ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 53
KIDUSHIN 51-55 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
Rebbi Yochanan maintains that took a count there and then (in Rebbi
Yehudah's presence), and decided by a majority vote that 'ha'Mekadesh
be'Chelko ... , Einah Mekudeshes'. Rav says - that they still argue, and
that Rebbi Yehudah still holds 'Mekudeshes'.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Chol Minchah
Asher Te'aseh ba'Tanur ... le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tihyeh" - that the Kohanim
are not permitted to swap their portion in the Menachos for their friend's
portion in the Zevachim.
(b) From a series of extra Pesukim in the Parshah we extend this Halachah
across the board (as we shall now see). A Korban Olah ve'Yored offered a
poor man who could not afford to bring a Korban Beheimah the alternative -
to bring a Korban ha'Of.
(c) We might have thought that the Kohanim are permitted to swap ...
1. ... Menachos against Ofos - because, unlike Menachos against Zevachim,
the Korban Olah ve'Yored offers the option of bringing the former instead of
the latter (which is not the case by Menachos and Zevachim).
(d) Even once we know that the Kohanim cannot swap Ofos against Zevachim, we
would still have thought that they are permitted to swap Menachos against
Menachos (since both entail Avodah with the hand, whereas with Ofos and
Zevachim, the former are killed by hand, the latter, with a K'li Sha'res (a
2. ... Ofos against Zevachim - because the blood of both is sprinkled (which
is not the case by Menachos against Ofos (since Menachos do not have blood).
(a) A Korban Beheimah is called a 'Zevach' - because it has to be Shechted
with a knife (which is what the word 'Zevach' really means), whereas a
Korban Of is killed with the finger-nail of the Kohen.
(b) A Minchah al ha'Machavas (which means a deep pan) - floated in a Log of
oil (which most Menachos required), and was therefore soft and spongy
(seeing as the fire would not burn up all the oil), whereas a Minchas
Marcheshes (which means a flat pan), was hard and brittle, because the oil
which spread thinly across the pan (would be burned by the fire).
(c) A Kohen may not even swap his portion in one Minchah al ha'Machavas for
another (or one Minchas Marcheshes for another), as we derive from the Pasuk
"va'Chareivah le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tiheyeh".
(d) And from the Pasuk "Ish ke'Achiv" we extend the prohibition of swapping
one's portion in one Korban for another to all Kodshei Kodshim. We learn
1. ... the Semichus "Ish ke'Achiv ... Im al Todah" - that it even extends to
Kodshim Kalim too.
2. ... the word "Ish" - that a Gadol receives a portion in Kodshim (even if
he is blemished), but not a Katan (even if he is not).
(a) The Beraisa currently under discussion is a Sifra. The author of a S'tam
Sifra is - Rebbi Yehudah.
(b) Abaye therefore proves from this Beraisa - that Rebbi Yehudah must have
retracted from his original opinion, and concedes to Rebbi Meir that a Kohen
has no personal rights in his portion of Kodshim (and cannot therefore
betroth a woman with it).
(a) As long as Shimon ha'Tzadik lived - any Kohen who received a k'Zayis was
(b) The Tana of the Beraisa describes how, after Shimon ha'Tzadik's death,
when the Kohanim would receive as little as a bean and were not satisfied -
the Tzenu'im (those who were reserved), would withdraw, and the Gargeranim
(the greedy ones) would distribute it.
(c) Rava, who interpreted 'ha'Gargeranims *Cholkin*' as swapping - tried to
prove from here that Rebbi Yehudah did not retract, since he is the author
of the Beraisa.
(d) He must be - because he is the only one who initially permitted a Kohen
to betroth a woman with his portion of Kodshim.
(a) We refute Rava's interpretation however - by interpreting 'ha'Gargeranim
Cholkin' as receiving their due portion (and grabbing that of their
colleagues when it wasn't enough). This is borne out by the Seifa, which
tells of the Kohen who grabbed his portion together with that of his friend.
(b) The nickname they ascribed to that Kohen for the rest of his life was -
(c) Rabah bar Rav Shiloh learned from the Pasuk "Elokai Paltani mi'Yad Rasha
mi'Kaf Me'avel *ve'Chometz", and Rabah from the Pasuk "Limdu Heitev, Dirshu
Mishpat, Ishru Chamotz" - that 'Chamtzan' is synonymous with 'Chamsan'
(meaning a robber).
(a) Rav Acha Brei de'Rava in the name of the Gemara learns from the Pasuk
"ve'Chol Ma'asar ha'Aretz mi'Zera ha'Aretz ... la'Hashem Hu Kodesh
la'Hashem" - that, according to Rebbi Meir, Ma'aser Sheini belongs to
(b) If a Kohen (or a Yisrael who inherited from a Kohen) betroths a woman
with Terumas Ma'aser, with Chalah, with Shevi'is or with Terumah, she is
Mekudeshes. She is Mekudeshes with re. to ...
1. ... Terumas Ma'aser, despite the Pasuk "Kein Atrium Gam Atem Terumas
*Hashem"* - because the Torah did not write "la'Hashem".
(c) We refute this answer however - on the grounds that, when all's said and
done, the Navi is comparing Yisrael to Terumah.
2. ... Chalah, despite the Pasuk "Yitnu *la'Hashem*" - because the Torah did
not write "Kodesh".
3. ... Shevi'is, despite the Pasuk "Ki Yovel Hi *Kodesh* Tihyeh Lachem" -
because the Torah did not write "Kodesh la'Hashem".
4. ... Terumah, despite the Pasuk ... "*Kodesh* Yisrael *la'Hashem*, Reishis
Tevu'aso" - because (we answer initially), the Navi is referring, not to
Terumah, but to Yisrael.
(d) On account of this Kashya, Ravin Saba changed the word of Rebbi Meir's
source to the words "la'Hashem Hu".
(a) The problem that Shigegas Ma'aser according to Rebbi Yehudah and
Shigegas Hekdesh according to Rebbi Meir have in common is - that seeing as
each one holds in their respective cases that be'Meizid she is betrothed,
why is she not betrothed be'Shogeg?
(b) Rebbi Ya'akov heard each one's reason from Rebbi Yochanan, but did not
know which was which. The two reasons are - 1. that *she* would not consent
if she knew - 2. that neither of them would.
(c) The practical difference between the two reasons is - if we asked her
and she said that she did not mind, whether we need to ask him too.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah worked out on his own volition which is which.
According to him, the woman would not have agreed to be betrothed with
Ma'aser, because of the trouble of taking it to Yerushalayim. The man ...
1. ... would not have minded betrothing her with Ma'aser (had he known that
it was Ma'aser) - because he would transgress nothing and would gain a woman
without any trouble.
(b) Rebbi Ya'akov reacted to Rebbi Yirmiyah's exsplanation - by pointing out
that one could just as well say the other way round, as we shall now see.
2. ... as well as the woman, would have minded betrothing her with Hekdesh
(had he known that it was Hekdesh) - because neither she nor he would like
to know that the Hekdesh was profaned through the transaction (that an Isur
was performed together with a Chiyuv Me'ilah).
(c) According to Rebbi Ya'akov, even the man would have objected to
betrothing her with Ma'aser Sheini because of 'Unsa de'Urcha'. What he
means, assuming that ...
1. ... he gave her fruit to the value of one Perutah is - that seeing as the
fruit can only be eaten in Yerushalayim, it is not worth a Perutah here, in
which case he will only have given her a Perutah if he accepts the liability
of the journey (and an O'nes is more likely to occur with a woman than with
(d) He would not have minded betrothing her with Hekdesh - because, assuming
he had no money available, he would gain a wife (and would be quite happy to
pay Hekdesh later).
2. ... he gave her a large amount of fruit is - that he would accept the
liability, because of the fear that should she accept it and something
happened on the way, he would be landed with an unhappy wife.
(a) Rava asked Rav Chisda whether - according to Rebbi Meir, who holds that
a woman is not betrothed by Shigegas Hekdesh, the money goes out to Chulin.
(b) The ramifications of Rava's She'eilah are - whether the money has gone
out to Chulin (and may now be spent), and whether the man is obligated to
bring a Korban Me'ilah and pay a fifth.
(c) Rav Chisda replied - if the woman is not betrothed, how can the money go
out to Chulin?
(d) Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rav Chisda whether the same applies to a sale -
to which he replied in the affirmative.
(a) According to Rav Chisda in Rebbi Meir - there is no Me'ilah by money of
Hekdesh (only by eating Hekdesh food). Note, that Rav Chisda's opinion is
based on that of Rebbi Yochanan (as quoted by Rebbi Ya'akov at the beginning
of the Sugya).
(b) The Mishnah in Me'ilah discusses a case where the treasurer of Hekdesh
inadvertently gave Hekdesh money to someone to look after. If he gave money
that was wrapped to a storekeeper or to a private individual, and either of
them used it - they would be Mo'el, and not the treasurer (because neither
of the two had permission to use money that was wrapped).
(c) If he gave loose money ...
1. ... to a storekeeper - he would be permitted to use it. Consequently, it
would be the treasurer who would be Mo'el when the storekeeper used it.
2. ... to a private individual - he would be forbidden to use it.
Consequently, he would be Mo'el when he did.
(a) Rebbi Meir says 'Chenvani (who needs fluid money more than a private
individual, but, because he often obtains goods on credit, less than a
Shulchani) ke'Ba'al ha'Bayis'. Rebbi Yehudah says - 'ke'Shulachani'.
(b) A 'Shulchani' is the equivalent of a banker.
(c) We can extrapolate from Rebbi Meir that Me'ilah does pertain to spending
money of Hekdesh. According to Rav Chisda, who says that it does not - Rebbi
Meir is merely countering Rebbi Yehudah: 'According to me', he is saying,
'nobody is Mo'el. But according to you, won't you concede that a Chenvani is
like a private individual (and he is the one who will be Mo'el)'? To which
Rebbi Yehudah replied 'Chenvani ke'Shulchani' (and it is the treasurer who