## Kiddushin Daf 46b

###### Kiddushin 46b:1
[Kiddushin 46b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:1)

וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מָעוֹת בְּעָלְמָא – חוֹזְרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And conclude from it** that **generally, money** that was given for a betrothal that did not take effect is **returned.** It is not viewed as a gift, but as a loan that must be repaid. This is evident from the fact that all the dates except the last one are considered a loan that must be repaid.


###### Kiddushin 46b:2
[Kiddushin 46b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:2)

אִיתְּמַר: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אֲחוֹתוֹ, רַב אָמַר: מָעוֹת חוֹזְרִים. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מָעוֹת מַתָּנָה. רַב אָמַר: מָעוֹת חוֹזְרִים – אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ, וְגָמַר וְנָתַן לְשׁוּם פִּקָּדוֹן. וְלֵימָא לַהּ לְשׁוּם פִּקָּדוֹן! סָבַר לָא מְקַבְּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** In the case of **one who betroths his sister** by giving her money, **Rav says: The money** of the betrothal must be **returned** by his sister, as this betrothal does not take effect. **And Shmuel says:** This **money** is considered to be **a gift** that she may keep. The Gemara clarifies their respective opinions. **Rav says: The money** must be **returned,** since **a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give** the money to her **for the sake of a deposit.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **And let him** explicitly **say to her** that he is giving her the money **for the sake of a deposit.** The Gemara answers: **He thought she would not accept** it from him.


###### Kiddushin 46b:3
[Kiddushin 46b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:3)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר: מָעוֹת מַתָּנָה – אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ, וְגָמַר וְנָתַן לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה. וְנֵימָא לַהּ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה! סָבַר: כְּסִיפָא לַהּ מִילְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel maintains:** The **money** is considered to be **a gift,** because **a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give** the money to her **for the sake of a gift.** The Gemara again raises a difficulty: **And let him** explicitly **say to her** that he is giving it to her **for the sake of a gift.** The Gemara answers: He **thought it would be embarrassing to her** and she would refuse to accept the money. He therefore attempted to give it to her by an alternative method.


###### Kiddushin 46b:4
[Kiddushin 46b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:4)

מֵתִיב רָבִינָא: הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַלָּתוֹ קֶמַח – אֵינָהּ חַלָּה, וְגָזֵל בְּיַד כֹּהֵן. וְאַמַּאי גָּזֵל בְּיַד כֹּהֵן? נֵימָא: אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁים חַלָּה קֶמַח, וְנָתַן לְשֵׁם מַתָּנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina raises an objection** from a mishna (*Ḥalla* 2:5): In the case of **one who separates his *ḥalla*,** the portion of dough that must be given to a priest, from **flour,** before it has been made into dough, the portion he has separated **is not *ḥalla*.** Since the Torah states: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart” (Numbers 15:20), *ḥalla* can be separated only from dough. **And** if the priest fails to return the flour it is considered **stolen property in the priest’s possession.** Ravina asks: **And why** is it **stolen property in the priest’s possession?** In this case too, **let us say** as Shmuel does: **A person knows that one cannot separate *ḥalla*** from **flour, and he gave** the flour **for the sake of a gift.**


###### Kiddushin 46b:5
[Kiddushin 46b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:5)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּנָפֵיק חוּרְבָּה מִינַּהּ – זִימְנִין דְּאִית לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן פָּחוֹת מֵחָמֵשׁ רְבָעִים קֶמַח, וְהַאי אָלֵישׁ לֵיהּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, וְקָסָבַר נִתַּקְּנָה עִיסָּתוֹ, וְאָתֵי לְמֵיכְלַהּ בְּטִיבְלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There it is different.** The priest must return the flour **because** otherwise a **ruinous** situation may **emerge from it.** How so? **Sometimes the priest has,** on his own, **less than five-fourths** of a *kav* of **flour,** i.e., he has less than the amount necessitating the separation of *ḥalla*, **and** he also has **this** flour, which gives him a total of more than five-fourths of a *kav*, the amount necessitating the separation of *ḥalla*. **He will knead** all **this** flour **together and** will **think his dough has been made ready** with regard to *ḥalla*, since he did not have enough of his own flour to require the separation of *ḥalla* and he had added flour that had been separated as *ḥalla* to it. **And he will** then **come to eat it in its untithed** state, as the flour he received was not in fact *ḥalla*. Therefore, the Sages required him to return the flour.


###### Kiddushin 46b:6
[Kiddushin 46b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:6)

וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁים חַלָּה קֶמַח! יוֹדֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ. יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישׁ חַלָּה קֶמַח, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ, דְּסָבַר: טַעְמַיְיהוּ מַאי – מִשּׁוּם טִירְחָא דְכֹהֵן וְטִירְחָא דְכֹהֵן אַחֵילְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t you say** that **a person knows that one may not separate *ḥalla*** from **flour?** How can the priest make such an error? The Gemara answers: **He knows** the *halakha* **but he does not know** the reason for the *halakha*. **He knows that one cannot separate *ḥalla*** from **flour, but he does not know** the reason, **as he thinks: What** is **the reason** one may not separate *ḥalla* from flour? **Due to the labor of the priest,** i.e., to prevent the priest from having to knead it himself. And as far as **the labor of the priest** goes, he thinks: **I have relinquished** the right to have the non-priest knead it for me.


###### Kiddushin 46b:7
[Kiddushin 46b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:7)

וְתִיהְוֵי תְּרוּמָה, וְלֹא תֵּאָכֵל עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ חַלָּה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר. מִי לָא תְּנַן: מִן הַנָּקוּב עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב – תְּרוּמָה, וְלֹא תֵּאָכֵל עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question based on a comparison to a similar case: **But** why must the priest go to the effort of returning the flour to its owner? **Let** the separated flour **be** considered ***teruma*,** i.e., *ḥalla*, by rabbinic law, **and it should not be eaten** by the priest **until he removes *ḥalla* for it from somewhere else,** in order to make it ready to be eaten. **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Demai* 5:10): If one separated *teruma* **from** produce grown in **a perforated** pot, which is obligated in *terumot* and tithes by Torah law, **for** produce that had grown in **a non-perforated** pot, which is not obligated in *terumot* and tithes according to Torah law; although the separating of *teruma* did not take effect, and the putative *teruma* is still untithed produce, it is considered to be ***teruma*** and remains in the possession of the priest, **and it may not be eaten until he removes *teruma* and tithes for it from somewhere else.** The same *halakha* should apply in the case of the *ḥalla*.


###### Kiddushin 46b:8
[Kiddushin 46b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:8)

בִּתְרֵי מָנֵי – צָאֵית, בְּחַד מָנָא – לָא צָאֵית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: With regard to things that are **in two** separate **containers,** the priest **will listen.** Since the priest is well aware of the difference between a perforated and a non-perforated pot, he will accept the ruling of the Sages to separate *teruma* an additional time. With regard to something that is **in one container, he will not listen.** He does not see any difference between receiving flour or dough, and he will not accept the ruling of the Sages to separate *ḥalla* an additional time. Consequently, they required him to return the flour.


###### Kiddushin 46b:9
[Kiddushin 46b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:9)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם כֹּהֵן מֵיצָת צָיֵית, וְקָסָבַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִתַּקְּנָה עִיסָּתוֹ, וְאָתֵי לְמֵיכַל בְּטִיבְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that the *tanna* has a different concern: **Actually, a priest will listen** even with regard to something in a single container, **and** the concern is that the prior **owner** of the flour **will think** that **his dough has been made ready** to eat **and** he **will come to eat** it **in** its **untithed** state.


###### Kiddushin 46b:10
[Kiddushin 46b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:10)

וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין חַלָּה קֶמַח! יוֹדֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ. יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין חַלָּה קֶמַח, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ, דְּסָבַר טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם טִירְחָא דְכֹהֵן, טִירְחָא דְכֹהֵן קַבְּלַהּ עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t you say** that **a person knows that one may not separate *ḥalla*** from **flour?** The Gemara answers: **He knows** the *halakha* **but he does not know** the reason for the *halakha*. **He knows that one cannot separate *ḥalla*** from **flour, but he does not know** the reason, **as he thinks: What** is **the reason** one may not separate *ḥalla* from flour? It is **due to the labor of the priest.** And as far as **the labor of the priest** goes, he thinks: The priest **has accepted** that task upon **himself.**


###### Kiddushin 46b:11
[Kiddushin 46b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:11)

וְתִיהְוֵי תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחְזוֹר וְיִתְרוֹם. מִי לָא תְּנַן: מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב עַל הַנָּקוּב – תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחְזוֹר וְיִתְרוֹם! הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא: בִּתְרֵי מָאנֵי צָאֵית, בְּחַד מָנָא לָא צָאֵית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara makes a suggestion based on a comparison to a similar case: **But let it be *teruma*,** i.e., *ḥalla*, **and he should separate *teruma* again. Didn’t we learn** a similar idea in a mishna (*Demai* 5:10): If one separated *teruma* **from** produce grown in **a non-perforated** pot **for** the produce of **a perforated** pot, it is ***teruma*** by rabbinic law, **but he must separate *teruma* again** to render the produce grown in the perforated pot ready to eat. The Gemara answers: **We have** already **established** that with regard to things that are **in two** separate **containers,** one **will listen,** but with regard to something that is **in one container, one will not listen.**


###### Kiddushin 46b:12
[Kiddushin 46b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:12)

וְלָא צָאֵית?! וְהָתְנַן: הַתּוֹרֵם קִישּׁוּת וְנִמְצָא מָרָה, אֲבַטִּיחַ וְנִמְצֵאת סָרוּחַ – תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתְרוֹם! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תְּרוּמָה מְעַלְּיָא הִיא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this assumption: **And will** one **not listen** to a ruling to separate *teruma* a second time from a single container? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Terumot* 3:1): In the case of **one who separated a cucumber** as ***teruma*** to give to a priest, **and** that cucumber **was found** to be so **bitter** that it was inedible, or if he separated **a melon and it was found** to be **spoiled,** his separation is still ***teruma*, but he must separate *teruma* again?** The Gemara answers: **There it is different, as it is full-fledged *teruma* by Torah law,** and even if he does not listen and separate *teruma* again, no Torah law will be violated.


###### Kiddushin 46b:13
[Kiddushin 46b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:13)

מִדְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: מִנַּיִן לַתּוֹרֵם מִן הָרָעָה עַל הַיָּפָה שֶׁתְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא תִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ״ – אִם אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, נְשִׂיאוּת חֵטְא לָמָּה? מִכָּאן לַתּוֹרֵם מִן הָרָעָה עַל הַיָּפָה שֶׁתְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
What is the source from which it is extrapolated that it is full-fledged *teruma* by Torah law? It is **from** a statement **of Rabbi Ilai, for Rabbi Ilai says: From where** is it derived **that one who separates *teruma* from poor-quality** produce **for superior-quality** produce, i.e., in order to fulfill the obligation of separating *teruma* from the high-quality produce, **that his *teruma* is *teruma*? As it is stated** with regard to *teruma*: **“And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof”** (Numbers 18:32). The verse is saying to give the best part as *teruma*, and one who gives a bad portion has committed a transgression. Nevertheless, the verse indicates that the separated produce is *teruma*; **if it were not sacred** as *teruma* **why** would one **bear a sin?** If one’s action were to no effect, he has not sinned. **From here** it is derived **that** if **one separates *teruma* from poor-quality** produce **for superior-quality** produce, **his *teruma* is *teruma*.**


###### Kiddushin 46b:14
[Kiddushin 46b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/46b:14)

אָמַר רָבָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:**