates.

He said

Rava to the sharecropper:

They said

that the statement of the owner of the produce is effective for the one taking the produce: “

Go to the better ones,”

as a revelation that the owner of the produce is pleased,

only with regard to teruma—

where the one taking the produce separated teruma without the owner’s knowledge—

alone,

because the produce is designated for teruma; but in our case, no, as he goes on to explain the reason.

And

as it was taught

that with regard to teruma the statement “Go to the better ones” is effective:

One who separates teruma from another’s produce without his knowledge—his teruma is not teruma. And

how did they say: One who separates teruma without the knowledge

of the owner of the produce,

his teruma is teruma?

If he entered his fellow’s field, gathered and separated teruma without the permission

of the owner of the field, from the produce of the owner of the field—

If he is concerned

the one separating teruma, regarding his teruma,

because of theft, his teruma is not teruma; but if not,

if he is not concerned because of theft,

his teruma is teruma.

And from where did he

know whether he was concerned because of theft or not?

If the owner of the field came and found him, and said to him: “

Go to the better ones”

from these—that is, why did you not take from the better ones!?

It follows that

if better ones than these were found,

his teruma is teruma,

for he indeed intended to say that he should have taken from the better ones, and there is here a revelation that he is pleased with his teruma.

But if not,

if there are no better ones than these,

his teruma is not teruma,

for he intended only to taunt him and say to him: “If there had been better ones than what you took, you would have stolen those too.”

And if

the owners themselves

were

gathering and adding, in either case—

whether there were better ones than these or there were not better ones than these—

his teruma is teruma.

And this law applies only to teruma, because the produce is designated for separation as teruma,

but here,

where the dates are not designated to be given to the sharecropper, for he took his portion from the beer and not from the pressed dates, certainly

he did it because of embarrassment [

the owner of the brewery said this because of embarrassment],

and she is not betrothed.

Mishna:

A kohen

who betroths with his portion,

which he received when he divided the offerings with his fellow kohanim,

whether

the portion was from

offerings of the most sacred order,

such as from a sin-offering or a guilt-offering,

or whether

the portion was from

offerings of lesser sanctity,

such as a peace-offering,

she is not betrothed;

because the portion is not his, but he eats from the table of the Most High, as will be explained further in the Gemara.

And if a person betrothed

with second tithe:

Whether

he betrothed with it

unwittingly,

when neither he nor she knew that it was second tithe,

or whether

he betrothed with it

intentionally—

This is

not betrothal

of the woman,

the words of Rabbi Meir,

for he holds: “Second tithe is the property of the Most High,” and he cannot betroth a woman with it.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If he betrothed her with second tithe

unwittingly, he did not betroth

but if he betrothed her

intentionally,

this is

betrothal,

because he holds: “Second tithe is ordinary property.”

And

one who betroths

with consecrated property:

Intentionally, he betrothed,

because when he gave it to the woman, he committed sacrilege and the consecrated property became ordinary property, and she becomes betrothed with it

; but unwittingly, he did not betroth, the words of Rabbi Meir,

as he explains the reason in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Unwittingly, he betrothed,

because the consecrated property became profane through his sacrilege, and she becomes betrothed with it,

but intentionally, he did not betroth,

because consecrated property does not become ordinary property through intentional sacrilege, according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks: Is it to say

that

the

our Mishna—

in which we learned that one who betroths even with his portion received from offerings of lesser sanctity, she is not betrothed—

is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei the Galilean?

As it was taught:

It is written in the passage of the oath of deposit: “When a person sins and commits treachery against the Lord and denies to his fellow concerning a deposit [that his fellow deposited with him], or concerning a loan [a loan], or through theft [that he stole from his fellow], or he oppresses his fellow; or he found a lost object and denied it and swore falsely concerning it: or concerning any of all that a person swears falsely about—and he shall pay it in its principal [that is, the principal], and its fifth he shall add to it, to the one to whom it belongs [to the one to whom the principal belongs] he shall give it on the day of his guilt. And his guilt-offering [‘the guilt-offering for theft’] he shall bring to the Lord, an unblemished ram from the flock, according to your valuation as a guilt-offering, to the kohen.”

And from the implication of what the Torah said: “And he denied to his fellow,” we learn that when one who entrusted consecrated property, and the depositary denied the deposit, swore, and then admitted, he is exempt from the law of the “oath of the deposit.”

And from the implication of what the Torah said: “

And he trespassed against the Lord,”

we learn

to include lesser holy offerings—

to make one liable for them according to the law of the “oath of the deposit,” if he swore falsely that they had not been entrusted to him, and admitted that he had sworn falsely—because

they are his property

of the owners who entrusted them to him, and he is therefore included in “and he denied to his fellow concerning a deposit,”

the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

And if so, our Mishna is not in accordance with his view, for according to his opinion, since lesser holy offerings are the property of the owners, if the koen betrothed with his portion that he received from the lesser holy offerings, they are his property, and he can betroth a woman with it.

And we reject this:

You may even say that it is Rabbi Yosei the Galilean

whose view our Mishna expresses; it is nevertheless not difficult, for

when Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said

that they are the property of the owners, it was specifically

during the animal’s lifetime, but after slaughter, no,

said Rabbi Yosei.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

When they acquire

the priests their portion—

they acquire it from the table of the Most High

and it is not their property.

And the Gemara supports the answer:

It is precise as well

as we explained, from

the fact that it teaches

in our Mishna:

“One who betroths with his portion, whether with most holy offerings or with lesser holy offerings, has not betrothed,”

for it is only when he betroths “with his portion”—that is, with the portion he received after slaughter—that he has not betrothed; but during the animal’s lifetime, he has betrothed. For if this were not so, it should have said: “A woman is not betrothed with lesser holy offerings”!

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it!

The Sages taught: After the death of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda said to his students: “Let Rabbi Meir’s students not enter here, because they are antagonists”

(they provoke),

“and they do not come to study Torah, but rather to cut me down in matters of halakha”

(to cut off our legs in matters of halakha, to make known that they are sharp and that no one can stand against them)

“they come!”

And nevertheless

Sumakhos pushed his way—

who had been among Rabbi Meir’s students—

and entered

the beit-midrash of Rabbi Yehuda.

He said to them

Sumakhos said to Rabbi Yehuda and his students:

“Thus Rabbi Meir taught me: ‘One who betroths with his portion, whether with most holy offerings or with lesser holy offerings, has not betrothed.’”

Rabbi Yehuda became angry with them

(with his students), and

said to them:

And

did I not say this to you: “

‘Let Rabbi Meir’s students not enter here, because they are antagonists, and they do not come to study Torah, but rather to cut me down in matters of halakha they come’”?

For how can you find a case in which a person betroths with his portion that he received from most holy offerings?

And from where is there a woman in the Temple courtyard,

so that she would be fit to receive her betrothal there?! For if he takes his portion out to her, even to the Women’s Courtyard, it is already disqualified as “that which went out,” and it is not possible to betroth with it.

Rabbi Yosei said: Let people say

:

“Meir has lain down”

(has died),

“Yehuda became angry,”

and

“Yosei remained silent—what will become of the words

of Torah?!”

And with regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s essential question:

“Is a person not likely to receive betrothal for his daughter”

a minor or a young woman [for he is entitled to her betrothal]

in the Temple courtyard?!

And

further, is

a woman not likely to appoint an agent for herself to receive her betrothal in the Temple courtyard?!

And further,

for we must discuss this law in a case in which

the woman pushed her way

and

entered

the courtyard, and received betrothal there from the portion of the most holy offerings,

what then?

It was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

A koen who betroths with his portion, she is

betrothed.

And

Rabbi Yosei says: She is not betrothed.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Both of them expounded one verse:

for it is written in the section of the gifts of the priesthood: “

And this shall be yours

(for Aaron),

from the most holy things, from the fire

all their offerings, for all their meal-offerings and for all their sin-offerings”!

Rabbi Yehuda holds:

“Yours,”

and for all your needs,

even to betroth a woman with it.

And Rabbi Yosei holds:

Your portion shall be

like

the portion given to the

fire

of the altar;

just as

the portion given to the

fire, for consumption

of the altar is given,

so too it—

the priests’ portion—

is also for consumption

it is given, and not for anything else.

Rabbi Yohanan said: