Kiddushin

But our Mishnah [deals with] her own robbery,1 yet Rab said: She is not betrothed? There is no difficulty: in the one case, he had [previously] negotiated [with her for marriage];2 in the other, he had not negotiated. A certain woman was washing her feet in a bowl of water, when a man came, snatched a zuz from his neighbour, threw it to her and exclaimed: ‘Thou are betrothed unto me!’ Then that man went before Raba, who said to him; None pay regard to R. Simeon's dictum, viz.: Robbery in general involves the owner's abandonment.3 A certain aris4 betrothed [a woman] with a handful of onions.5 When he came before Raba he said to him, ‘Who renounced it in your favour?’6 Now, that applies only to a handful;7 but as for a bunch, he [the aris] can say to him [the landowner], ‘As I have taken a bunch, do you take one: one bunch is the same as another.’8 A certain agent-brewer9 betrothed [a woman] with a measure of beer.10 Then the owner of the beer came and found him. Said he to him, ‘Why did you not give [her] of this [beer, which is] stronger?’ When he came before Raba, he said to him. ‘Go to the better’ was said only in reference to terumah.11 For it was taught: In which case was it ruled that if one separates [terumah] without [the owner's] knowledge, his separation is valid? If one enters12 his neighbour's field, gathers [the crops] and separates [terumah] without permission: and he [the owner] resents it as [akin to] theft, his separation is not valid; otherwise, it is. And how does one know whether he resents it as theft or not? If the owner comes and finds him, and says to him, ‘Go to the better [produce]’: and better [crops] are found, the separation is valid;13 if not, it is invalid.14 If the owner gathers [crops] and adds [to that already separated], in both cases his separation is valid. But here he acted thus15 through shame;16 hence she is not betrothed. MISHNAH. IF ONE [A PRIEST] BETROTHS [A WOMAN] WITH HIS PORTION,17 WHETHER [IT IS OF] THE HIGHER OR OF THE LOWER SANCTITY,18 SHE IS NOT BETROTHED.19 [IF] WITH SECOND TITHE,20 WHETHER UNWITTINGLY OR DELIBERATELY, HE DOES NOT BETROTH [HER]: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW.21 R. JUDAH SAID: IF UNWITTINGLY, HE HAS NOT BETROTHED [HER]; IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS. [IF] WITH HEKDESH,22 IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS BETROTHED HER; IF UNWITTINGLY, HE HAS NOT: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW. R. JUDAH SAID: IF UNWITTINGLY, HE HAS BETROTHED HER; IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS NOT.23 GEMARA. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Jose the Galilean? For it was taught: [If any one sin] and commit a trespass against the Lord [. . . then he shall bring his guilt-offering]:24 this is to include lower grade sacrifices as his [the individual's] property:25 this is R. Jose the Galilean's opinion! — You may even say that it agrees with R. Jose the Galilean: he stated [that view] only whilst it [the animal to be sacrificed] is alive, but not after it is killed. What is the reason? When they26 acquire [thereof], it is from the table of the Most High that they acquire [it].27 This may be deduced too; because it is stated: IF ONE BETROTHS [A WOMAN] WITH HIS PORTION, WHETHER [IT IS OF] THE HIGHER OR OF THE LOWER SANCTITY, HE HAS NOT BETROTHED HER.28 Our Rabbis taught: After R. Meir's demise, R. Judah announced to his disciples, ‘Let not R. Meir's disciples enter hither, because they are disputatious and do not come to learn Torah but to overwhelm one with halachoth.’29 Yet Symmachus forced his way through and entered. Said he to them: Thus did R. Meir teach me: If one betroths [a woman] with his portion, whether of the higher or of the lower sanctity, he has not betrothed [her]. Thereupon R. Judah became incensed with them and exclaimed: ‘Did I not say to you, Let not R. Meir's disciples enter hither, because they are disputatious and do not come to learn Torah but to overwhelm me with halachoth: how then does a woman come to be in the Temple Court?’30 Said R. Jose, Shall it be said: Meir is dead, Judah angry, and Jose silent: what is to become of the words of the Torah? Cannot a man accept kiddushin on his daughter's behalf in the Temple Court? And cannot a woman authorize a messenger to receive her kiddushin in the Temple Court? Again, what if she forces herself in? 31 It was taught: R. Judah said: She is betrothed;32 R. Jose ruled: She is not betrothed. Said R. Johanan: Both derive [their views] from the same verse: This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire.33 R. Judah holds, ‘thine’ [implies] for all thy needs;34 whereas R. Jose maintains it is as [what is offered on] ‘the fire’:35 just as the fire is for consumption only,36 so that too is for consumption [by the priest] only.37 R. Johanan said: that this ruling is disregarded: hence the betrothal was invalid. separated in any case. holy), e.g., the peace-offering. The former were eaten by priests only; the latter, partly by priests and partly by their Israelite owners. Though this law does not hold good in respect to God's property (deduced from, ‘and deal falsely with his neighbour’ ibid.), the phrase ‘against the Lord’ shews that even where there is an element of sanctity this sacrifice is involved. Hence it includes lower grade sacrifices, and thus teaches that these rank as the individual's property; this contradicts the ruling of the Mishnah. compartment. Rashi observes that women were forbidden to enter the Temple Court. Tosaf. holds this to be an error, and explains: how then does a woman come to be in the Temple Court for such a purpose? For that is too unusual to be dealt with. metaphorically: what if she insists on entering there for that purpose, though it is unusual? (so presumably understood by Tosaf.)