Kiddushin

A vote was taken [among scholars] and it was resolved: He who betroths with his portion, whether of the higher or of the lower sanctity, has not betrothed. But Rab maintained: The dispute continues.1 Said Abaye: Reason supports R. Johanan. For it was taught: How do we know that meal-offerings may not be apportioned as against sacrifices?2 From the verse, and every meal-offering that is baked in the oven . . . shall all the sons of Aaron have.3 I might think that meal-offerings may not be apportioned as against sacrifices, seeing that they cannot replace them in poverty, yet meal-offerings may be apportioned as against fowl-offerings, since they do replace them in poverty:4 therefore it is stated, and all that is dressed in the frying pan . . . shall all the sons of Aaron have.5 I might think that meal-offerings cannot be apportioned as against fowl-offerings, since the latter are blood species and the former a species of flour, but that fowl-offerings may be apportioned as against [animal] sacrifices, since both are blood species; therefore it is stated, and in the baking pan.6 I might think, fowl-offerings may not be apportioned as against animal sacrifices, since the preparation of the former is by hand, whereas that of the latter is with a utensil;7 but that meal-offerings can be apportioned as against meal-offerings,8 since the preparation of both is by hand:9 therefore it is stated, and every meal-offering mingled with oil . . . shall all the sons of Aaron have.10 I might think that a baking pan [offering] shall not be apportioned as against a frying pan [offering], or a frying pan [offering] as against a baking pan [offering], because one is made soft and the other hard;11 but that one baking pan [offering] may be apportioned as against another,12 and one frying pan [offering] against another, since both are hard or soft respectively; therefore it is said, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have.13 Now, I might think that sacrifices of the higher sanctity14 may not be [so] apportioned, yet those of the lower sanctity may be;15 therefore it is stated: ‘[shall all the sons of Aaron have], a man as his brother,’ and in proximity thereto,if [he offers it] for a thanksgiving:16 just as higher sanctity sacrifices may not be [so] apportioned, so also offerings of the lower sanctity. ‘A man’ [teaches]: a man takes a share, even if he has a blemish, but not a minor, even if he is without blemish. Now, who is the author of an anonymous teaching in the Sifra? R. Judah:17 And he states that it is not capable of apportionment at all.18 This proves it. Said Raba: And was it not taught as Rab too? But it was taught: The modest withdrew their hands, but the greedy shared.19 [No.] By ‘shared’ is meant snatched [other priests’ shares]. As the second clause states: It happened that one snatched his own and his neighbour's portion, and he was called Ben Hamzan20 [robber] until the day of his death. Said Rabbah son of R. Shila: What verse [have we]?21 — Rescue me, O my Lord, out of the hand of the wicked, Out of the hand of the unrighteous and violent [homez].22 Rabbah said, [We learn it] from the following: learn to do well, seek judgment, set right the man of violence.23 WITH SECOND TITHE, WHETHER UNWITTINGLY OR DELIBERATELY, HE HAS NOT BETROTHED [HER]: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW. R. JUDAH SAID: IF UNWITTINGLY, HE HAS NOT BETROTHED [HER]; IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS etc. How do we know this? Said R. Aha son of Raba on the authority of tradition:24 and all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's: it is holy unto the Lord:25 ‘unto the Lord’, and not for betrothing a woman therewith. But what of the terumah of the tithe,26 whereof it is written, thus ye shall also offer an heave-offering unto the Lord [of all your tithes],27 — yet we learnt: If one betroths with terumoth,28 she is betrothed? — That is because ‘unto the Lord’ is not written there.29 But what of hallah,30 whereof it is written, [of the first of your dough] ye shall give unto the Lord,31 — yet we learnt: If one betroths [a woman] with terumoth,32 she is betrothed? — That is because ‘holy’ is not written there. But what of the seventh year, whereof it is written: For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy unto you,33 yet we learnt: If one betroths with seventh year produce, [the woman is] betrothed?34 — That is because ‘unto the Lord’ is not written there. But what of terumah, whereof it is written: Israel is holy unto the Lord, the first-fruits [i.e., terumah] of his produce,35 — yet we learnt: If one betroths [a woman] with terumoth, she is betrothed? — That refers to Israel. circumstance may they be divided against anything else. teaching to the case under discussion. by the fire; but the marhesheth (frying pan) was deep: this caused a thick dough which the fire could only cook. is not his own, to do as he likes with, but a gift from God to be consumed. they traded in their portions, bartering one for another. This must agree with R. Judah, who regards the priest's portion as his private property, to be used as he wishes, and shews that there was no majority decision. were legally betrothed.