Kiddushin 53b — the Talmud in English

And still we ask: What of it that the verse does not call the first yield “holy to the Lord”?

And

is it not

thereby understood in any event

that the teruma is “holy to the Lord,” for the verse equated Israel with “the first of his yield”!? And we answer:

Ravin the Elder expounded it

[Ravin the Elder explained it before Rav]: The case of second tithe is different, for

the verse says: “To the Lord

the

it

is holy,” and it means:

It shall remain holy in its original state

to the Lord.

We learned in the Mishna:

With regard to second tithe: Whether unwittingly or intentionally, he has not effected betrothal; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: Unwittingly he has not effected betrothal; intentionally he has effected betrothal.

And with regard to consecrated property: Intentionally he has effected betrothal; unwittingly he has not effected betrothal, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: Unwittingly he has effected betrothal; intentionally he has not effected betrothal.

Rabbi Yaakov said: I heard two things from Rabbi Yohanan

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

A. The reason for

Rabbi Judah’s unwitting second tithe

in our Mishna [although he holds that second tithe is the property of an ordinary person, and that he effects betrothal intentionally]; B. and the reason for

Rabbi Meir’s unwitting consecrated property

in our Mishna—

that

both of them

stated in our Mishna that

a woman is not betrothed with them.

That is: In the case of unwitting second tithe, Rabbi Judah holds that he has not effected betrothal, and a reason is needed to distinguish it from the intentional case, and Rabbi Yohanan explained it; and in the case of unwitting consecrated property, Rabbi Meir holds that he has not effected betrothal, although in the intentional case he has effected betrothal, and Rabbi Yohanan explained the reason in both of these cases as being mistaken betrothals, except that they differ with regard to the mistake—in

one

of them Rabbi Yohanan explained the reason:

because a woman does not wish

to be betrothed with it, and she is, after all, unwitting and does not know that he is betrothing her with second tithe or with consecrated property, and they are mistaken betrothals on the woman’s part.

And in the one case: Because neither of them wishes

to betroth, and they are unwitting, and they do not know that he is betrothing her with second tithe or with consecrated property, and they are mistaken betrothals on the part of both of them.

And I do not know which of them

[I do not know with which of them Rabbi Yohanan explained the first reason, and with which Rabbi Yohanan explained the second reason]?

He said

Rabbi Yirmeya explained:

Let us examine for ourselves

[Let us consider the matter ourselves]:

With

second tithe

it is reasonable that

she

[the woman]

is not content

to be betrothed with it

because of the trouble of the journey

[the trouble of the journey] to bring it up to Jerusalem to eat the second tithe there, but

he

[the husband]

is content that he should acquire a wife incidentally

[he agrees that she should be acquired for him through this], for what does he care about the woman’s trouble? And concerning this Rabbi Yohanan said that according to Rabbi Judah he has not effected betrothal unwittingly, because she does not wish to be betrothed with this, had she known that it was second tithe.

But consecrated property

is not so; rather,

both of them

[the betrother and the betrothed woman]

are not content that consecrated property should be profaned

through their agency

[they do not wish consecrated property to be profaned through their agency], and if the betrothals take effect, this is sacrilege, because they removed it from the domain of consecrated property and gave it to her, and it is a forbidden matter, and the verse called them “those who commit sacrilege”; and concerning this Rabbi Yohanan said that Rabbi Meir concedes that he has not effected betrothal unwittingly, because neither of them wishes it.

And Rabbi Yaakov,

who was uncertain about the matter,

said

to you:

The opposite is reasonable

Is there not room to say

[Is there no room to say the opposite reasoning]:

With second tithe, she is not content because of the trouble of the journey,

as was explained, and

he too is not content because of the mishap of the journey

[a mishap that may occur on the journey of bringing the second tithe to Jerusalem]; that is: Since second tithe is not worth a peruta outside Jerusalem, for it may be spent only in Jerusalem, and even when it is sold, the money becomes invested with the sanctity of second tithe, whereas her betrothal must be worth a peruta, he must therefore accept upon himself the mishap that may occur on the journey—namely, that if there is a mishap, she will not be betrothed, and she will not even pay him, for she is compelled; and if so, had he known that it was second tithe, he would not have betrothed her, because mishap is more frequent with the woman than with the man.

But consecrated property: granted, she

[the woman] indeed

is not content that consecrated property should be profaned

[should be profaned]

through her agency,

for what benefit does she have from this? After all, if she does not accept the consecrated property, he will have to give her ordinary property

; but is he not content that he should acquire a wife incidentally

[Is he not content that the woman should be acquired for him], even at the cost of profaning consecrated property!?

Rava asked Rav Hisda:

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

a woman is not betrothed,

then

what is the status of the money—do they become ordinary—

to use them for any benefit he wishes, like other consecrated money with which one committed sacrilege!?

He said to him

Rav Hisda said to Rava: If

a woman is not betrothed, how did the money become ordinary!?

Rav Hiyya bar Avin asked Rav Hisda: According to Rabbi Meir, who says that in the case of unwitting use he did not effect betrothal, because he or they do not wish consecrated property to be profaned through their agency, and consequently the money does not become profaned:

According to Rabbi Meir, who says that in a case of unintentional use he did not effect a betrothal because he, or both of them, do not want consecrated property to be profaned through them, and consequently the money does not become ordinary property:

What is the law in a sale,

that is, if he unwittingly took an object with consecrated money, did the money become ordinary?

Rav Hisda

answered him

to Rav Hiyya bar Avin:

Even in a sale he did not acquire

and the money did not become ordinary.

He challenged him

Rav Hisda, who said that in a sale he did not acquire, from a Mishna in tractate Meila [21a]:

A treasurer of consecrated property who unwittingly deposited consecrated money with a money changer: if he deposited it while it was bundled [tied in a pouch], the money changer may not use it, for he deposited it bundled for this purpose, so that he should not use it. Therefore, if the money changer spent it unwittingly [not knowing that it belonged to consecrated property], he committed sacrilege [he is liable for a sacrilege-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 while it was unbundled, the money changer may use it, for he deposited it with him unbundled for this purpose, so that he should use it to make change, since he knows that a money changer constantly requires money in order to make change; therefore the treasurer committed sacrilege when the money changer spent it.

And 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 unbundled, the householder may not use it, because an ordinary householder does not constantly use money; and if the householder spent it, he committed sacrilege.

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

A shopkeeper

has the

status of a householder

who does not require money so much, and the depositor did not intend to give him the money so that he should use it; therefore, if the shopkeeper spent it, he committed sacrilege,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: A shopkeeper has the status of a money changer,

so that there is a distinction between whether he deposited it with him bundled or unbundled.

It follows that

they disagree only up to this point: One Master

—Rabbi Judah—

holds: A shopkeeper has the status of a money changer, and the other Master

—Rabbi Meir—

holds: A shopkeeper has the status of a householder—

But according to everyone,

even according to Rabbi Meir:

If he spent

the

money, he committed sacrilege, for one who spent consecrated money has committed sacrilege; it follows that Rabbi Meir concedes that there is sacrilege through expenditure unwittingly!? And we answer:

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir,

Rabbi Meir,

in the Mishna in Meila,

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

consecrated money

as well he did not commit sacrilege; but according to your position,

that you hold that there is sacrilege through spending consecrated money unwittingly,

at least concede to me that a shopkeeper has the status of a householder.

And he said to him

Rabbi Judah:

No,

shopkeeper

is like a money changer.

Rav said: