## Kiddushin Daf 56a

###### Kiddushin 56a:1
[Kiddushin 56a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/56a:1)

וְאִם לָקַח בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יַחְזְרוּ דָּמִים לִמְקוֹמָם. בְּמֵזִיד – תַּעֲלֶה וְתֵאָכֵל בַּמָּקוֹם. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין וְלָקַח תְּחִילָּה לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים, אֲבָל בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לְהוֹצִיא מְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לְחוּלִּין, בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד – יַחְזְרוּ דָּמִים לִמְקוֹמָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and if one purchased** an animal **unwittingly,** without realizing he was using second tithe money, **the money returns to its place,** meaning that it is considered to be an erroneous transaction and is void, because the purchaser would prefer to bring the second tithe money to Jerusalem rather than to travel with an animal to bring as an offering. If he purchased it **intentionally,** the animal **is brought up and eaten in** its proper **place,** i.e., in Jerusalem. **Rabbi Yehuda said: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to** one who acted **with intent, and purchased** the animal from **the outset for the sake of a peace-offering,** and in any case had to bring the animal to Jerusalem. **But with regard to** one who acted **with intent to withdraw the second-tithe money** from its consecrated state **to a desacralized** state, **whether** his act was **unwitting,** in which case it is an erroneous transaction, or **intentional, the money returns to its place.**


###### Kiddushin 56a:2
[Kiddushin 56a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/56a:2)

וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמֵזִיד – קִידֵּשׁ! אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אִשָּׁה יוֹדַעַת שֶׁאֵין מְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מִתְחַלְּלִין עַל יָדָהּ, וְעוֹלָה וְאוֹכַלְתּוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this statement: **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** If the second tithe was used **intentionally, he has betrothed** the woman with it, and the betrothal, which is a type of acquisition, is effective? **Rabbi Elazar said:** The *halakha* in the mishna is based upon the assumption that **a woman knows that second-tithe money is not desacralized by her** acceptance of the betrothal, **and** it is as though she has agreed that **she** would **ascend and eat it in Jerusalem.**


###### Kiddushin 56a:3
[Kiddushin 56a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/56a:3)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: וַהֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, עֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת, דְּאָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין מְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מִתְחַלְּלִין עֲלֵיהֶן, וּתְנַן: אֵין לוֹקְחִים בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה עֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת בִּמְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי אֲפִילּוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. וְאִם לָקַח – יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya objects to this: But** there are cases of **a non-kosher animal, slaves, or land,** with regard to which **a person knows that second-tithe money is not desacralized by** being used to purchase **them, and we learned** in a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 1:7): **One may not purchase a non-kosher animal, slaves, or land with second-tithe money, even in Jerusalem. And if one did purchase** them, **he must eat** other food **corresponding to their** value. He must take an equivalent sum of money and use it to desacralize the money in the seller’s possession, after which he proceeds to bring this money to Jerusalem and use it to buy food, which he will then consume. In this case, the seller is also presumably aware that the money is second tithe and that he himself will need to take it to Jerusalem, as was presumed in the case of the betrothed woman, so why is the *halakha* not the same?


###### Kiddushin 56a:4
[Kiddushin 56a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/56a:4)

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּאִשָּׁה חֲבֵירָה עָסְקִינַן, דְּיָדְעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that **here,** in the case of the mishna, **we are dealing with a woman devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the *halakhot* of ritual purity, *teruma*, and tithes [*ḥavera*], who knows** the laws of tithes, and accepts it for betrothal with the awareness that she must take it to Jerusalem. An ordinary person, however, is not well-versed in these *halakhot*, so in the case of the purchase of an animal the seller thinks that the second-tithe money has been desacralized through the purchase of the non-kosher animal.


###### Kiddushin 56a:5
[Kiddushin 56a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/56a:5)

אָמַר מָר: אִם לָקַח יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן. וְאַמַּאי? יַחְזְרוּ דָּמָיו לִמְקוֹמָם, כִּי הָתָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said: If one did purchase** them, **he must eat** other food **corresponding to their** value. The Gemara asks: **But why** should he do so? Why not say that **the money must return to its place,** just **as** was the ruling **there,** as Rabbi Yehuda said with regard to one who acted with intent to desacralize the second tithe, where the seller was penalized for acquiescing to the sale?


###### Kiddushin 56a:6
[Kiddushin 56a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/56a:6)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel says:**