Kiddushin 53a (נג.) — the Talmud in English

The Sages arose and

took a vote;

the majority held that she is not betrothed, and the minority, including Rabbi Yehuda, retracted their opinion,

and concluded

unanimously as follows:

One who betroths a woman with his portion, whether of offerings of the highest degree of sanctity or of offerings of lesser sanctity, has not betrothed her.

And

if

Rav said: The dispute still remains,

this means that they did not take a vote, the minority did not retract their opinion, and they did not reach a decision.

Abaye said: It is reasonable to accept the view of Rabbi Yohanan

—it is reasonable to say, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan, that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his view and conceded that she is not betrothed—

as

it

is taught:

a. The meat of offerings of the highest degree of sanctity from animal offerings and bird offerings [apart from an olah, which is entirely burned for the Lord], and the remnants of meal-offerings after their kemitza, and the breast and thigh of peace-offerings, are gifts of the priesthood, distributed among the members of the paternal household serving in the priestly division that performs the service that day.

b. The Torah mentions among the voluntary meal-offerings the meal-offering prepared on a griddle and the meal-offering prepared in a deep pan. These are types of vessels in which the meal-offering is baked, rather than in an oven. The griddle is shallow and broad, and consequently the flour spreads throughout it; the fire burns the oil in it, and the meal-offering made in it is hard [“its products are hard.”] By contrast, the deep pan is deep and narrow, and consequently the meal-offering made in it is soft [“its products are soft.”]

c. At times—for example, in the case of an oath concerning testimony—the Torah obligates a person to bring a sin-offering that varies according to the wealth or poverty of the person obligated to bring it. It is called a sliding-scale sin-offering; its law is as follows: If he is wealthy, he brings an animal offering; if he is poor, he brings a bird offering; and if he is extremely poor, he brings a meal-offering.

From where

do we know that the priests do not divide

meal-offerings in exchange for animal offerings—

that is, that one priest may not say to another: “Take your portion of the meal-offering, and I will take my portion of the animal offering, at the same value as the portion you took from the meal-offering”? Rather, the priests divide the meal-offerings among them all, and the animal offerings among them all?

The verse states: “

And every meal-offering that is baked in an oven

and everything prepared in a deep pan or on a griddle shall belong to the priest who offers it; it shall be his. And every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry [without oil]

shall belong to all the sons of Aaron

each one like his brother.” This indicates that the sons of Aaron divide the meal-offering itself, but they do not divide meal-offerings in exchange for animal offerings.

One might have thought that they do not divide meal-offerings in exchange for animal offerings

[animals slaughtered with a knife], because

they did not take the place of animal offerings in the case of poverty

[a meal-offering does not stand in place of an animal offering when the one bringing the offering is poor], for a poor person brings a bird offering in place of the animal offering, and an extremely poor person brings a meal-offering in place of the bird sin-offering;

but they may divide

the priests

meal-offerings in exchange for birds, since they did take their place in the case of extreme

poverty

?

Therefore,

the verse states: “

And everything prepared in a deep pan ...

shall belong to all the sons of Aaron

each one like his brother.” The Torah did not need to specify the deep-pan meal-offering; it would have sufficed to say, “And every meal-offering shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, each one like his brother.” It is an otherwise superfluous phrase, intended to include the rule that meal-offerings may not be divided in exchange for birds.

One might have thought that they do not divide meal-offerings in exchange for birds,

even though birds take their place in the case of extreme poverty, because

these are types of blood, whereas those are types of flour.

But they may divide birds in exchange for animal offerings,

which they replace in the case of poverty,

since both these and those are types of blood—

Therefore,

the verse states: “

And

on a griddle

shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, each one like his brother.” This too is a superfluous phrase; and if it is not needed for meal-offerings in exchange for animal offerings since they are not of the same type—these are types of blood, whereas those are types of flour—apply it to animal offerings and birds.

One might have thought that they do not divide birds in exchange for animal offerings,

because

these—

the pinching of birds—

are performed by hand

[with a fingernail],

whereas those—

the slaughter of animal offerings—

are performed with an instrument

[with a knife];

but they may divide meal-offerings in exchange for other meal-offerings, since both these and those are performed by hand

[the kemitza of meal-offerings is performed with the fingers of the hand]—

Therefore,

the verse states: “

And every meal-offering mixed with oil ...

shall belong to all the sons of Aaron

each one like his brother.” The mention of “mixed with oil” is superfluous, and it teaches that meal-offerings may not be divided in exchange for other meal-offerings.

One might have thought that they may not divide

a

griddle

meal-offering in exchange for

a deep-pan

meal-offering, and

a deep-pan

meal-offering in exchange for

a griddle

meal-offering, because

this one—

the deep-pan meal-offering—

has soft products

[the cake made in the deep pan, which is a deep vessel, is soft],

whereas this one—

the cake made on a griddle, which is broad—

has hard products; but they may divide

a

griddle

offering

in exchange for

another

griddle

offering, or a

deep-pan

offering brought by Reuven

in exchange for

a

deep-pan

offering brought by Shimon,

for

in that case

both these and those have hard products; alternatively, both these and those

—both offerings—

have soft products. Therefore,

therefore,

the verse states: “

And the dry meal-offering shall belong to all the sons of Aaron

each one like his brother.” “The dry meal-offering” is an additional phrase. The same applies to every offering: the priests divide that offering among themselves, but they do not divide one offering in exchange for another, even if both are sin-offerings or peace-offerings.

One might have thought that they may not divide

one offering in exchange for another

among offerings of the highest degree of sanctity

order, as with a meal offering,

like a meal-offering,

as with a meal-offering,

but they may divide

one offering in exchange for another

among offerings of lesser sanctity, since it might be said that, in these offerings, the priest has ownership and may sell his portion of one offering in exchange for a portion of another offering—

Therefore,

the verse states: “

Therefore,

the verse states: “And every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all the sons of Aaron,

each one like his brother,”

and adjacent to it is written: “

If it is a thanksgiving-offering,” which is an offering of lesser sanctity, teaching:

Just as they do not divide

one offering in exchange for another

with

a meal-offering that is

an offering of

the

highest degree of sanctity, so they do not divide

one offering in exchange for another

with

a thanksgiving-offering that is

an offering of lesser sanctity.

And for this reason it says: “

Each

one like his brother,” to teach:

Each

priest

divides

the offerings,

even

a priest who is

blemished

and unfit for the Temple service,

but a minor

who is not an adult

does not divide

the offerings,

even

if he is

unblemished.

This beraita provides proof in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s understanding of Rabbi Yehuda: offerings do not betroth a woman, neither offerings of the highest degree of sanctity nor offerings of lesser sanctity.

For

the anonymous Sifra

[the Torat Kohanim], in which this beraita is taught,

is whose?

Who is the tanna who taught it? It is

Rabbi Yehuda;

and he

is the one who

said that there is no law of division whatsoever,

that is, a priest cannot sell his portion to another priest; and therefore he also cannot betroth a woman with it.

Learn from this that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion and conceded that one who betroths a woman with his portion has not betrothed her, whether with offerings of the highest degree of sanctity or with offerings of lesser sanctity.

Rava raised

the following objection:

But according to Rav

—who holds that Rabbi Yehuda did not retract his opinion—

is it not taught

[is there not a beraita from which it can be proven that Rabbi Yehuda did not retract his opinion]?

For it is taught

with regard to the showbread: The priests

who are modest

withdraw their hands

from taking their portion of the showbread, each of whom received only a small amount [after a curse had come upon it sometime after the death of Shimon the Righteous],

but

if

the greedy ones divide it,

the initial assumption is that the intention is not that they divide the showbread among themselves, since such a small portion would have no value even to greedy people; rather, they “divide” it in another manner, with one taking the showbread and the other taking something else in exchange—

This approach reflects Rabbi Yehuda’s view before his retraction; thus, Rabbi Yehuda did not retract his opinion! And we answer: It is not as you assume—that they gave one another their portions in another place in exchange for one another’s portions of the showbread. Rather,

what does “

divide” mean?

They snatch

one another’s portions. That is, the division mentioned here is indeed not a division of showbread in exchange for another item; rather, they divided the showbread among themselves. And if you say: What benefit did they have from such a small portion? This is not difficult, because they would snatch their colleagues’ portions.

And

as it is taught in the latter clause

that this is what they used to do:

There was an incident involving one who seized his portion and his fellow’s portion, and they called him: “

Son of a robber

[a robber]

until the day of his death.

He said

that

Rabba bar Rav Sheila explained: What is the verse

that indicates that “hamtzan” is an expression of “robber”?

For it is written: “

My God, rescue me from the hand of the wicked, from the grasp of the unjust and robber

[The mem has the vowel patah, the ayin has the vowel patah, and the vav has the vowel tzerei]

and robber

[robber].”

Rabba said: The proof is from here

that “hamtzan” is an expression of “robber”: “

Learn to do good; seek justice; vindicate the robbed

[support the robbed person, to rescue him from the one who oppresses him].”

We learned in the Mishna:

With regard to second tithe: Whether he consecrated a woman with it unwittingly or intentionally, he has not consecrated her; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If unwittingly, he has not consecrated her; if intentionally, he has consecrated her:

And we explain Rabbi Meir’s reason for maintaining that he has not consecrated her: Because second tithe is property of the Most High, and one cannot consecrate a woman with it.

From where are these matters derived

that it is property of the Most High?

He said

that

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, explained in the name of the Gemara

[This was established in the Gemara and is common in the speech of the members of the beit midrash]: For it is written concerning second tithe: “

And every tithe of the land, of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s

; it is sacred to the Lord.

And if a man redeems any of his tithe, he shall add its fifth to it,” teaching: “

It is the Lord’s

; it

may not be used to consecrate

a

woman.”

And we raise an objection:

But what of the tithe offering, concerning which it is written

in it: “

So shall you too set aside the Lord’s offering

from all your tithes that you receive from the children of Israel,”

and

nevertheless

we learned

below, on 58a:

With regard to one who consecrates a woman with terumot

—which implies both teruma gedola and the tithe offering—

she is consecrated;

so it is insufficient that it is called “the Lord’s offering” to prevent one from consecrating a woman with it!

And we resolve: The tithe offering is different,

as it is not written concerning it

“to the Lord”

as it is written concerning second tithe. Rather, it is written “the Lord’s offering” [without the lamed prefix], and the wording does not mean that the offering belongs to the Lord and not to him; rather, it is the offering of the Lord that He commanded one to set aside.

And we continue to object:

But what of ḥalla, concerning which it is written:

“From the first of your kneading-bowl,”

“you shall give to the Lord”

an offering,”

and

nevertheless

we learned: One who consecrates a woman with terumot

—all offerings are included, including ḥalla, which is called “an offering” —

she is consecrated!?

And we resolve: Because

it is not written concerning

ḥalla

“sacred,”

whereas concerning second tithe it is stated: “It is the Lord’s; it is sacred to the Lord.”

It might have entered our minds that the essential matter depends only on the fact that the tithe is called “sacred.” Therefore, we object:

But what of the Sabbatical produce, concerning which it is written: “

It is Jubilee

[read: it is]

; it shall be sacred for you”—

and

nevertheless

we learned: One who consecrates a woman with Sabbatical produce, she is consecrated!?

And we resolve: Because

it is not written concerning it—

with regard to the Jubilee—

“to the Lord”;

that is, only with regard to second tithe, concerning which both “sacred” and “to the Lord” are stated, can one not consecrate a woman with it. But with ḥalla, concerning which “sacred” is not stated, and with the Sabbatical produce, concerning which “sacred” is stated but “to the Lord” is not stated, one may consecrate a woman with its produce.

And we continue to object:

But what of teruma, concerning which it is written

in it: “

Israel is sacred to the Lord,

the first of His produce

[they are to Him like teruma],”

and

nevertheless

we learned: One who consecrates a woman with terumot, she is consecrated;

so although “sacred” is stated with regard to teruma, and “to the Lord” is also stated with regard to it, nevertheless one may consecrate a woman with it!?

And we resolve:

That “

sacred to the Lord”

is written with regard to Israel,

and it does not say: “The first of His produce is sacred to the Lord.” In contrast, with regard to second tithe it is stated: “It is the Lord’s; it is sacred to the Lord.”