Kiddushin

[iii] Money in general is returnable.1 It was stated: If one betroths his sister:2 Rab said: The money is returnable; Samuel ruled: The money is a gift. Rab said: The money is returnable: one knows that kiddushin with a sister is invalid, hence he resolved and gave it as a deposit. Then let him tell her that it is a deposit? — He thought that she would not accept it. But Samuel holds, the money is a gift; one knows that kiddushin with a sister is invalid, and therefore he resolved and gave it as a gift. Then let him tell her that it is a gift? — He thought that she would feel humiliated. Rabina raised an objection: If one separates his hallah3 from the flour, it is not hallah,4 and is robbery in the priest's hand.5 Now why is it robbery in the priest's hand? Let us say that a man knows that hallah is not separated from flour, and therefore he resolved and gave it as a gift? — There it is different, as it may result in wrong.6 For the priest may happen to possess less than five quarters of flour and this besides; he will then knead them together and think that his dough is fit [to be eaten], and thus come to eat it in the state of tebel.7 But you say that a man knows that hallah is not separated from flour! — He knows, yet not fully.8 He knows that hallah is not separated from flour, yet not fully: for he thinks, What is the reason? Because of the priest's trouble;9 well, the priest has forgiven his trouble.10 Yet let it be terumah [i.e., hallah], but that it shall not be eaten until hallah has been separated11 for it from elsewhere?12 Did we not learn: [If one separates terumah] from a perforated [pot] for [the produce grown in] an unperforated pot,13 it is terumah,14 but it may not be eaten until terumah and tithes are separated for it from elsewhere!15 In respect of two utensils he will obey, but not in respect of one.16 Alternatively: the priest will indeed obey; but the owner17 will think that his dough has been made fit,18 and so come to eat it in a state of tebel.19 But you have said that ‘a man knows that hallah is not separated from flour’? — He knows, but not fully. He knows that hallah is not separated from flour. Yet he does not know: for he thinks, what is the reason? On account of the priest's trouble: but he [the priest] has undertaken that trouble. 20 Yet let it be terumah [i.e., hallah], but that he [the Israelite] shall make another separation.21 Did we not learn: [If one separates terumah] from an unperforated pot upon [the contents of] a perforated one, it is terumah,22 yet he must make another separation.23 — But we have explained it that he obeys in respect to two utensils, but not in respect of one. 24 Does he then not obey? Surely we learnt: If one separates a cucumber [as terumah] and it is found to be bitter, or a melon, and it is found to be putrid, it is terumah, but he must make another separation.25 — There it is different, for by Biblical law it is proper terumah,26 by R. Elai's [dictum]. For R. Ilai said: How do we know that if one separates from inferior [produce] for choice, the terumah is valid?27 Because it is said, and ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, whet ye have heaved from it the best thereof28 now, if it is not hallowed, why bear sin?29 Hence it follows that if one separates from inferior for choice [produce], his separation is terumah. Raba said [reverting to the Mishnah]: returnable; otherwise, even if the first only is worth a perutah, the kiddushin is valid. For when he completes his statement, the first dates, already eaten, are neither a debt, since they need not be returned, nor a gift, not having been given as such. It would therefore be as though he had stated: Be thou betrothed unto me with this (the first date), but let not the betrothal take effect until I have given you some more,’ in which case she becomes betrothed when she receives the others even if the first has been consumed. hallah on dough from which no separation has been made, though he keeps it for himself. Now, if he possesses less, and this completes the quantity, he thinks that it is hallah, and so not liable, and therefore kneads it together with the rest without separating hallah. unperforated, it is not liable. — Thus he separates what is liable for what is not. when the separation is made on account of corn that is liable thereto. — Hence the same would apply to hallah. really terumah, and is itself liable, he obeys, as he recognises a distinction between the two. But when told that the hallah separated from flour is not hallah, though the separation is from the same utensil, he will refuse to separate hallah upon that itself. Here the former is not, and hence another separation must be made. — The same should apply here. that he will disobey, for if we did, the first would have to be returned to ensure a second separation. hand, even if he refuses to make a second separation, no harm is done, since the first was Biblically valid and the produce is no longer tebel.