Kiddushin 53b (נג:) — the Talmud in English

And we still raise an objection: What difference does it make that the verse does not call the first produce “holy to the Lord,”

and

after all,

is it not evident in any event

that teruma is “holy to the Lord,” since the verse compares Israel to “the first of his produce”!? The Gemara answers:

Ravina the Elder explained it before Rav [he explained it before Rav]: The case of second tithe is different, as

the verse

says: “It

shall be to the Lord;

it

is holy,” which indicates that

it shall remain in its present state

holy to the Lord.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And with regard to consecrated property: If intentionally, he has betrothed her; if unwittingly, he has not betrothed her; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If unwittingly, he has betrothed her; if intentionally, he has not betrothed her.

Rabbi Yaakov said: I heard two things from Rabbi Yohanan

[I heard from Rabbi Yohanan the reasons for the following rulings]:

a. The reason for

Rabbi Yehuda’s unwitting use of second tithe

in our Mishna [although he maintains that second tithe is the property of an ordinary person, and that if he acted intentionally he betrothed her]; b. and the reason for

Rabbi Meir’s unwitting use of consecrated property

in our Mishna—

that

both of them

both sages taught in our Mishna that

a woman is not betrothed with them.

That is: In the case of unwitting use of second tithe, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he did not betroth her, and a reason is needed to distinguish this from intentional use, and Rabbi Yohanan explained it. And in the case of unwitting use of consecrated property, Rabbi Meir maintains that he did not betroth her, although in the case of intentional use he did betroth her, and Rabbi Yohanan explained the reason in both cases as mistaken betrothal. However, they disagree with regard to the nature of the mistake. In

one

of them, Rabbi Yohanan explained the reason as follows:

because a woman does not want

to be betrothed with it. She is unwitting and does not know that he is betrothing her with second tithe or consecrated property, and therefore the betrothal is mistaken from the woman’s perspective.

And in the other: Because neither of them wants

to betroth with it. They are both unwitting and do not know that he is betrothing her with second tithe or consecrated property, and therefore the betrothal is mistaken from the perspective of both of them.

And I do not know which of them

[I do not know with which case Rabbi Yohanan explained the first reason, and with which case he explained the second reason].

He said

Rabbi Yirmeya explained:

Let us consider the matter ourselves

[let us examine it ourselves]:

With regard to

second tithe,

it is reasonable that

she

[the woman]

is not satisfied

to be betrothed with it

because of the inconvenience of the journey

[the exertion of the journey] to bring it to Jerusalem in order to eat the second tithe there. But

he

[the husband]

is satisfied that he should acquire a wife automatically

[he agrees that she should become his wife through this], since why should he care about the woman’s exertion? And this is what Rabbi Yohanan said: According to Rabbi Yehuda, in a case of unwitting use he did not betroth her, because she would not want to be betrothed with this had she known that it was second tithe.

But in the case of consecrated property,

this is not so. Rather,

both of them

[the betrothing man and the betrothed woman]

are not satisfied that consecrated property should be profaned

through them

[they do not want the consecrated property to be profaned through them]. If the betrothal takes effect, this is me’ila, since they removed the money from the authority of consecrated property and gave it to her, which is prohibited, and the verse calls them “those who commit a trespass.” And this is what Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Meir agrees that in a case of unwitting use he did not betroth her, because neither of them wants this.

And Rabbi Yaakov,

who was uncertain about the matter,

said

to you:

The opposite is more reasonable

Is there not room to say

[that there is room for the opposite reasoning]:

With regard to second tithe, she is not satisfied because of the inconvenience of the journey, and this has been explained. And

even

he is not satisfied because of the hazards of the journey

[the danger that may occur on the way when bringing the second tithe to Jerusalem]. That is: Since second tithe is not worth a peruta outside Jerusalem, as it may be spent only in Jerusalem—and even when it is sold, the money assumes the sanctity of second tithe, while betrothal money must be worth a peruta—then the husband must accept upon himself the hazards that may occur on the way. That is, if an accident occurs, she will not be betrothed, and she will not pay him either, since she is blameless. Therefore, had he known that it was second tithe, he would not have betrothed her, because the likelihood of such an accident is greater for the woman than for the man.

But in the case of consecrated property, granted that she

[the woman] indeed

is not satisfied that consecrated property should be profaned

[that it should be profaned]

through her,

for what benefit does she have from this? If she does not accept the consecrated property, he will have to give her money from non-sacred property

; but is he not satisfied that he should acquire a wife automatically

[is it not convenient for him that the woman should become his wife], even at the cost of profaning consecrated property!?

Rava asked Rav Ḥisda:

Since we said that according to Rabbi Meir, in the case of unwitting use of consecrated property,

a woman is not betrothed,

then

what is the ruling with regard to whether the money becomes non-sacred—

as with other consecrated money that was used in a manner involving me’ila—so that he may derive any benefit he wishes from it!?

He said to him

Rav Ḥisda said to Rava: If

a woman is not betrothed, how could the money become non-sacred!?

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin asked Rav Ḥisda:

According to Rabbi Meir, who says that in a case of unwitting use he did not betroth her because he or they do not want consecrated property to be profaned through them, and consequently the money is not profaned:

In a sale, what is the ruling,

that is, if he unwittingly took an object in exchange for consecrated money, did the money become non-sacred?

Rav Ḥisda

answered

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin:

Even in a sale he acquired nothing,

and the money did not become non-sacred.

He challenged him

Rav Ḥisda, who said that nothing is acquired in a sale, from a Mishna in tractate Me’ila [21b]:

A Temple treasurer who unwittingly deposited consecrated money with a money changer: If he deposited it bundled [tied in a pouch], the money changer may not use it, since he deposited it bundled for the purpose of preventing him from using it. Therefore, if the money changer spent it unwittingly [not knowing that it belonged to consecrated property], he committed me’ila [he is obligated to bring a me’ila offering], and not the one who deposited it with him, because the money changer’s expenditure was not authorized by the depositor.

But if he deposited it loose, the money changer may use it, since he deposited it with him loose for the purpose of allowing him to use it to make change, as he knows that a money changer is constantly in need of money for making change. Therefore, when the money changer spent it, the treasurer committed me’ila.

All this applies when he deposited it with a money changer. But if the treasurer deposited money with a householder, whether it was bundled or loose, the householder may not use it, since an ordinary householder does not constantly use money. If the householder spent it, he committed me’ila.

And when the treasurer deposited it with a shopkeeper, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed:

A shopkeeper

whose law

is like that of a householder,

since he does not need money to the same extent, and the depositor did not intend to give him the money so that he could use it. Therefore, if the shopkeeper spent it, he committed me’ila,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: A shopkeeper is like a money changer,

for there is a distinction depending on whether he deposited the money with him bundled or loose.

Thus,

they disagree only with regard to this: One sage—

Rabbi Yehuda—

maintains that a shopkeeper is like a money changer, and the other sage—

Rabbi Meir—

maintains that a shopkeeper is like a householder.

But everyone,

even Rabbi Meir, agrees:

If he spent

the money, he

committed me’ila. One who spends consecrated money has committed me’ila; thus, Rabbi Meir agrees that there is me’ila through unwitting expenditure!?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Meir,

in the Mishna in Me’ila,

was speaking according to Rabbi Yehuda’s position: In my view, even if he spent

consecrated money,

he likewise did not commit me’ila; but according to your view,

that you maintain that there is me’ila through the unwitting expenditure of consecrated money,

at least concede to me that a shopkeeper is like a householder.

And he said to him

Rabbi Yehuda:

No;

the shopkeeper is

like a money changer.

Rav said: