## Kiddushin Daf 53b

###### Kiddushin 53b:1
[Kiddushin 53b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/53b:1)

וְלָאו מִמֵּילָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ? תַּרְגְּמַהּ רָבִין סָבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״ – בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But don’t you understand it by itself** from this verse? Since the verse compares the Jewish people to *teruma*, the categorization of “holy” evidently applies to *teruma* as well. **Ravin the Elder interpreted it before Rav:** The difference is that with regard to tithe **the verse states: “It is** for the Lord,” which indicates: **As it is, it should be,** as consecrated.


###### Kiddushin 53b:2
[Kiddushin 53b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/53b:2)

וּבַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, בְּמֵזִיד – קִידֵּשׁ, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – לֹא קִידֵּשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג – קִידֵּשׁ, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא קִידֵּשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: שְׁמַעִית מִינֵּהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן תַּרְתֵּי: שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֵׂר דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שִׁגְגַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵין אִשָּׁה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בָּהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And** if he betrothed a woman **with consecrated** property belonging to the Temple treasury, if he does so **intentionally he has betrothed** her, and if he does so **unwittingly he has not betrothed** her; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says** the opposite: If he did so **unwittingly he has betrothed** her, but if he does so **intentionally he has not betrothed** her. **Rabbi Ya’akov said: I learned two** *halakhot* **from Rabbi Yoḥanan,** the *halakha* of **an unwitting** error involving **tithe** according to the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda** and the *halakha* of **an unwitting** error involving **consecrated** items according to the opinion **of Rabbi Meir. In both of these** cases **the woman is not betrothed with** the items.


###### Kiddushin 53b:3
[Kiddushin 53b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/53b:3)

חֲדָא – לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה רוֹצֶה, וַחֲדָא – לְפִי שֶׁאֵין שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: נִיחְזֵי אֲנַן: מַעֲשֵׂר – אִיהִי לָא נִיחָא לַהּ מִשּׁוּם טִרְחָא דְאוֹרְחָא, אִיהוּ נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּנִיקְנֵי אִיתְּתָא מִמֵּילָא. אֶלָּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ – תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לָא נִיחָא לְהוּ דְּנִתַּחִיל הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל יְדַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He proceeds to explain. **One** of these *halakhot* is **because the woman does not want** to become betrothed with the item, **and** the reason for the **other** is **because neither** the man nor the woman **wants** it. He adds: **And I do not know which of them** is due to the woman alone, and which is due to both parties. **Rabbi Yirmeya said: Let us see** which reason is applicable to which case. It must be that with regard to second **tithe,** which may be eaten only in Jerusalem, it is **not satisfactory for her** to be betrothed with it **due to the trouble of** transporting it all **the way** to Jerusalem to enjoy it, whereas it is **satisfactory for him** to betroth her with it, **since he acquires a woman by itself,** i.e., by the tithe alone, without having to spend additional money of his own. **But** in the case of **consecrated** items, it is **not satisfactory for the two of them that consecrated** property **be desacralized by their** using it for betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 53b:4
[Kiddushin 53b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/53b:4)

וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִי לָא אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: מַעֲשֵׂר, אִיהִי לָא נִיחָא לַהּ מִשּׁוּם טִירְחָא דְאוֹרְחָא, אִיהוּ לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם אוּנְסָא דְאוֹרְחָא?! אֶלָּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, בִּשְׁלָמָא אִיהִי לָא נִיחָא לַהּ דְּנִתַּחִיל הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל יְדַהּ, אֶלָּא אִיהוּ מִי לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּנִיקְנֵי אִיתְּתָא מִמֵּילָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Ya’akov said the opposite is** more **reasonable. Couldn’t it be said** that in the case of second **tithe** it is **not satisfactory for her** to be betrothed with it **due to the trouble of** transporting it all **the way,** and it is **not satisfactory for him** to betroth her with it **due to the** danger of an **accident along the way.** If the second tithe gets lost on the way to Jerusalem, she will not have derived any benefit from it. It will cause her distress to think she received nothing for her betrothal, and he does not want to cause her distress. **But** in the case of **consecrated** items, **granted** that with regard to **her,** it is **not satisfactory for her that consecrated** property **be desacralized through her, but why wouldn’t** it be **satisfactory for him to acquire a woman by itself,** without the expenditure of redeeming a consecrated item? Therefore, the reasons for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement cannot be determined by logic alone.


###### Kiddushin 53b:5
[Kiddushin 53b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/53b:5)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: אִשָּׁה אֵין מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת, מָעוֹת מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּצְאוּ לְחוּלִּין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִשָּׁה אֵין מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת – מָעוֹת הֵיאַךְ יֵצְאוּ לְחוּלִּין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava inquired of Rav Ḥisda:** According to Rabbi Meir, **a woman cannot be betrothed** by receiving consecrated money, but **what is** the *halakha* with regard to the money he gives her for betrothal: Does the **money become desacralized** as a result of the act of betrothal, as is usually the case when one uses a consecrated item for his own benefit? Rav Ḥisda **said to him:** If the **woman is not betrothed, how can the money become desacralized?** Since the money has not actually been used, nothing has changed with regard to its status.


###### Kiddushin 53b:6
[Kiddushin 53b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/53b:6)

בְּעָא מִינֵּהּ רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: בְּמֶכֶר מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף בְּמֶכֶר לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin inquired of Rav Ḥisda: What** is the *halakha* **with regard to a sale:** If one unwittingly uses consecrated money to purchase an item, does the sale take effect? Rav Ḥisda **said to him: Even with regard to a sale he does not acquire** the item.


###### Kiddushin 53b:7
[Kiddushin 53b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/53b:7)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: חֶנְוָנִי כְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חֶנְוָנִי כְּשׁוּלְחָנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin **raised an objection to him:** The *halakha* is that if a man deposited a bundle of money with a money changer, the latter may not use the money. If the money changer untied the bundle and used the money, and it turned out that it was consecrated, the money changer is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property, since he acted without the permission of the depositor. If the money was not in a bundle, the money changer has the right to use it, since the depositor knows that a money changer frequently distributes money. Consequently, in this case, if the money was consecrated, it is the depositor who is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property, since the money changer is considered to have acted with his awareness. If one deposited the money with a homeowner, i.e., not a money changer, the latter may not use it in either case, and he is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property if he does. With regard to a storekeeper, the *tanna’im* disagree: The same *halakha* applies to **a storekeeper as** to **a homeowner;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** But **Rabbi Yehuda says:** The same *halakha* applies to **a storekeeper as** to **a money changer.**


###### Kiddushin 53b:8
[Kiddushin 53b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/53b:8)

עַד כָּאן לָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: חֶנְוָנִי כְּשׁוּלְחָנִי, וּמָר סָבַר חֶנְוָנִי כְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת. אֲבָל דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא: אִם הוֹצִיא – מָעַל! רַבִּי מֵאִיר לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָאָמַר: לְדִידִי, אִם הוֹצִיא נָמֵי לֹא מָעַל, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, אוֹדִי לִי מִיהָא דְּחֶנְוָנִי כְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת! וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, כְּשׁוּלְחָנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this: **They disagree only with regard to** that issue: **As** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** that the same *halakha* applies to **a storekeeper as** to **a money changer, and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that the same *halakha* applies to **a storekeeper as** to **a homeowner. But everyone** agrees that **if** the storekeeper did **spend** the money, **he has misused** consecrated property. This indicates that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whatever transaction he performed did take effect. The Gemara rejects this: **Rabbi Meir stated** his opinion **in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,** as follows: **According to me, if he spent** the money **he has also not misused** consecrated property, **but according to you, at least concede to me that** the same *halakha* applies to **a storekeeper as to a homeowner. And** Rabbi Yehuda **said to him: No,** I do not concede to you even with regard to this point, as I hold that the same *halakha* applies to a storekeeper **as** to **a money changer.**


###### Kiddushin 53b:9
[Kiddushin 53b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/53b:9)

אָמַר רַב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara records a discussion as to the reasons for the rulings of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. **Rav says:**