Kiddushin

But does that not follow automatically?1 Rabin the Elder explained it before Rab:2 Scripture saith, it is [hu] — it must remain in its natural form.3 [IF] WITH HEKDESH, 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. R. Jacob said: I heard from R. Johanan two [reasons on the laws concerning] the unwitting [use of] tithes [for betrothal], according to R. Judah, and the unwitting [use of] hekdesh, on R. Meir's view, [that] in both cases a woman is not betrothed therewith. One [reason] is that the woman does not wish it;4 the other, that both do not desire it. But I do not know which is which.5 Said R. Jeremiah: Let us consider. As for tithes, she is unwilling because of the trouble of the journey;6 he, however, is pleased that the woman should become his without effort.7 But as for hekdesh, both are unwilling that hekdesh should be secularised through them.8 But R. Jacob maintained: The logic is the reverse. Can we not argued as for tithes, she is unwilling on account Of the trouble of the journey, whilst he is unwilling on account of the risks of the journey.9 But as for hekdesh: it is indeed well that she is unwilling that hekdesh is secularised through her;10 but is he then unwilling that the woman should become his without effort?11 Raba asked R. Hisda: The woman [it is said.] is not betrothed; does the money12 pass out into hullin? — Seeing that the woman is not betrothed,13 how is the money to pass out into hullin? R. Hiyya b. Abin asked R. Hisda: How is it in the case of purchase?14 — In the case of purchase too, he replied, he gains no title. Thereupon he raised an objection: A shopkeeper ranks as a private individual: this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah maintained: A shopkeeper is as a money-changer.15 Thus, they differ only in so far as one Master holds that a shopkeeper ranks as a money-changer. and the other regards him as a private individual. Yet all [including R. Meir] agree that if he expends it, trespass is committed?16 — He argues on R. Judah's opinion. In my view, even if he expends it there is no trespass;17 but even on your view,18 you should at least agree with me that a shopkeeper is as a private individual. To which he answered him: No; he is as a money-changer. Rab said: terumah. purpose. first reason applies — if the woman explicitly declares that she had no objection, the betrothal is valid, and it may be assumed that the man too was willing. involves a sacrifice, it may be assumed that both are unwilling. road-risks to which a woman is more exposed than a man, for until it reaches Jerusalem it has no value. For if she redeems it, the money must be carried to Jerusalem, and so he is in the same position. (ii) Even if he bears no responsibility for the risks of the road, yet if she loses it she may be resentful with him for having betrothed her with something of which she derived no benefit, and therefore he too is displeased. Tosaf. accepts the second. not? use it; if he does, he is liable for trespass, not the treasurer. If loose, he may use it, for the treasurer knows that he is continually in need of change, and by giving it to him loose he tacitly authorizes him to use it: therefore, if he does, the treasurer is liable. But if he deposits it with a private individual, whether loose or bound up, the bailee may not expend it; therefore if he does use it he is liable. A shopkeeper stands midway between the two. shall be effective and the purchase valid. hekdesh.)