## Kiddushin Daf 58b

###### Kiddushin 58b:1
[Kiddushin 58b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:1)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוּצָאָה אַתְּ. אִיכְּסִיף, הוּא סָבַר: מִשְּׁמַעְתָּא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא: רַב אַסִּי דְּהוּצָל קָאֵי כְּוָתָיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna **said to him: You are out [*hotza’a*].** Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin **was embarrassed,** as **he thought** Rav Huna **told him** he was out, i.e., wrong, **due to** the ***halakha* he** stated. Sensing Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin’s embarrassment, Rav Huna **said to him: This is what I said:** You are a *Hutzla’a*, as **Rav Asi, from** the town of **Huzal, stands in accordance with your** opinion.


###### Kiddushin 58b:2
[Kiddushin 58b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:2)

נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: הַגּוֹנֵב טִבְלוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ דְּמֵי טִבְלוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא דְּמֵי חוּלִּין שֶׁבּוֹ. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה מָמוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר: טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה אֵינָהּ מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that it is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** The *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Ma’aser Sheni* 3:9) taught: **One who steals another’s untithed produce pays him the** full **value of the other’s untithed produce;** this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He pays only the value of the non-sacred** produce **that it contains. What, is it not** the case **that they disagree about this** issue: **That** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that the **benefit of discretion has monetary** value, so he must be compensated beyond the value of the non-sacred produce; **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** that the **benefit of discretion does not have monetary** value, and only the non-sacred produce is of value to the owner.


###### Kiddushin 58b:3
[Kiddushin 58b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:3)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה אֵינָהּ מָמוֹן, וְהָכָא בִּטְבָלִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן וּבְמַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין קָמִיפַּלְגִי. מָר סָבַר: כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין. וּמָר סָבַר: לָאו כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No, everyone agrees** that the **benefit of discretion does not have monetary** value, **and here** the case is **with an Israelite who came into** possession of **untithed produce** as an inheritance **from the household of his mother’s father,** who was **a priest. And they disagree with regard to** the question of whether or not **gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated.** One **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that they **are considered as though they have been separated,** which means that the grandson inherited the *teruma* itself from his grandfather, so the thief must repay him the value of the *terumot* and tithes as well. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** that such gifts **are not considered as though they have been separated;** and the produce is viewed as regular untithed produce, where the Israelite has only the benefit of discretion, which is of no monetary value.


###### Kiddushin 58b:4
[Kiddushin 58b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:4)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין וְטוֹבַת הֲנָאָה אֵינָהּ מָמוֹן, וְהָכָא בְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חִיטָּה אַחַת פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַכְּרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **everyone agrees** that the gifts **are considered as though they have been separated, and** that the **benefit of discretion does not have monetary** value. The case is not concerning an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother’s father; rather, it is concerning regular untithed produce, **and here** they **disagree with regard to** a statement **of Shmuel. As Shmuel says:** By Torah law, even **one grain** given as *teruma* **exempts the** entire **heap,** since the Torah does not specify a minimum amount for *teruma*.


###### Kiddushin 58b:5
[Kiddushin 58b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:5)

דְּמָר אִית לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **is of** the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion **of Shmuel,** so the thief must pay the value of the untithed produce as well, since the owner can say that he would separate a single grain as *teruma* for the entire heap and the rest would remain non-sacred produce. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, **is of** the opinion that the ruling is **not** in accordance with the opinion **of Shmuel,** which means that when the owner makes his claim he must subtract at least one-sixtieth of the total amount as *teruma*.


###### Kiddushin 58b:6
[Kiddushin 58b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:6)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לֵית לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי, דְּקַנְסוּהוּ רַבָּנַן לְגַנָּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **everyone is of** the opinion that the ruling is **not** in accordance with the opinion **of Shmuel; and here, this is** the **reasoning of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: Although the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and by right should not lead to reimbursement, **the Sages penalized the thief.** If he did not need to pay for the *teruma* contained in the produce, he would have been able to keep it, as no priest has the legal ability to demand that the *teruma* be given specifically to him.


###### Kiddushin 58b:7
[Kiddushin 58b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:7)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּקַנְסוּהוּ רַבָּנַן לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת, דְּלָא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְשַׁהוֹיֵהּ לְטִיבְלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **everyone is of** the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion **of Shmuel, and here, this is** the **reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: The Sages penalized the owner, since he should not have left his untithed produce** in that state, and should have separated *teruma* without delay.


###### Kiddushin 58b:8
[Kiddushin 58b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:8)

תְּנַן: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בִּתְרוּמוֹת, וּבַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת, וּבַמַּתָּנוֹת, בְּמֵי חַטָּאת, וּבְאֵפֶר פָּרָה – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת וְאַף עַל פִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַנּוֹטֵל שָׂכָר לָדוּן – דִּינָיו בְּטֵלִים, לְהָעִיד – עֵדוּתוֹ בְּטֵלָה, לְהַזּוֹת וּלְקַדֵּשׁ – מֵימָיו מֵי מְעָרָה, וְאֶפְרוֹ אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: With regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with *terumot*, or with tithes, or with** the **gifts** given to priests, or **with the water of purification, or with the ashes** of the red **heifer,** in all of these cases **she is betrothed, and** this is so **even if** the man betrothing her is **an Israelite. And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** to this from the following *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Bekhorot* 3:5): With regard to **one who accepts payment to judge, his judgments are nullified.** Similarly, with regard to one who accepts payment **to testify, his testimony is nullified.** With regard to one who accepts payment **to sprinkle** the purification water on one who was impure from impurity imparted by a corpse, **or to sanctify** the purification water by placing the ashes of the red heifer in them, **his water** is considered **cave water,** which is generally foul, **and his ashes are burnt ashes.** Using these items to betroth a woman is analogous to being paid for them, so they should be considered as having no monetary value, and the betrothal should not take effect.


###### Kiddushin 58b:9
[Kiddushin 58b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:9)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּשָׂכָר הֲבָאָה וּמִילּוּי, כָּאן בִּשְׂכַר הַזָּאָה וְקִידּוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** This is **not difficult,** since **here,** the mishna is referring to one who betroths a woman **with** the value of the **payment for bringing and filling** the vessel with the purification waters, for which one is permitted to accept payment. Performing this act for the woman is comparable to giving her an item of value, since she will not have to pay someone to bring and fill the vessel for her. **There,** the *baraita* dealing with one who accepts payment for sprinkling or sanctifying the water is referring **to payment for** the actual **sprinkling and sanctifying.**


###### Kiddushin 58b:10
[Kiddushin 58b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:10)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי הָכָא: ״בְּמֵי חַטָּאת וּבְאֵפֶר פָּרָה״, וְקָתָנֵי הָתָם: ״לְהַזּוֹת וּלְקַדֵּשׁ״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: According to this answer, the language of the mishna and the *baraita* **is also precise, as it teaches here,** in the mishna, that she is betrothed **with the water of purification or with the ashes of purification,** which indicates that the water and ashes have not yet been mixed together; **and it teaches there,** in the *baraita*: **To sprinkle or to sanctify,** indicating that he receives payment for the actual sprinkling and sanctification. The Gemara affirms: **Learn from it** that this is the correct explanation of the mishna and the *baraita*.


###### Kiddushin 58b:11
[Kiddushin 58b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:11)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָאִישׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ**


###### Kiddushin 58b:12
[Kiddushin 58b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:12)

**הָאוֹמֵר** לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״צֵא וְקַדֵּשׁ לִי אִשָּׁה פְּלוֹנִית״, וְהָלַךְ וְקִדְּשָׁהּ לְעַצְמוֹ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לַשֵּׁנִי. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״ וּבָא אַחֵר וְקִידְּשָׁה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִשְׁנֵי. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן – תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one** man **who says to another: Go and betroth so-and-so to me, and** the latter **went and betrothed her to himself, she is betrothed to the second** man. **And similarly,** with regard to **one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after thirty days, and another** man **came and betrothed her within** those **thirty days, she is betrothed to the second** man. This is a full-fledged betrothal, so that if she is **an Israelite woman** betrothed **to a priest, she may partake of *teruma*.**


###### Kiddushin 58b:13
[Kiddushin 58b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:13)

״מֵעַכְשָׁיו וּלְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״ וּבָא אַחֵר וְקִידְּשָׁה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, אוֹ בַת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל – לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the first man said to the woman: You are hereby betrothed to me **from now, and** only **after thirty days** shall the betrothal take effect, **and another** man **came and betrothed her within** those **thirty days,** there is uncertainty whether **she is betrothed or** whether **she is not betrothed** to each of them. Consequently, if she was **the daughter of a non-priest** betrothed **to a priest, or the daughter of a priest** betrothed **to an Israelite, she may not partake of *teruma*.** Since her betrothal is uncertain, the daughter of a non-priest cannot be considered the wife of a priest, and similarly a priest’s daughter who is doubtfully married to an Israelite loses her right to partake of *teruma* as the daughter of a priest.


###### Kiddushin 58b:14
[Kiddushin 58b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:14)

**גְּמָ׳** הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״צֵא וְקַדֵּשׁ״. תָּנָא: מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּהַג בּוֹ מִנְהַג רַמָּאוּת. וְתַנָּא דִּידַן, ״הָלַךְ״ נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי – הָלַךְ בְּרַמָּאוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that in the case of **one** man **who says to another: Go and betroth** so-and-so to me, and the latter went and betrothed her to himself, she is betrothed to the second man. A *tanna* **taught** concerning this issue: **What he did is done;** it is effective and the woman is betrothed to the second man, **but he has treated him,** i.e., the first man, **in a deceitful manner,** and it is prohibited to act in this fashion. The Gemara explains: **And the *tanna* of our** mishna, **when** he **teaches** the apparently superfluous term: **Went, also** indicates that he **went** and acted **deceitfully.**


###### Kiddushin 58b:15
[Kiddushin 58b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58b:15)

מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks a question concerning the language of the mishna: **What is different here that** the mishna **teaches:** With regard to **one** man **who says to another,**