Torah Community Connections

Week 89 - Friday - 10 August 2001

KIDDUSHIN: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 8

If one betroths with his portion, whether kodshei kodashim or kodashim kalim, she is not betrothed. With ma'aser sheni, whether in error or wantonly, he did not betroth; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says, in error, he did not betroth, wantonly, he did betroth. And with hekdesh - wantonly, he betrothed, and in error, he did not betroth; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says, in error, he did betroth, wantonly, he did not betroth.

Kehati

If one betroths - a priest who betroths a woman with his portion - of meat from the sacrifices which he shares with his fellow priests, whether kodshei kodashim - hallowed sacrifices such as hatat or asham whose meat belongs to the priests or kodashim kalim - minor sacrifices such as shelamim, from which the priests receive the breast and the hind leg for themselves, she is not betrothed - because the priest's portion of the sacrifices is not considered his personal property but is awarded from the "Table of the Most High" for consumption only. The Gemara learns this from the verse, "This shall be yours of the most holy things, reserved from the fire" (Num. 18:9) - just as fire consumes, so, too, these are to be consumed. Rashi explains that the portion of Aaron is compared to the portion of the altar: just as the altar consumes its portion, so must the priest consume his portion and not use it in any other way. If a man betroths a woman - with ma'aser sheni - which may only be eaten in Jerusalem (see Deut. 14:23), whether in error - whether he did not know, or she did not know, that it was ma'aser sheni, or wantonly - they both knew that it was ma'aser sheni, he did not betroth - she is not betrothed; the words of Rabbi Meir - who is of the opinion that ma'aser sheni is holy property. This is derived from the verse, "And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's" (Lev. 27:30), "is the Lord's" - as it is, - he may not do anything with it except eat it in Jerusalem.

Rabbi Yehudah says, In error, he did not betroth, wantonly, he did betroth - Rabbi Yehudah is of the opinion that ma'aser sheni is the property of the individual, and therefore if he betroths wantonly and informs her that he is giving ma'aser sheni, the kiddushin is valid, but if he betroths her in error and she does not know that she is receiving ma'aser sheni which she will have to take to Jerusalem, it is a case of kiddushin in error, and the kiddushin is not valid (Gemara; Tiferet Yisrael; see Bartenura, who interprets this differently; see Tosefot Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

And - if a person betroths a woman - with hekdesh - an article designated for Temple maintenance - wantonly - he knows that it is Temple property, he betrothed - the kiddushin is valid, and in error, he did not betroth - the kiddushin is not valid; the words of Rabbi Meir - who holds that one who wantonly derives benefit from a consecrated article, does so with the intention of removing it from its sacred status, and it therefore loses its sanctity and the woman is betrothed. If he acted in error, however, and was unaware that the object was sanctified, since it is possible that he would not want it to lose its sanctified status through his actions, the article remains sanctified, and the kiddushin is not valid.

Rabbi Yehudah says, Unintentionally, be did betroth, intentionally, be did not betroth - Rabbi Yehudah holds that one who intentionally derives benefit from a sanctified object does not cause it to lose its sanctity and his kiddushin is invalid, but that one who unintentionally derives benefit from a sanctified object does cause it to lose its sanctity and his kiddushin is valid. When hekdesh is used unintentionally, a me'ilah sacrifice for misappropriation of Temple property must be brought and the principal and one-fifth of the article's value paid to the Temple treasury, and the article becomes his property. The law is in accordance with Rabbi Meir regarding ma'aser sheni, and in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah regarding Temple property.

KIDDUSHIN: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 9

If one betroths with orlah, with kil'ayim of the vineyard, with an ox to be stoned, and with an eglah arufah, with the birds of the leper, and with the hair of a Nazirite, and with the firstborn of an ass, and with meat in milk, and with hullin slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard - she is not betrothed. If he sold them and betrothed with their money - she is betrothed.

Kehati

Our mishnah teaches that if one betroths with an article from which it is forbidden to derive benefit the kiddushin is invalid.

If one betroths - a woman - with - the fruits of - orlah - about which it is written, "and you shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden; three years shall it be as forbidden to you; it shall not be eaten" (Lev. 19:23). And it was further explained that "it shall not be eaten" is a prohibition against both eating and deriving benefit; or if a person betroths -

with kil'ayim of the vineyard - which were planted in the vineyard, regarding which it is written, "lest [it] be forfeited [tikdash]" (Deut. 22:9), which was interpreted as meaning, lest it be consumed by fire, and from which it was learned that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them; with an ox - sentenced to be stoned - because it killed a man, regarding which it is written, "the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten" (Ex. 21:28), from which it was learned that if it was slaughtered after the conclusion of its sentence it is prohibited to derive benefit from it since wherever the Torah writes "and it shall not be eaten," it prohibits both eating and the deriving of benefit;

and with an eglah arufah - concerning which the Torah mentions atonement (kaparah) as it does regarding sacrifices, as it is here written, "Forgive Your people Israel" (Deut. 21:8), from which we learn that it is forbidden to derive benefit from the eglah arufah after it is taken into a rough valley (Deut. 21:1-9);

with the birds of the leper - the two birds taken by the leper to effect his purification. After the first bird has been slaughtered, it is forbidden to derive benefit from either of them. According to another interpretation, the prohibition of benefit in the mishnah is only for the slaughtered bird, but the other bird which is sent forth is not prohibited (Rambam, Bartenura). The Gemara quotes a baraita: Permit and atone are written in reference to the inside (the [asham], guilt-offering [of the leper, which permits him to eat sacrifices, and his hatat, sin-offering], which atones, that are offered inside the Temple Courtyard), permit and atone are written in reference to the outside (the bird-sacrifices of the leper, which permit him to enter the camp, and the eglah arufah which mentions atonement and are offered outside the Temple Courtyard), just as 'permit' and 'atone' are equated inside (i.e., they are both considered sanctified and benefit is prohibited) so are they equal outside (i.e., the same as it is prohibited to derive benefit from the eglah arufah, so is it prohibited to derive benefit from the bird-sacrifices of the leper);

and with the hair of a Nazirite - regarding which it is written, "he shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long" (Num. 6:5), from which it was learned, that which grows is holy, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. After he completes his term, the Nazirite cuts off his hair and burns it;

and with the firstborn of an ass - as it is written, "And every firstborn of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck" (Ex. 13:13); it is learned from the analogous mention of breaking of the neck regarding the firstborn of an ass and the eglah arufah, that just as it is prohibited to derive benefit from an eglah arufah, it is similarly prohibited to derive benefit from the firstborn of an ass. Some authorities hold that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it only after its neck has been broken, while others hold that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it even before its neck is broken so long as it has not been redeemed;

and with meat in milk - meat and milk that were cooked together - the Torah writes "You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk" (Ex. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. l4:21) three times to teach the prohibition of eating, of cooking and of deriving benefit from meat and milk together,

and with hullin - an unconsecrated animal - slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard - from which it is forbidden to derive benefit. The prohibition is derived from the verse, "If the place ... be too far from you, then you may kill..." (Deut. 12:21) - in a far place you may slaughter and eat, but you may not slaughter and eat in a near place (i.e., you may slaughter your hullin outside the Temple, but not in the Temple Courtyard). One might think that although it is forbidden to sacrifice an unconsecrated animal in the Temple Courtyard, if the animal were already killed there, then it could be thrown to the dogs, i.e., be made use of. We learn, however, from the verse, "you shall cast it out to the dogs" (Ex. 22:30), that you may throw "it" to the dogs, but you may not throw hullin which was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard to the dogs, because it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.

If a person betroths a woman with one of these, she is not betrothed - since it is prohibited to derive benefit from these articles, they are not considered as having any monetary value and kiddushin cannot be effected with less than the worth of a perutah.

If he - transgressed and - sold them - the articles from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, to a non- Jew, and betrothed - a woman, with their money - with the money he received for them, she is betrothed - since the proceeds from their sale do not incur their prohibition (i.e., only the articles themselves are forbidden for benefit). The transfer of an article's legal status, through its sale, to the money which was paid for it (i.e., the money retains the article's legal status and is also forbidden) is only applicable regarding objects connected with idolatry and the produce of the Sabbatical year: regarding idolatry, as it is written, "and be accursed like it" (Deut. 7:26) - everything that derives from it has the same status as the object itself; regarding the produce of the Sabbatical year, as it is written, "For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you" (Lev. 25:12) - just as the monetary proceeds of holy objects have the same status as the objects themselves, so does the money paid for produce of the Sabbatical year have the same status as the produce itself (see Gemara, Kidd. 58a; see the other commentators on the mishnah).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives