Kiddushin - Daf 54
- Machlokes if kiddushin done unknowingly with כתנות כהונה is effective
Rav says that Rebbe Meir always holds that hekdesh becomes chullin in a transaction, even where the parties were unaware of its status. Therefore, he disagrees with Rebbe Yochanan’s explanation of Rebbe Meir’s position (that kiddushin made mistakenly with hekdesh is invalid because one or both party would not have been willing to use it), and explains that the Mishnah is discussing kiddushin with כתנות כהונה שלא בלו – tunics of Kohanim which were not worn out (and are fit for avodah), הואיל וניתנו ליהנות בהן – since they were given for Kohanim to benefit from them, לפי שלא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת – because the Torah was not given to ministering angels. Since it is impossible to avoid benefiting from the garments after completing their avodah (since their removal requires time), their original kedushah includes an allowance for unintentional benefit, and they do not become chullin. Since they remain hekdesh, kiddushin made unwittingly with these garments is invalid. Rebbe Yehudah disagrees and holds that although the unavoidable benefit from the tunics after avodah is permitted, all other benefit is prohibited and does render them chullin. Therefore, he holds kiddushin made mistakenly with them is valid.
- Machlokes ifכרם רבעי is ממון גבוה re: פרט ועוללות
In the Mishnah on Daf 52b, Rebbe Meir said that kiddushin with maaser sheni is never valid, because he holds מעשר ממון גבוה – maaser [sheni] is Divine property and is not owned by the man. The Gemara says the halachah follows Rebbe Meir in this ruling, because an anonymous Mishnah follows his opinion: Beis Shammai says that כרם רבעי – a fourth-year vineyard does not require paying an additional fifth when redeeming it (as maaser sheni does), and Beis Hillel says כרם רבעי does require paying an extra fifth. Beis Shammai says that כרם רבעי is subject to the halachah of פרט and עוללות (certain grapes which are left for the poor from personal vineyards), but Beis Hillel says: כולו לגת – all of it goes to the winepress, because Beis Hillel’s opinion is that כרם רבעי, like maaser sheni, is Divine property, and exempt from פרט and עוללות. The Gemara explains that Beis Hillel derives from a gezeirah shavah (קודש קודש) to equate כרם רבעי with maaser sheni, and Beis Shammai does not. This proves Beis Hillel holds that maaser sheni itself is ממון גבוה, and therefore not subject to פרט and עוללות (and Beis Hillel’s view is equal to an anonymous Mishnah).
- Acquiring maaser sheni with משיכה
After several attempts to show anonymous Mishnayos following Rebbe Yehudah’s opinion, that maaser sheni is considered the grower’s personal property, are deflected, a Mishnah is presented which does: משך הימנו מעשר בסלע – If one drew the maaser [sheni] of his friend near to acquire it while it was worth a sela, ולא הספיק לפדותו עד שעמד בשתים – but did not manage to redeem it (and simultaneously pay for it) until it was worth two, נותן סלע ומשתכר בסלע – he pays his friend a sela and profits a sela (because he acquired it at the time of משיכה), and the maaser is his. The Gemara argues that if this Mishnah followed Rebbe Meir, he would have to pay its current value of two selaim, because the Torah says about all Divine property: ונתן הכסף וקם לו – he shall give the money and then it shall become his, but not through משיכה!? The Gemara concedes that this anonymous Mishnah follows Rebbe Yehudah’s opinion that maaser sheni is personal property, but the halachah follows Rebbe Meir because an anonymous Mishnah in Eduyos (the most authoritative mesechta) follows his opinion.
