## Kiddushin Daf 54b

###### Kiddushin 54b:1
[Kiddushin 54b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:1)

תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *baraita* and the mishna in tractate *Nedarim* **are two *tanna’im* and** they disagree **with regard to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda** concerning whether or not he holds that Jerusalem itself was sanctified.


###### Kiddushin 54b:2
[Kiddushin 54b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:2)

אָמַר עוּלָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּבַר פְּדָא, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד – מִתְחַלֵּל, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – אֵין מִתְחַלֵּל. וְלֹא אָמְרוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג מִתְחַלֵּל אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן קׇרְבָּן בִּלְבָד. וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּאֵין מִתְחַלֵּל, קׇרְבָּן בְּמַאי מִחַיַּיב?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said** a different opinion **in the name of bar Padda: Rabbi Meir would say: Consecrated** property **is desacralized** if misused **intentionally;** it **is not desacralized** if misused **unwittingly. And they said** that consecrated property that is misused **unwittingly is desacralized only with regard to an offering,** i.e., the one who misused it is liable to bring a guilt-offering for his action, but the property remains consecrated. The Gemara asks: **But since it is not desacralized** when misused unwittingly, **for what** reason is he **rendered liable** to bring **an offering,** as the action had no effect?


###### Kiddushin 54b:3
[Kiddushin 54b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:3)

אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין פָּרֵישׁ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּבַר פְּדָא, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמֵזִיד – מִתְחַלֵּל, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – אֵין מִתְחַלֵּל. וְלֹא אָמְרוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג מִתְחַלֵּל אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן אֲכִילָה בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael **he explained** it this way **in the name of bar Padda: Rabbi Meir would say: Consecrated** property **is desacralized** if misused **intentionally;** it **is not desacralized** if misused **unwittingly. And they said** that consecrated property that is misused **unwittingly is desacralized only with regard to eating.** If one ate consecrated food, thereby consuming it completely, he is liable to bring an offering. If he merely misused consecrated money it retains its sanctity and is not desacralized, and he is not liable to bring an offering.


###### Kiddushin 54b:4
[Kiddushin 54b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר הוֹאִיל וּסְתַם לַן תְּנָא כְּוָתֵיהּ, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ הוֹאִיל וּסְתַם לַן תְּנָא כְּוָתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rav Adda bar Ahava says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir with regard to** second **tithe** in that it is considered consecrated, **as** the ***tanna* taught us an unattributed** mishna **in accordance with his** opinion. **And** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda with regard to consecrated** property, **as** the ***tanna* taught us an unattributed** mishna **in accordance with his** opinion.


###### Kiddushin 54b:5
[Kiddushin 54b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:5)

כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, מַאי הִיא – דִּתְנַן: כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין לוֹ בִּיעוּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies this statement: **What is** the unattributed mishna that is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir with regard to** second **tithe?** It is **as we learned** (*Pe’a* 7:6): It is prohibited to eat or derive benefit from fruit during the first three years after the tree is planted. The fruit of the fourth year is to be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there. With regard to **a vineyard** in its **fourth year, Beit Shammai say: It does not have** the *halakha* of adding **one-fifth,** i.e., if the owner himself redeems the fruit to bring money to Jerusalem to spend on food there, as one may also do with second tithe, he does not add one-fifth to its value but redeems it for its true value. **And it** also **does not have** the *halakha* of **disposal,** i.e., there is no obligation to dispose of it on the eve of Passover of the fourth year of the Sabbatical cycle, when all tithes that have not yet been separated must be disposed of. **And Beit Hillel say: It does have** the *halakha* of adding one-fifth and the *halakha* of disposal.


###### Kiddushin 54b:6
[Kiddushin 54b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:6)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ לוֹ פֶּרֶט וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עוֹלֵלוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: כּוּלּוֹ לַגַּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
That mishna continues: Furthermore, **Beit Shammai say: It has** the mitzva requiring the owner of the vineyard to leave **individual fallen grapes** for the poor **[*peret*], and it has** the mitzva requiring the owner to leave **incompletely formed clusters** of grapes for the poor **[*olelot*].** Since the vineyard is considered the owner’s property during this year, he must leave these gifts for the poor. **And Beit Hillel say: All of it** goes **to the winepress** to make wine. Since the grapes have sanctity, he is not obligated to leave these gifts for the poor.


###### Kiddushin 54b:7
[Kiddushin 54b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:7)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל – גָּמְרִי ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר, מָה מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בִּיעוּר – אַף כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי יֵשׁ לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בִּיעוּר. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי לָא גָּמְרִי ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Beit Hillel? They derive** a verbal analogy from the word **“holy”** stated with regard to a fourth-year vineyard, as the verse states: “Holy, for giving praise to the Lord” (Leviticus 19:24), **from “holy”** stated with regard to second **tithe,** as the verse states: “Holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:30). This verbal analogy teaches the following: **Just as** second **tithe has** the *halakha* of adding **one-fifth and it has** the *halakha* of **disposal, so too,** the **fourth-year vineyard has** the *halakha* of adding **one-fifth and it has** the *halakha* of **disposal. And Beit Shammai do not derive** the verbal analogy of **“holy”** with regard to a fourth-year vineyard and **“holy” from** second **tithe.**


###### Kiddushin 54b:8
[Kiddushin 54b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:8)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים כְּמַעֲשֵׂר, כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לְהוּ? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַמַּאי כּוּלּוֹ לַגַּת? הָאָמַר מַעֲשֵׂר מָמוֹן הֶדְיוֹט הוּא! אֶלָּא לָאו כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to clarify the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to the obligation to leave *peret* and *olelot* from a fourth-year vineyard. **And** with regard to **Beit Hillel,** who **say** that the *halakha* of fourth-year produce is **like** the *halakha* of second **tithe, in accordance with whose** opinion **do they hold** with regard to second tithe? **If** they hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, why** does **all of it** go **to the winepress? Didn’t** Rabbi Yehuda **say** that second **tithe is** itself **common,** i.e., non-sacred, **property,** and the owner must therefore leave *peret* and *olelot*? **Rather, is it not** the case that they hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who says that second tithe is consecrated property? The mishna aligning the opinion of Beit Hillel with that of Rabbi Meir is tantamount to there being an unattributed mishna in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s opinion, as the *halakha* is generally in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


###### Kiddushin 54b:9
[Kiddushin 54b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:9)

כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַאי הִיא – דִּתְנַן: שִׁילַּח בְּיַד פִּיקֵּחַ וְנִזְכַּר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ אֵצֶל חֶנְווֹנִי – חֶנְווֹנִי מָעַל לִכְשֶׁיּוֹצִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues with the explanation of Rav Naḥman’s statement: **What is** the unattributed mishna that is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda with regard to consecrated** property? **As we learned** (*Me’ila* 21a): In a case where one sent an agent to buy something on his behalf and unwittingly gave him consecrated money to use, if he **sent** it **in the possession of** a halakhically **competent** person **and remembered** that it was consecrated money **before** the agent **reached the storekeeper, the storekeeper** will have **misused consecrated** property **when he will** later **spend** the money. This indicates that one is liable for misuse of consecrated property even when one acts unwittingly, as the storekeeper did.


###### Kiddushin 54b:10
[Kiddushin 54b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:10)

וּכְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּמַעֲשֵׂר מִי לָא תְּנַן? וְהָתְנַן: הַפּוֹדֶה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁלּוֹ – מוֹסִיף עָלָיו חֲמִישִׁיתוֹ, בֵּין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנִּיתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה. מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא – מִי מָצֵי יָהֵיב לֵיהּ בְּמַתָּנָה? וְהָאָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂר מָמוֹן גָּבוֹהַּ הוּא! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we learn** an unattributed mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda with regard to** second **tithe? But didn’t we learn** (*Ma’aser Sheni* 4:3): With regard to **one who redeems his** own **second tithe, he adds to it its one-fifth, whether** the tithe was **from his** crop or **given to him as a gift.** The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with **whose** opinion is this mishna? **If we say it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, can one give** second tithe **to** another **as a gift? But didn’t he say** that second **tithe is property** belonging to the **Most High,** which means it is not one’s own to give to another as a gift? **Rather, is it not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that second tithe is common property, and consequently this unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to second tithe?


###### Kiddushin 54b:11
[Kiddushin 54b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:11)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דְּיָהֵיב נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּטִיבְלֵיהּ, וְקָסָבַר: מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No, actually** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, and with what are we dealing here?** It is not a situation where one gave second tithe itself as a gift, but **where he gave him** his entire crop **in its** state of being **untithed produce.** Consequently, the portion he gave him included tithes that had not yet been separated, **and he holds** that **gifts that have not been separated are not considered as though they have been separated.** One does not categorize the untithed produce as a mixture of regular produce and tithes, but as a non-sacred category in and of itself. Since the second tithe has not yet been separated, the produce has no sanctity, and he can give it as a gift.


###### Kiddushin 54b:12
[Kiddushin 54b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפּוֹדֶה נֶטַע רְבָעִי שֶׁלּוֹ – מוֹסִיף עָלָיו חֲמִישִׁיתוֹ, בֵּין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, בֵּין שֶׁנִּיתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה. מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – מִי מָצֵי יָהֵיב לֵיהּ? וְהָא גָּמְרִי ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבִּי יְהוּדָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its line of inquiry: **Come** and **hear** another unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (*Ma’aser Sheni* 4:6): With regard to **one who redeems his** own **fourth-year produce, he adds to it its one-fifth, whether** the produce was **from his** crop or was **given to him as a gift.** The Gemara inquires: In accordance with **whose** opinion is this mishna? **If we say** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, can one give** produce of the fourth year **to** another as a gift? **But didn’t he derive** that one must add one-fifth from the verbal analogy of **“holy”** for fourth-year fruit from **“holy” from** second **tithe?** This would mean that fourth-year fruit, like second tithe, is property of the Most High and cannot be given as a gift. **Rather, is it not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda?**


###### Kiddushin 54b:13
[Kiddushin 54b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:13)

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דְּיָהֵיב כְּשֶׁהוּא סְמָדַר. וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: סְמָדַר אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, and with what are we dealing here?** It is not a situation where one gave fully grown fourth-year fruit but **where he gave him** the fruit **when it was a bud. And this is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, who says: A bud** of a fruit **is forbidden** as *orla*, **because it is** already considered **a fruit.** Rabbi Meir, by contrast, holds that a fruit bud is not considered fruit. Therefore, the *halakhot* of *orla* and fourth-year fruit apply only to fruit that has grown, whereas beforehand it can be given as a gift.


###### Kiddushin 54b:14
[Kiddushin 54b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מָשַׁךְ הֵימֶנּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר בְּסֶלַע וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִפְדּוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בִּשְׁתַּיִם – נוֹתֵן סֶלַע, וּמִשְׂתַּכֵּר בְּסֶלַע, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁלּוֹ. מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אַמַּאי מִשְׂתַּכֵּר בְּסֶלַע? ״וְנָתַן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its line of inquiry: **Come** and **hear** another unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (*Ma’aser Sheni* 4:6): If one was selling second-tithe produce, and the buyer **pulled tithe worth a *sela* from him,** thereby acquiring it, **and did not manage to redeem it until** its value **stood at two** *sela*, and he had not yet paid the seller, the buyer **gives a *sela*** to the seller, **and he** thereby **gains a *sela* and the second tithe is his,** since he acquired it when he pulled it and the price was fixed at that point. The Gemara inquires: In accordance with **whose** opinion is this mishna? **If we say** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, why does** the buyer **gain a *sela*? The Merciful One states** in the Torah with regard to the redemption of consecrated property: **And he will give the money and it will be assured to him** (see Leviticus 27:19), from which it is derived that one acquires consecrated property only after paying money. This means that the value of the second tithe increased before he acquired it. **Rather, is it not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that second tithe is common property, and it is acquired from the moment he pulled it?


###### Kiddushin 54b:15
[Kiddushin 54b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:15)

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָכָא חַד סְתָמָא, וְהָכָא תְּרֵי סְתָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara confirms: **Actually,** this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** Nevertheless, Rav Naḥman’s statement that the *halakha* with regard to second tithe is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir is still correct, **as here** there is **one unattributed** mishna that is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, while **here** there are **two unattributed** *mishnayot* that indicate that Beit Hillel’s opinion is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the one in tractate *Ma’aser Sheni*, and one in tractate *Eduyyot* (4:2).


###### Kiddushin 54b:16
[Kiddushin 54b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/54b:16)

וְאִי סְתָמָא דַּוְקָא, מָה לִי חַד סְתָמָא מָה לִי תְּרֵי סְתָמֵי?! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר הוֹאִיל וּתְנַן בִּבְחִירָתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But if an unattributed** mishna is stated that way **specifically** to teach the *halakha*, **what** difference is there **to me** if it is **one unattributed** mishna or **two unattributed** *mishnayot*? The Gemara suggests an alternate reasoning. **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, since we learned** in a mishna in the **preferred** tractate, *Eduyyot*, **in accordance with his** opinion. Since the *halakha* is ruled in accordance with all of the *mishnayot* in *Eduyyot*, the fact that the opinion of Beit Hillel in that tractate is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir means that the *halakha* should be decided accordingly.