Kiddushin 53a — the Talmud in English

The Sages arose and

counted; the majority said that she is not betrothed, and the minority, including Rabbi Yehuda, retracted their position,

and they all concluded

and decided

to say:

One who betroths with his portion, whether of most-sacred offerings or of lesser sanctity, has not betrothed.

And

if

Rav said: It is still a dispute, this means that they did not count, the minority did not retract their position, and they did not conclude the ruling.

that is because they did not take a vote, the minority did not change their position, and they did not reach a legal conclusion.

Abaye said: It is reasonable according to Rabbi Yohanan [it is reasonable according to the view of Rabbi Yohanan]

that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his position and conceded that she is not betrothed

; for

this

was taught:

A. The meat of most-sacred offerings from animal sacrifices and from birds [apart from an elevation-offering, which is entirely burned for the Lord], and the remnants of meal-offerings after their handfuls have been removed, and the breast and thigh of peace-offerings, are priestly gifts divided among the members of the paternal household serving in the priestly division serving on that day.

B. The Torah mentions among the voluntary meal-offerings the pan-baked meal-offering and the deep-pan meal-offering. These are types of vessels in which the meal-offering is baked, rather than being baked in an oven. The pan is not deep but is broad, and consequently the fine flour spreads throughout it, and the fire burns the oil in it, so that the meal-offering made in it is hard [“its products are hard”]; whereas 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 of testimony—the Torah requires a sin-offering that varies in accordance with the wealth or poverty of the person obligated to bring it, and it is called a “graduated sin-offering.” This is its law: if he is wealthy, he brings an offering from an animal; if he is poor, he brings an offering from a bird; and in the case of extreme poverty, he brings a meal-offering.

From where is it derived that the priests do not divide

the

meal-offerings against the animal sacrifices, meaning that one priest should say to his fellow: “You take your portion from the meal-offering, and I will take my portion from the sacrifice, at the same value as you took from the meal-offering”; rather, the priests divide the meal-offerings among them all, and the animal sacrifices among them all?

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

The verse therefore says: “

And every meal-offering that is baked in an oven

and everything made in a deep pan and on a pan shall belong to the priest who offers it; and every meal-offering mixed with oil and dry [without oil]

shall belong to all the sons of Aaron

man like his brother.” This implies: the sons of Aaron shall divide the meal-offering itself, but they shall not divide meal-offerings against animal sacrifices.

One might have thought that they do not divide meal-offerings against animal sacrifices [animals slaughtered with a knife],

because

they did not take their place in poverty [no meal-offering stands in place of the animal sacrifice when the one bringing it is poor], since a poor person brings an offering from a bird in place of the animal sacrifice, and in extreme poverty he brings a meal-offering in place of the bird sin-offering;

[a meal offering does not replace an animal offering when the one bringing it is poor], for a poor person brings a bird offering in place of the animal offering, and a person in extreme poverty brings a meal offering in place of a bird sin offering.

but they do divide

the priests

meal-offerings against birds, since they took their place in

extreme

poverty?

Therefore

the verse says: “

And everything made in a deep pan ...

shall belong to all the sons of Aaron

man 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, man like his brother.” It is a superfluous verse, to include that they do not divide meal-offerings against birds.

One might have thought that they do not divide meal-offerings against birds,

even though they take their place in extreme poverty, because

these are kinds of blood and those are kinds of flour.

But they do divide birds against animal sacrifices,

which take their place in poverty,

since these and those are kinds of blood—

Therefore

the verse says: “

And

on a pan ...

shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, man like his brother.” This too is a superfluous verse, and if it is not needed for meal-offerings against animal sacrifices because they are not of the same kind—for these are kinds of blood and those are kinds of flour—apply it to animal sacrifices and birds.

One might have thought that they do not divide birds against animal sacrifices,

because

these—

the pinching of the birds—

are performed by hand

[with a fingernail],

whereas these—

the slaughter of the animal sacrifices—

are performed with an instrument

[with a knife]

; but they do divide meal-offerings against meal-offerings, since these and those are performed by hand [the removal of the handfuls of the meal-offerings is performed with the fingers of the hand]—

[the removal of the handful from meal offerings is performed with the fingers of the hand]—

Therefore

the verse says: “

And every meal-offering mixed with oil ...

to all the sons of Aaron

shall it belong, man like his brother.” The mention of “mixed with oil” is a superfluous verse, to teach that they do not divide meal-offerings against meal-offerings.

One might have thought that they do not divide

the

pan-baked meal-offering against

the

deep-pan meal-offering, and

the

deep-pan meal-offering against

the

pan-baked meal-offering,

because

this—

the deep-pan meal-offering—

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

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

and this—

the cake made in the pan, which is broad—

has hard products; but they do divide

the

pan-baked meal-offering

one

against

a

pan-baked meal-offering

belonging to someone else, or a

deep-pan

meal-offering brought by Reuben

against

a

deep-pan

meal-offering brought by Simeon,

for

sure

these and those have hard products, or alternatively

these and those

have soft products—

therefore

the verse says: “

And the dry one shall belong to all the sons of Aaron

man like his brother.” “The dry one” is a superfluous expression. The same law applies to every sacrifice: the priests divide that sacrifice, but they do not divide one sacrifice against another, even if both this and that are sin-offerings or peace-offerings.

One might have thought that they do not divide

one sacrifice against another

among most-sacred

order, as with a meal offering,

offerings

as with a meal-offering,

but they do divide

one sacrifice against another

among lesser-sanctity offerings, because it was said that in these he has ownership, and he can sell his portion in this sacrifice in exchange for a portion in another sacrifice—

Therefore

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

And every meal offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all the sons of Aaron,

man like his brother,”

and adjacent to it is: “

If it is a thanksgiving-offering,”

which is a lesser-sanctity offering, to teach:

Just as they do not divide

one sacrifice against another

with

a meal-offering that is

most-sacred

sacred

, so they do not divide

one sacrifice against another

with

a thanksgiving-offering that is

of lesser sanctity.

And for this reason it says: “

Man

like his brother,” in order to teach:

A man

who is a priest

divides among the sacrifices,

the offerings,

and even

a priest who is

blemished,

who is unfit for service,

but a minor

who is not a man

does not divide

among the sacrifices,

even

if he is

unblemished.

From this beraita it may be proven that Rabbi Yohanan’s understanding of Rabbi Yehuda is correct: one does not betroth a woman either with most-sacred offerings or with lesser-sanctity offerings:

For

the anonymous Sifra [Torat Kohanim]—where this beraita was taught—

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

whose is it [who taught it]? It is

[who taught it]? It is

Rabbi Yehuda’s,

and he

indeed

says that there is no law of division at all, meaning that a priest cannot sell his portion to his fellow;

and therefore he also cannot betroth a woman with it.

Learn from this that the ruling is according to Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Yehuda retracted his position and conceded that one who betroths with his portion has not betrothed, whether with most-sacred offerings or with lesser-sanctity offerings.

Rava

asked

and said: But according to Rav—

who holds that Rabbi Yehuda did not retract his position—

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

[is there not a beraita from which it can be demonstrated that Rabbi Yehuda did not change his position]?

For it was taught concerning the showbread: the

with regard to the showbread: The

modest priests

would withdraw their hands

from taking their portion of the showbread, which amounted to a small piece for each one [after a curse had been sent into it, sometime after the era of Simeon the Righteous],

and

if

the greedy ones would divide

; and the initial assumption was that the intention is not that they would divide the showbread among themselves, for such a small division would not have any value even for greedy people, but that they would “divide” in another manner: one would take the showbread, and the other would take another item in exchange for it—

This approach is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s position before his retraction; thus, Rabbi Yehuda did not retract his position! And we answer: Not as you think, that he gave his fellow his portion elsewhere in exchange for his fellow’s portion in the showbread. Rather,

what is meant by

“divide”?

They snatch

one another’s portions. That is, the division mentioned here is never a division of the showbread against another item; rather, they divided the showbread among themselves. Lest you say: What benefit did they have from such a small portion? This is not difficult, for they would snatch their fellows’ portions.

And

as it states at the end

that this is what they used to do:

There was an incident involving one who snatched his portion and his fellow’s portion, and they would call him: “

the son of a violent taker” [

violent taker ] “

until the day of his death.”

He said

he explained

Rabba bar Rav Shila: What is the verse

from which it is shown that “hamtsan” is an expression of “violent taker”?

For it is written: “

My God, deliver me from the hand of the wicked, from the grasp of the perverse [

the mem has the vocalization of sheva, the ayin is open, and the vav has the vocalization of tsere ]

and the violent taker [

violent taker ].”

Rabba said: From here

it can be learned that “hamtsan” is an expression of “violent taker”: “

Learn to do good; seek justice; uphold the violent taker [

support the hand of the one robbed, to save him from the hand of his oppressor ].”

We learned in the Mishna:

Concerning Second Tithe: whether unwittingly or deliberately, he has not betrothed; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: unwittingly, he has not betrothed; deliberately, he has betrothed:

and we explain the reason of Rabbi Meir, that he holds that he has not betrothed, because Second Tithe is the property of the Most High, and one does not betroth a woman with it:

From where are these words

that it is the property of the Most High?

He said

he explained

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

thus it was established in the Gemara, and it is current in the mouths of the members of the beit-midrash ]: For it is written concerning Second Tithe: “

And every tithe of the land, from the seed of the land, from the fruit of the tree, is for the Lord

it is, holy to the Lord.

And if a man will redeem, he shall surely redeem his tithe; its fifth he shall add to it,” to teach:

“For the Lord”

it is,

and not for betrothing with it

the

woman.

And we raise an objection:

But concerning the tithe-offering, for it is written

in it: “

So shall you also raise the Lord’s tithe-offering

from all your tithes that you shall take from the Children of Israel,”

and

nevertheless

we learned

below, 58a:

One who betroths with terumot—

and this implies both the great teruma and the tithe-offering—

she is betrothed,

so it is evident that it is not sufficient that it is called “the Lord’s teruma” to prevent betrothing the woman with it!?

And we resolve: the tithe-offering is different,

for it is not written in it

“for the Lord”

as it is in Second Tithe; rather, “the Lord’s teruma” is written [without the lamed], and the wording does not mean that the teruma belongs to the Lord and not to him, but rather that it is the teruma of the Lord that He commanded.

And we continue to object:

But concerning ḥalla, for it is written in it: “

From the first of your kneading-bowls

you shall give to the Lord

teruma,”

and

nevertheless

we learned: One who betroths with terumot—

all terumot are implied, and even ḥalla, which is called “teruma” —

she is betrothed!?

And we resolve: because

it is not written in it,

in ḥalla,

“holy,”

whereas concerning Second Tithe it is said: “It is for the Lord, holy to the Lord.”

It enters our minds that the essential matter depends only on the fact that the tithe is called “holy,” and therefore we ask:

But concerning the Sabbatical year, for it is written in it: “

It is Jubilee

[it is, read this way ]

it shall be holy for you”—

and

nevertheless

we learned: One who betroths with the produce of the Sabbatical year is betrothed!?

And we resolve: because

it is not written in it—

in Jubilee—“

for the Lord”; that is: only concerning Second Tithe, in which both “holy” and “for the Lord” are stated, is it that one does not betroth with it; but with ḥalla, in which “holy” is not stated, and with the Sabbatical year, in which, although “holy” is stated, “for the Lord” is not stated, one betroths the woman with its produce.

that is, only concerning Second tithe, about which both “holy” and “for the Lord” are written, is it prohibited to betroth a woman with it. But with challah, in which “holy” is not written, and with Sabbatical-year produce, in which “holy” is written but “for the Lord” is not written, one may betroth a woman with its produce.

And we continue to object:

But concerning teruma, for it is written

in it: “

Holy is Israel to the Lord

the first of His produce [

they are like teruma to Him ],”

and

nevertheless

we learned: One who betroths with terumot, she is betrothed;

so although “holy” is said concerning teruma, and “for the Lord” is also said concerning it, nevertheless one betroths the woman with it!?

And we resolve:

That “holy

for the Lord”

is written concerning Israel,

and it was not said: “The first of His produce is holy for the Lord”; whereas concerning Second Tithe it is said: “It is for the Lord, holy to the Lord.”