286 Kiddushin . perek II . 52b . :׳אק בפ דב נב

The Gemara explains the previous statement: As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 1:5): When did they say that in the case where one separates teruma without the owner’s consent,h his teruma is considered teruma? The baraita clarifies: In a case where there was someone who entered another’s field and gathered produce from it, and separated teruma without the owner’s permission, if he is concerned that the owner will object to his actions and view it as robbery, his teruma is not teruma, but if he is not concerned, his teruma is teruma.

The baraita continues: And from where would the gatherer know whether he should be concerned that the owner objects and views it as robbery or not? If the owner came and found him separating teruma and said to him: Go to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that, then if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma, since the owner is assumed to have been sincere and pleased that the other has separated teruma from his produce. But if not, his teruma is not teruma, as it may be assumed that the owner was angry at him and was speaking sarcastically. The baraita adds: If the owners were gathering and adding to the teruma he had separated, indicating that they agree to his act of separation, either way, whether or not better-quality produce was found, his teruma is considered teruma.

Rava concludes the explanation of his ruling: This halakha applies only to teruma, which is a mitzva that the owner must in any case perform. But here, in the case of the brewer who betrothed a woman with sediment from the beer, the owner acts because of embarrassment,n and while he does not feel comfortable protesting, he did not in fact relinquish his rights to the sediment, and she is not betrothed.

mishna With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portionn of offerings,

whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred orderhb or whether he did so with offerings of lesser sanctity,b she is not betrothed. One who betroths a woman with second tithe,h whether unwittingly or intentionally, has not betrothed her; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he did so unwittingly he has not betrothed her, but if he did so intentionally he has betrothed her.

And with regard to one who betroths a woman with consecrated propertyh belonging to the Temple treasury, if he does so intentionally he has betrothed her, and if he does so unwittingly he has not betrothed her; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says the opposite: If he does so unwittingly he has betrothed her, but if he does so intentionally he has not betrothed her.

לא ש תואם אמאו יצד כ תניא: ד

יאד ש האי אומה? ת אומתו ת עת מד

לא ט ותאם ש דה חביאו וליק לתוך ש

זל – אין ג ום ש מש אשותד אם חוש ב

אומתו אומהד ואם לאו – ת אומתו ת ת

אומהד ת

ום מש ש חוש אם יודע היה ין ומנ

ית הב על ב א ב ש האי לאו? אם זל ג

לך אצל י׳ות״, אם ומצאו, ואמא לו ״כ

אומה, אומתו ת נמצאו י׳ות מהם – ת

אומהד היו אומתו ת ואם לאו – אין ת

ך ין כ טים ומוסי׳ים – ב עלים מלק הב

אומהד אומתו ת ך ת ובין כ

הוא יסו׳א כ ום מש – הכא אבל

תד ש עבד, ואינה מקוד ד

י קדש ין ב חלקו, ב ש המקד מתניפ אינה – ים קל ים קדש ין ב ים קדש

ין ין שוגג ב ני, ב א ש מעש תד ב ש מקוד

מאיאד י אב באי ד ש, קיד לא – מזיד

ש, שוגג – לא קיד י יהודה אומא: ב אב

שד מזיד – קיד ב

– ובשוגג ש, קיד – מזיד ב ש; ובהקד

י יהודה י מאיאד אב באי אב ש, ד לא קיד

לא – מזיד ב ש, קיד – שוגג ב אומא:

שד קיד

Where one separates teruma without the owner’s consent, etc. – עת וכופ לא מד If one separates teruma without :תואם שconsent of the owner of a field, or if he entered the field of another and gathered fruit without consent in order to sepa-rate teruma, and the owner came and said: Go take the pro-duce of better quality, his teruma is teruma if there is produce of superior quality. If not, his teruma is not teruma. If the owner adds to his teruma, it is teruma even when no produce of better quality is found (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 4:3).

A priest who betroths a woman with his portion of…offer-ings of the most sacred order, etc. – י קדש חלקו…ב ש ב המקדים וכופ If a priest betrothed a woman with his portion :קדשof an offering of the most sacred order or of lesser sanctity, she is not betrothed, since these portions were given to the priest only to be consumed, in accordance with the mishna as explained by Rabbi Yosei in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 5:5).

One who betroths with second tithe – ני א ש מעש ב ש :המקדIf one betroths a woman with second tithe, whether inten-tionally or unwittingly, she is not betrothed, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 5:4).

One who betroths with consecrated property – ש המקדש הקד In a case where one betroths a woman with property :בconsecrated to the fund for Temple maintenance, if he did so unwittingly she is betrothed. He must pay back the value of the item and an additional one-fifth to the Temple and also bring a guilt-offering for atonement. If he betrothed her with this property intentionally she is not betrothed, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the conclusion of the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 5:3).

halakha

Because of embarrassment – יסו׳א כ ום Rashi explains :משthat this means the owner wishes to avoid embarrassing the one who took the item. The Meiri explains that he says this in order to embarrass the one who took the item, by sarcastically suggesting that he should have taken something even better.

A priest who betroths with his portion – חלקו ש ב Rashi :המקדexplains that this is referring both to a priest who betroths with the portion that he has received from an offering and the owner of an offering who uses his portion of the meat or hide. Others claim that the mishna is referring only to a priest who using the portion he has received.

notes

Offerings of the most sacred order – ים י קדש -This cat :קדשegory includes burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, and communal peace-offerings. The following regulations apply specifically to them: They are slaughtered only in the northern section of the Temple courtyard, those that are eaten may be eaten only on the day the animal is sacrificed and the night following that day, and they may be eaten only by male priests and only within the Temple courtyard. The prohibition against misusing consecrated property applies to these offer-ings as soon as they are consecrated. Once their blood has been sprinkled on the altar, the prohibition against misuse continues to apply to the portions of the offering consumed on the altar, but not to the portions of the offering that are to be eaten.

Offerings of lesser sanctity – ים קל ים This category :קדשincludes various types of individual peace-offerings: The

thanks-offering, the nazirite’s ram, the firstborn male of a kosher animal, the animal tithes, and the Paschal offering. These offerings may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard. With the exception of the thanks-offering, the nazirite’s ram, and the Paschal offering, they may be eaten until the night following the day after they were sacrificed. They may be eaten by the priests and their wives, children, and slaves, and, with the exception of the offering of a first-born animal, by the people who bring them and anyone they invite who is ritually pure, and, if male, circumcised. There is no need to consume these offerings within the Temple premises, but they must be consumed within the walls of Jerusalem. The prohibition against misuse of consecrated property with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity applies only to the por-tions consumed on the altar and only after the blood has been sprinkled on the altar.

background

Kiddushin . Perek II . 52b 287 . ׳אק בפ דב נב:

gemara The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the

opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the obligation to bring an offering for taking a false oath concerning unlawful possession of the property of another: “If any one sin, and he commits a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21). As the verse is discussing property belonging to another, the phrase “a trespass against the Lord” serves to include in the obliga-tion of an offering a false oath with regard to possession of offerings of lesser sanctity of another person, which are the property of the owner; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the portion of an offering of lesser sanctity that the priest receives belongs to him, so he should be able to betroth a woman with it.

The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says that an offering of lesser sanctity belongs to its owner only while the animal is still alive, but after its slaughter it does not belong to the priest who receives portions from it. What is the reason for this? When the priests receive their portion after the animal has been slaughtered they receive their portion from the table of the Most High, and do not own the portion itself.

The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he used offerings of lesser sanctity, has not betrothed her. The mishna does not speak of a priest who betroths a woman with a living offering of lesser sanctity but of one who betroths with the portion of the slaughtered animal he has received. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that it is only in this case that she is not betrothed.

The Sages taught: After the death of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda said to his students: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here into our house of study, because they are vexatious [kanteranim].l And they do not come to study Torah, but rather they come to overwhelm me with halakhot. Sumakhos,lp a student of Rabbi Meir, pushed and entered anyway. He said to them: This is what Rabbi Meir taught me: With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of the offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he used offerings of lesser sanctity, he has not betrothed her.

יוסי י אב כ לא ד מתניתין נימא גמפ הפ״ – תניא: ״ומעלה מעל ב לילי? ד הג

באי הן ממונו, ד ים ש ים קל לאבות קדש

לילי! י יוסי הג אב

י כ לילי, הג יוסי י אב ימא ת א׳ילו

לילי – מחיים, אבל י יוסי הג קאמא אב

י חיטה – לאד מאי טעמא? כ לאחא ש

בוה קא זכוד לחן ג קא זכו – מש

חלקו, ב ש המקד קתני: ד נמי, יקא ד

ים קל ים קדש ובין ים קדש י קדש ין ב

הד מע מינ שד ש לא קיד

י מאיא ל אב טיאתו ש נן: לאחא ׳ נו אב ת

לתלמידיו: אל יהודה י אב להם אמא

ני מ׳ לכאן, מאיא י אב למידי ת נסו יכ

תואה ללמוד ולא הםד אנים נת ק ש

הלכות ב חני לק׳ א אל אים, ב הם

חק סומכוס ונכנסד אמא איםד ד הם ב

ש י מאיא: המקד נה לי אב ך ש להם: כ

ים ים ובין קדש י קדש ין קדש חלקו, ב ב

שד ים – לא קיד קל

Vexatious [kanteranim] – אנים ,From the Greek κεντρόω :קנתkentroo, meaning to prick or pierce.

Sumakhos – סומכוס: The origin of this name is the Greek σύμμαχος, sumakhos, meaning a person of the covenant, or an ally in a fight.

language

Sumakhos – סומכוס: This is Sumakhos ben Yosef, who lived in the final generation of tanna’im. Sumakhos was the primary student of Rabbi Meir, and it was he who transmitted many of Rabbi Meir’s statements, while often providing justification for his teacher’s rulings. Like Rabbi Meir, Sumakhos was known for his sharp mind, and people would say that he could provide

forty-eight reasons for any halakha. He was considered to be the greatest Torah scholar of his generation, as he would disagree even with the tanna’im Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who were colleagues of Rabbi Meir. He apparently lived a long time, as it is recorded that he engaged in Torah discussions with the amora Rav.

Personalities

288 Kiddushin . perek II . 53a . ׳אק בפ דב נגד

Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yehuda became angry with his students. He said to them: Didn’t I say this to you: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here into our house of study, because they are vexatious? And they do not come to study Torah, but rather they come to overwhelm me with halakhot. Rabbi Yehuda explained his objection to the statement of Rabbi Meir: This halakha is not relevant, as from where would a woman appear in the Temple courtyard?n Women may not enter the area of the Temple courtyard where the priests eat the offerings of the most sacred order, so there is no reason to address an impossible scenario.

Rabbi Yosei, who was present, said: They will say: Meir died, Yehuda grew angry, and Yosei remained silent; what will become of the words of Torah? He said: In fact, this halakha is relevant; but isn’t it common for a mann to accept betrothal for his daughter in the Temple courtyard? There is no need to give the betrothal item directly to the woman; it can be given to her father. And additionally, isn’t it common for a woman to designate an agent for herself to accept her betrothal in the courtyard? And furthermore: What would be the halakha if the woman pushed and entered? Since it is possible for her to do so, the halakha in such a case must be determined.

It is taught in a baraita that the Sages discussed the issue of a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of offerings of the most sacred order: Rabbi Yehuda says she is betrothed, and Rabbi Yosei says she is not betrothed. Rabbi Yoĥanan says: Both of them derived their opinions from one verse, which states that the priests have a right to a portion of offerings of the most sacred order, but they explained it in different ways. The verse states: “This shall be yours of the most holy things, reserved from the fire” (Numbers 18:9). Rabbi Yehuda holds that the term “yours” indi-cates that the portion the priest receives is intended for you, i.e., a priest, and for all your needs, including betrothing a woman. And Rabbi Yosei holds that the verse compares the priest’s portion to the fire on the altar: Just as the portion burned on the fire is for the fire’s consumption,n so too, the priest’s portion is also for consumption alone, and not for any other purpose.

Rabbi Yoĥanan says:

They counted the opinions among the Sages, and they concluded: With regard to one who betroths a woman with his portion of the offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he used the offerings of lesser sanctity, he has not betrothed her, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And Rav says: It is still a matter of dispute and they did not reach that conclusion. Abaye said: It is reasonable to rule in accordance with the report of Rabbi Yoĥanan, who says that the halakha was decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

י יהודה עליהם, אמא להם: לא עס אב כ

למידי מת נסו יכ י לכם: אל ך אמאת כ

אנים הם, נת ק ני ש י מאיא לכאן, מ׳ אב

א אל אים, ב הם תואה ללמוד ולא

ה אים? וכי אש הלכות הם ב חני ב לק׳

ין?! עזאה מנ ב

כב, ש מאיא יאמאו: יוסי: י אב אמא

תואה באי ד תק, ש יוסי עס, כ יהודה

עשוי אדם אין וכי עליה? הא ת מה

ואין עזאה? ב לבתו ין קידוש ל לקב

ל ליח לקב ה עשויה לעשות לה ש אש

חקה ונכנסה עזאה? ועוד: ד יה ב קידוש

מאי?

ת, ש מקוד אומא: יהודה י אב ניא, ת

תד אמא ש י יוסי אומא: אינה מקוד אב

אשו, ד אחד מקאא ניהם ש יוחנן: י אב

מן ים דש הק מקדש לך יהיה ״זה

י יהודה סבא: ״לך״ – ולכל האש״ד אב

אש, מה אש י יוסי סבא: כ צאכיך, ואב

לאכילה – אב הוא נמי לאכילהד

י יוחנן: אמא אב

NOTESWhere he had arranged – דיך ש Rashi indicates that if he had :דarranged to betroth her and then betrothed her by means of property stolen from her and she accepted it, she has relinquished her rights to the item and is betrothed. By contrast, most commentaries rule in accordance with the Jerusalem Talmud, in which it is explained that while she has agreed to become betrothed to him with the item he gave her, she has not waived her rights to the value of the stolen property and he must repay her its value (Rashba; Ran).

The owners have despaired – עלים ב Although the owner’s :יאוש despair alone does not enable the robber to acquire the item, when despair is combined with a transfer of possession, as in this case, where the robber transferred it to the woman, this does suffice to allow for acquisition of the item (Ramban).

Handful – מוזא: Some of the early commentaries rule that she is not betrothed only if the onions were worth precisely one peruta, as in that case, the portion of those onions belonging to the sharecropper is less than the value of one peruta. If the onions were of sufficient value so that the portion of the sharecropper has the value of one peruta, she would be betrothed. The Ramban disagrees, and notes that if this were to be the halakha, then even if the onion were worth precisely one peruta she should be betrothed as a matter of uncertainty, as perhaps the onions have greater value elsewhere, and the sharecropper’s por-tion may be worth one peruta there (see 12a). He explains that the reason she is not betrothed regardless of the value of the onions is that he gave her an item that was not fully his without stating that he is betrothing her with his portion alone.

Who relinquished to you – מאן אחלך: The Tosefot HaRosh explains that although the sharecropper has a right to a percentage of the produce, in order to ensure a proper division he does not have the right to take it without measuring it first. Since he took the onions without measuring them, it is considered to be theft from the owner of the field.

Because of embarrassment – יסו׳א ום כ Rashi explains that this :משmeans the owner wishes to avoid embarrassing the one who took the item. The Meiri explains that he says this in order to embarrass the one who took the item, by sarcastically suggesting that he should have taken something even better.

A priest who betroths with his portion – חלקו ש ב Rashi explains :המקדthat this is referring both to a priest who betroths with the portion that he has received from an offering and the owner of an offering who uses his portion of the meat or hide. Others claim that the mishna is referring only to a priest who using the portion he has received.

From where would a woman appear in the Temple courtyard – ה אשין מנ עזאה Rashi indicates that it is prohibited for a woman to enter :בthe courtyard, and the Gilyonei HaShas cites the Jerusalem Talmud in tractate Ma’aser Sheni, which indicates that there is an opinion that prohibits a woman from entering the courtyard of the Temple. Tosafot, as well as several other early commentaries quoting Rabbeinu Tam, disagree, and explain that Rabbi Yehuda meant it was uncommon for a woman to be found there.

As isn’t it common for a man, etc. – וכי אין אדם עשוי וכופ: The Mahari Beirav and the Maharsha explain that Rabbi Yehuda’s failure to consider such a simple possibility exemplifies the statement of the Sages that one who grows angry loses his wisdom, as he had become angry over the entrance of Rabbi Meir’s student.

Just as the portion burned on the fire is for consumption, etc. – מה Rabbeinu Ĥananel ben Shmuel writes that there are :אש לאכילה וכופtwo slightly different reasons as to why a woman cannot be betrothed with part of an offering. According to the first, aforementioned expla-nation, the priests receive their portion from the table of the Most High and do not actually own their portion, so they cannot betroth a woman with it. By contrast, according to the opinion that this halakha is derived from the phrase “from the fire,” although the priest does own his portion of the offering, the Torah stipulates that his portion is given to him only for the purpose of eating.

HALAKHAWhere he had arranged, etc. – וכופ דיך ש In a case where one :ד

betroths a woman with an item that he took from her in theft, in robbery, or in a forced transaction, if she had already agreed to marry him and she took the betrothal item from him in silence, then she is betrothed, even if they had not finalized the financial terms. If he had not arranged to marry her, then even if she was silent when he gave the item to her as the item of betrothal, she is not betrothed unless she stated her verbal consent before accepting it (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 5:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 28:2).

There is not anyone who is concerned for this opinion of Rabbi Shimon, etc. – מעון וכופ י ש אב חש להא ד If one betroths a woman :לית דwith an item that has been taken through theft or robbery or that has been acquired through a forced transaction, she is betrothed only if the owner has despaired of recovering the item and it was known that the thief had acquired the item due to the owner’s despair. If not, she is not betrothed, as stated by Rava (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 5:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 28:1).

A certain sharecropper who betrothed with a handful of onions, etc. – מכי וכופ ש ד מוזא קדיש ב ד If one entered another’s :ההוא אאיסא house and took a vessel, food, or any other item and used it to betroth a woman, she is not betrothed even if the owner came and said: Why didn’t you give her something better? It is assumed that he said this only to avoid embarrassing him. If he betrothed her with an item that the owner does not care about, it is uncertain if she is betrothed (Ram-bam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 5:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 28:17).

If one separates teruma without the owner’s consent, etc. – תואם עת וכופ לא מד If one separates teruma without consent of the owner :שof a field, or if he entered the field of another and gathered fruit without consent in order to separate teruma, and the owner came and said: Go take the produce of better quality, his teruma is teruma if there is produce of superior quality. If not, his teruma is not teruma. If the owner adds to his teruma, it is teruma even when no produce of better quality is found (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 4:3).

A priest who betroths a woman with his portion of…offerings of the most sacred order, etc. – ים וכופ י קדש קדש חלקו…ב ש ב If a :המקדpriest betrothed a woman with his portion of an offering of the most sacred order or of lesser sanctity, she is not betrothed, since these portions were given to the priest only to be consumed, in accordance with the mishna as explained by Rabbi Yosei in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 5:5).

One who betroths with second tithe – ני ש א מעש ב ש If one :המקדbetroths a woman with second tithe, whether intentionally or unwit-tingly, she is not betrothed, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 5:4).

One who betroths with consecrated property – ש הקד ש ב In a :המקדcase where one betroths a woman with property consecrated to the fund for Temple maintenance, if he did so unwittingly she is betrothed. He must pay back the value of the item and an additional one-fifth to the Temple and also bring a guilt-offering for atonement. If he betrothed her with this property intentionally she is not betrothed, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the conclusion of the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 5:3).

LANGUAGEHandful [moza] – מוזא: The Arukh, citing the ge’onim, explains that this word is connected to motz, meaning refuse, and that accordingly moza is the waste of the onions. Rashi writes that it is a handful of onions.

Onions [shamkhei] – מכי -Possibly from the Akkadian šumkū, mean :שing onions.

Brewer [sarseya] – סאסיא: This word means attendant, and is likely a variation of saris in its broader sense.

Sediment [peruma] – אומא According to Rashi, the word here is :׳prozma, which perhaps comes from the Greek, προζύμια, prozumia, meaning fermenting agents or reagents used in alchemy. According to the Arukh, it refers to a sweet kind of beer, whereas the ge’onim write that it is a type of small container.

Vexatious [kanteranim] – אנים ,From the Greek κεντρόω, kentroo :קנתmeaning to prick or pierce.

Sumakhos – סומכוס: The origin of this name is the Greek σύμμαχος, sumakhos, meaning a person of the covenant, or an ally in a fight.

PERSONALITIESSumakhos – סומכוס: This is Sumakhos ben Yosef, who lived in the final generation of tanna’im. Sumakhos was the primary student of Rabbi Meir, and it was he who transmitted many of Rabbi Meir’s statements, while often providing justification for his teacher’s rulings. Like Rabbi Meir, Sumakhos was known for his sharp mind, and people would say that he could provide forty-eight reasons for any halakha. He was considered to be the greatest Torah scholar of his generation, as he would disagree even with the tanna’im Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who were colleagues of Rabbi Meir. He apparently lived a long time, as it is recorded that he engaged in Torah discussions with the amora Rav.

BACKGROUNDTeruma – אומה -Whenever the term teruma appears without qualifica :תtion, it refers to teruma gedola. The Torah commands that a portion of one’s grain, wine, and oil grown in Eretz Yisrael be set aside as teruma (Deuteronomy 18:4; Numbers 18:12). The Sages extended the scope of this mitzva to include all produce. Produce designated as teruma is sanctified and must be given to a priest, who may partake of it only while ritually pure. The Torah does not specify the amount of teruma that must be set aside; theoretically, one may fulfill his obligation by giving even a single kernel of grain from an entire crop. The Sages established a measure: One-fortieth for a generous gift, one-fiftieth for an average gift, and one-sixtieth for a miserly gift. It is prohibited to separate the tithes from produce until he has set aside teruma. Teruma is sometimes referred to as teruma gedola, great teruma, to distinguish it from teruma of the tithe.

Teruma is considered sacred and may be eaten only by a priest and his household while they are in a state of ritual purity (Leviticus 22:9–15). To emphasize that state of ritual purity, the Sages obligated the priests to wash their hands before partaking of teruma. This is the source for the practice of washing one’s hands prior to a meal. A ritually impure priest or a non-priest who eats teruma is liable to receive the penalty of death at the hand of Heaven. If teruma contracts ritual impurity it may no longer be eaten and must be destroyed, but it remains the property of the priest and he may benefit from its destruction.

Nowadays, teruma is not given to priests because they have no definite proof of their priestly lineage. Nevertheless, the obligation to separate teruma still remains, although only a small portion of the produce is separated.

Offerings of the most sacred order – ים י קדש This category :קדשincludes burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, and communal peace-offerings. The following regulations apply specifically to them: They are slaughtered only in the northern section of the Temple court-yard, those that are eaten may be eaten only on the day the animal is sacrificed and the night following that day, and they may be eaten only by male priests and only within the Temple courtyard. The prohibition against misusing consecrated property applies to these offerings as soon as they are consecrated. Once their blood has been sprinkled on the altar, the prohibition against misuse continues to apply to the portions of the offering consumed on the altar, but not to the portions of the offering that are to be eaten.

Offerings of lesser sanctity – ים קל ים This category includes :קדשvarious types of individual peace-offerings: The thanks-offering, the nazirite’s ram, the firstborn male of a kosher animal, the animal tithes, and the Paschal offering. These offerings may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard. With the exception of the thanks-offering, the nazirite’s ram, and the Paschal offering, they may be eaten until the night following the day after they were sacrificed. They may be eaten by the priests and their wives, children, and slaves, and, with the exception of the offering of a firstborn animal, by the people who bring them and anyone they invite who is ritually pure, and, if male, circum-cised. There is no need to consume these offerings within the Temple premises, but they must be consumed within the walls of Jerusalem. The prohibition against misuse of consecrated property with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity applies only to the portions consumed on the altar and only after the blood has been sprinkled on the altar.

נגד

Perek IIDaf 53 Amud a

י ין קדש חלקו, ב ש ב נמנו וגמאו: המקד

שד ים – לא קיד ים קל ים ובין קדש קדש

אמא מחלוקתד היא עדיין אמא: ואב

אא, ב י יוחנן מסת אב וותיה ד יי: כ אב

From where would a woman appear in the Temple court-yard – ין עזאה מנ ה ב Rashi indicates that it is prohibited :אשfor a woman to enter the courtyard, and the Gilyonei HaShas cites the Jerusalem Talmud in tractate Ma’aser Sheni, which indicates that there is an opinion that prohibits a woman from entering the courtyard of the Temple. Tosafot, as well as several other early commentaries quoting Rabbeinu Tam, disagree, and explain that Rabbi Yehuda meant it was uncommon for a woman to be found there.

As isn’t it common for a man, etc. – וכי אין אדם עשוי וכופ: The Mahari Beirav and the Maharsha explain that Rabbi Yehuda’s failure to consider such a simple possibility exem-plifies the statement of the Sages that one who grows angry loses his wisdom, as he had become angry over the entrance of Rabbi Meir’s student.

Just as the portion burned on the fire is for consump-tion, etc. – לאכילה וכופ Rabbeinu Ĥananel ben :מה אש Shmuel writes that there are two slightly different reasons as to why a woman cannot be betrothed with part of an offering. According to the first, aforementioned explana-tion, the priests receive their portion from the table of the Most High and do not actually own their portion, so they cannot betroth a woman with it. By contrast, according to the opinion that this halakha is derived from the phrase

“from the fire,” although the priest does own his portion of the offering, the Torah stipulates that his portion is given to him only for the purpose of eating.

notes