פירוש על קידושין 2:13

האיש מקדש בו ובשלוחו – at first by him and afterwards with his agent, for it is a greater Mitzvah by him than with his agent, for when he engages himself in the Mitzvah, he receives greater reward. And we derive [the concept] that the agent of a person is [considered] like that person (see also Mishnah Berakhot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 5) from a Biblical verse, as it is written (Exodus 12:6): “and all the assembled congregation of the Israelites shall slaughter it [at twilight],” for does the entire people of Israel slaughter the Passover [sacrifice]? But from here [we derive the concept] that the agent of a person is like that person.

Introduction The first half of today’s mishnah teaches that betrothal can be contracted through an agent. This means that a man or a woman can appoint an agent to either betroth or be betrothed. The second half of the mishnah refers to the first mishnah of chapter one where we learned that betrothal can be done with money or with something that has value. The value needed is only a perutah, the smallest coin that was in existence. Our mishnah deals with a man who gives a woman dates in order to betroth her.

האיש מקדש בת בתו כשהיא נערה – and all the more so when she is a minor. And the fact that the Mishnah took [the terminology] “a girl between the ages of twelve and twelve-and-one-half years of age” is the custom which comes to teach us that it is forbidden for a man to betroth his daughter when she is a minor until she grows [to adulthood] and says that I want [to be with] so-and-so.

A man can betroth [a woman] through himself or through his agent. A woman may be betrothed through herself or through her agent. As explained in the introduction, a man can betroth a woman through an agent. This would mean that the man gives money to an agent to use in betrothing a certain woman. This probably would have been a common means of doing betrothal if the couple lived far apart from one another and was matched by others, as was nearly always the case. Similarly, a woman may appoint an agent to receive her betrothal money.

ואם לאו, אינה מקודשת – for since he [i.e., the prospective husband] said, be betrothed to me, be betrothed to me, each one is [considered] betrothal on their own.

A man may give his daughter in betrothal when a young girl [either] himself or through his agent. A father has the right to marry off his daughter while she is still a young girl (na’arah). This is defined as a girl between the ages of 12 and 12 1/2 who has already reached puberty. He may also marry her off at a younger age, but not when she is past that age. When marrying her off, he may use an agent to accept her betrothal money. Basically, the father takes her place in matters of betrothal. I should note that while a father had the legal right to marry off his daughter and not his son, and this right extends only until she reaches 12 1/2, in practice the father played a very large role in arranging matches for both sons and daughters no matter what age they were when they married. The idea that a 12 1/2 year old girl became totally independent of her father was probably as strange of an idea in the mishnaic period as it would be today.

עד שיהא באחת מהן שוה פרוטה – this one of them is not established other with the concluding one of them, for if he said to her, “be betrothed to me with this, with that and with the other” and she would consume one at a time, all that she has consumed would be like a loan regarding her, and when she reaches the final one, the betrothal is completed; if it has [the value of] the equivalent of a Perutah/penny, he would betroth with a loan and a Perutah, and we establish that he who betroths with a loan and a Perutah, her mind is on the Perutah and she is betrothed; but if the last [item] is not worth a Perutah, even though that what came before is worth the equivalent of a Perutah, when we arrive at the conclusion of the betrothal, it is a betrothal through a loan, and one who [tries to] betroths through a loan, [the woman] is not betrothed.

He who says to a woman, “Be betrothed to me with this date, be betrothed to me with this one” if any one of them is worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. In this case a man gives a woman several dates (palm dates) in an attempt to use the dates as betrothal money. Here he says the words “Be betrothed to me” as he gives each date. The fact that he repeats the formula each time means that each act is a separate act of betrothal. Since they were separate acts, in order for the betrothal to be effective at least one of the dates must be worth a perutah. If each individual date is worth less than a perutah, we do not add the dates up so that together they make a perutah.

[If he says,] “[Be betrothed to me] with this one and with this one and with this one” if together they are worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. In this case, since he made one betrothal statement, we can add up the dates. If together they are worth a perutah then she is betrothed.

If she eats them one by one, she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth a perutah. This section continues the scenario of the previous section. In this case, while he is giving her the dates she starts to eat them one at a time (dates are quite delicious, and I guess she just couldn’t resist!) Unless one of them is worth a perutah she cannot be betrothed by the combined value of them all because they are never all in her hand at the same time.

של זהב ונמצא של כסף כו' – There are different people who prefer only that or that.

[If a man says to a woman], “Be betrothed to me with this cup of wine,” and it is found to be of honey, or “of honey” and it is found to be of wine;
“with this silver denar,” and it is found to be of gold, or “of gold” and it is found to be of silver;
“on condition that I am wealthy,” and he is found to be poor, or “poor” and he is found to be rich, she is not betrothed.
Rabbi Shimon says: if he deceives her to [her] advantage, she is betrothed.
A man may not deceptively betroth a woman; she must agree to her betrothal with full understanding of what he is giving her and under what conditions. This mishnah deals with a man who somewhat deceptively attempts to betroth a woman.
In each case in this mishnah, the husband makes an incorrect statement as part of the betrothal formula. For instance, he states that he is betrothing her with a cup of a certain liquid and it turns out to be a different liquid. Alternatively, he says that he is betrothing her with a certain type of coin and it turns out to be a different coin. Finally, he tells her that he is of a certain economic status and he is not. According to the first opinion, since the facts as he stated them are incorrect, the betrothal is ineffective. This is true even if he deceived her to her own advantage. For instance, he said that he was giving her a cup of wine and it turned out to be a cup of honey, which is more valuable than wine. According to the first opinion, we don’t reason that a woman who would agree to be betrothed to a certain man with a cup of wine would also agree to such a betrothal if done with a cup of honey, since she could always sell the honey to buy wine. Rather, the betrothal statement must be accurate.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees. He holds that if the deception is clearly to her advantage, the betrothal is valid. Therefore, if he says that the cup was honey and it turned out to be wine (cheaper) she is not betrothed. But if he told her that the cup was wine and it turned out to be honey, she is betrothed.

רבי שמעון אומר: אם הטעה לשבח, הרי זו מקודשת – Rabbi Shimon does not dispute other on [the question] of financial increase; for in and of itself, if it is of the same value, it would be fine for him. But regarding the increase in value of genealogies, such as “if he is a Levite, and it was found that he is a Kohen, Rabbi Shimon would admit that even if he had been deceived or he deceased her, even for something better, she is not betrothed, for his betterment is not pleasant for her since he exalts himself over her. And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

שפחה גודלת – who plaits women’s hair. Another explanation: someone who is talkative and a master of language, as it states (Ezekiel 35:13): “And you spoke arrogantly against Me [and multiplied your words against Me: I have heard it].”

“[Be betrothed to me] on condition that I am a priest,” and he is found to be a Levite, or “a Levite” and he is found to be a priest; “a natin,” and he is found to be a mamzer, or “a mamzer” and he is found to be a natin;
“a townsman,” and he is found to be a villager, or “a villager” and he is found to be a townsman;
“on condition that my house is near the bathhouse,” and it is found to be far, or “far” and it is found to be near;
“on condition that I have a daughter or maidservant that braids hair” and he does not have, “or on condition that I do not have”, and he has;
“on condition that I have no sons”, and he has, or “on condition that I have sons, and he does not have
--in all these cases, even if she declares, “In my heart I would have agreed to be betrothed to him in any case,” she is not betrothed.
Similarly if she deceives him.
This mishnah continues to teach that deception in matters of betrothal renders the betrothal invalid.
Sections 1-5: As was the case in the previous mishnah, in all of these cases the man makes a false statement when betrothing the woman. What is different in today’s mishnah is that in these cases it is not clear which is “better.” For instance, yesterday it was clear that having a gold denar was better than a silver one. However, here it is not clear whether the woman would rather be married to, for example a townsman, more than she would want to be married to a villager. Even living near the bathhouse is not clearly an advantage, as the foot traffic there will be greater. Since we cannot affirm which is necessarily better, in these cases Rabbi Shimon would agree that she is not betrothed.
Section one: In the context of the mishnah, we have to understand that marrying a priest is not necessarily advantage. Even though the priest receives terumah which would have been a substantial economic benefit, the woman may potentially prefer to be married to a Levite who receives tithes.
Section four: “Braids hair” might also be translated as “grown up.” While this would change the meaning of the mishnah, in either case we have to interpret that it is not a clear advantage to either have or not have a daughter or maidservant that braids hair or is grown up. Whether it is a benefit would depend if the woman prefers having some extra help over her privacy.
Section five: Having or not having sons may be connected to issues of inheritance or yibbum (levirate marriage). She may want him to have sons (or children in general), so that if he dies she won’t have to undergo yibbum. She may not want him to have sons since those sons will share with her own sons in his inheritance. Again, since we cannot affirm which is preferable, Rabbi Shimon would agree that she is not betrothed.
Section six: There is a general rule in laws of betrothal and other areas of halakhah thoughts that a person keeps to himself or herself are not legally consequential. Therefore, even if she thinks to herself that she would have agreed to be betrothed to him in any case, she is not betrothed. Had she wanted to be betrothed in any case, she should have responded at the time of betrothal, “I agree to be betrothed to you whether you are a priest or a Levite” etc.
Section seven: All of the above rules also apply if she deceives him. For instance, if she says “I am a priest’s daughter” and she is a Levite’s daughter, she is not betrothed.

אע"פ שאמרה בלבי היה להתקדש כו' – that words that are in the heart are not words.

הלך וקדשה במקום אחר – He is showing him [i.e., the agent] the place, and this is not a condition.

If he says to his agent, “Go out and betroth to me so-and-so in such and such a place,” and he goes and betroths her elsewhere, she is not betrothed.
“She is in such and such a place,” and he betroths her elsewhere, she is betrothed.
The mishnah now returns to discuss betrothal performed by a person’s agent. Today’s mishnah is nearly identical to Gittin 6:3.
In both sections, a husband appoints an agent to betroth his wife and gives the agent instructions as to where to betroth the woman. If the husband tells the agent to betroth the woman in a certain place, she is not betrothed if the agent betroths her in another place. In such a case we can assume that the husband wanted the betrothal to be performed in that specific place.
However, if the husband merely tells the agent where to find the woman, the husband does not necessarily care if she is really somewhere else. He was only helping the agent locate her. Therefore the betrothal is valid no matter where the agent eventually finds her.

תצא שלא בכתובה – for he said that it is impossible for me with a woman who takes vows. But a Jewish bill of divorce is required from doubt, since he did not specify, perhaps his mind was on a woman who takes vows.

Introduction Today’s mishnah discusses a man who betroths a woman on condition that she not have made any vows or have any defects. The exact same mishnah can be found in Ketubot 7:7.

הפוסלים בכהנים – It is explained in Tractate Ketubot (Chapter 7, Mishnah 7).

If a man betrothed a woman on condition that she was under no vows and she was found to be under vows, she is not betrothed. If he married her without making any conditions and she was found to be under vows, she leaves without her ketubah. It can be assumed that a husband does not want his wife to be subject to vows that will prevent her from engaging in certain activities, such as eating meat or drinking wine. Such vows would certainly disrupt the normal functioning of a marriage. If he betroths her on the specific condition that she is not subject to any vows, and after betrothal it is found out that she is subject to vows, she is not betrothed. Since the betrothal was made under false pretenses it is invalid and she does not need a get to remarry, nor does she receive her ketubah. However, if he did not make such a condition, and then later finds out that she is subject to vows, the marriage is valid. Nevertheless, since she should have told him that she had vows, he may divorce her without paying her the ketubah. In other words, the marriage was not exactly made under a false assumption and therefore she needs a get in order to remarry, but she still was dishonest with him and therefore she loses the ketubah.

[If a woman was betrothed] on condition that she has no bodily defects, and she was found to have defects, she is not betrothed. If he married her without making any conditions and she was found to have defects, she leaves without her ketubah. All defects which disqualify priests also disqualify women. The same rule concerning a woman subject to vows is also true with regard to a woman who has physical defects. If he specifically stipulated that she not have any physical defects (assumedly ones that he could not detect when she was clothed), and she does, the betrothal is invalid. If he did not make a stipulation, the betrothal is valid but he may divorce her without paying the ketubah. With regard to physical defects, it is essential for us to know what physical defects are significant enough that they invalidate the betrothal or allow the husband to divorce her without paying the ketubah. The answer is that any defect that disqualifies a priest from serving at the altar (see Lev 21:17), also disqualifies a woman. These defects are listed in the seventh chapter of tractate Bekhorot.

סבלונות – presents that the groom generally sends to his betrothed.

Introduction Our mishnah talks about a man who performs an invalid act of kiddushin and then later on sends presents to the woman whom he tried to betroth. The question is, is the sending of presents equivalent to a renewed and now valid act of betrothal, or are the presents not considered as effecting betrothal?

אינה מקודשת – and we don’t say that he knew that his [act of] betrothal was not a betrothal and that he determined to send her presents of betrothal for the purpose of betrothal, but we say that because of the first betrothal, he sent [them].

If he betroths two women with the value of a perutah, or one woman with less than the value of a perutah, even if he subsequently sends gifts, she is not betrothed, because he sent them on account of the first kiddushin. In both of these cases the first act does not cause the woman, or women to be betrothed because there was not a perutah’s worth given to each woman. When the man later on sends gifts which are worth more than a perutah, we might have thought that these gifts can now act as the betrothal money. After all, he clearly intended to betroth her and she clearly agreed. However, the mishnah rules that since these gifts were not sent with the intent of effecting betrothal, they do not act as such. We also do not assume that the man realized that his first act of betrothal was invalid and that he is now sending betrothal money.

וכן קטן שקידש – and he sent presents of betrothal when he became an adult

The same is true if a minor betroths. A minor cannot betroth a woman. Betrothal requires “awareness”, and minors legally lack the required “awareness.” Therefore, if he tries to betroth a certain woman, she is not betrothed. Even if he later on sends presents to the woman whom he tried to betroth, the presents do not effect kiddushin, for they were not sent as such but rather on account of the first act of betrothal, which was invalid.

אינן מקודשות – as it says in Scripture (Leviticus 18:18): “Do not marry a woman as a rival to her sister [and uncover her nakedness in the other’s lifetime].” At the time when they became rivals/associate wives to each other you have no legal marriage, even with one of them. And the same law applies to all the cases of consanguinity (i.e., where a man and woman are forbidden to each other) where they have [the punishment of] Divine extirpation, for the betrothal does not take effect.

Introduction The main point of this mishnah is that a man who tries to simultaneously betroth two women whom cannot be simultaneously betrothed to him has betrothed neither woman.

If one betroths a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister at one time, they are not betrothed. A man cannot simultaneously marry a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister. If he was already married to a certain woman and he attempted to betroth her daughter or sister, the betrothal would not be effective. The mishnah deals with a case where a man tried to betroth two such women simultaneously. Since they cannot both be effective neither is.

ושלהן היתה – We understand from our Mishnah that a person who betroths with stolen goods, and even with her stolen goods is not betrothed. And we do not say that when he received it, it took effect, for since it is taught that “it was theirs and it was Seventh-year produce,” that because it was of the Seventh year and the produce was ownerless, because of that, the women are betrothed, but sisters cannot be betrothed [to one man], but if it (i.e., the produce) was not of the Seventh-year, for it was [in reality] theirs (i.e., belonging to the sisters), betrothal does not take effect with any one of them. But especially when one betroths with stolen [produce] prior to despair [of the original owner of getting it back], we say that it is not a betrothal, but when one betroths with stolen [produce] after [the original owner] despairs [of getting it back], his betrothal is a betrothal. And we understand also that one who betroths with Seventh-year produce is betrothed. And we don’t say that they are not his monies to take possession of them, but rather, since he took possession of them, it is his money for all matters. And we also understand that a woman can become an agent for her fellow [female], and even in a case where she becomes her rival. And even though that in all testimony where a woman is fit to, the rival is not fit for it. But her agency, however, since it was done, it was done. For here in these betrothals, they are made rivals one to the other when she accepts it, for it is taught that sisters cannot become betrothed [to the same man], but women who are strangers (i.e., not related) may be betrothed [together]. And our Mishnah is reconciled in the Gemara (Kiddushin 52a) according to this Halakha, that a person who betroths a woman and her daughter or [betroths] a woman and her sister, both (i.e., woman and daughter AND woman and her sister) are viewed as one, and they are not betrothed. For one was [regarding] a woman and her daughter and one was [regarding] a woman and her sister, such as the case where he said to both of them: “One of you is betrothed to me,” but he did not explicate to which of them he is betrothing, and one of them accepted the betrothal/Kiddushin on behalf of her [female] partner (i.e., either her sister or her daughter), or both of them accepted the Kiddushin/betrothal as one, betrothed, but both of them require a Jewish bill of divorce. And if he said: “[to the one] who is appropriate for me for engage in sexual relations is betrothed to me,” they are not betrothed, for each one of them (i.e., these pairs of women – woman and sister; woman and daughter) there is [the question] of doubting her [on account of] the sister and of his wife, and none of them are appropriate for sexual relations. And there is also the story (spelled out in our Mishnah) and among them, two are sisters and one [man] collected a basked containing chosen fruits and said to the one appropriate for sexual relations, “become betrothed to me.” But the Sages said, that sisters may not become betrothed [to one man], but strangers who were worthy for sexual relationships can be betrothed. But if one [man] said: “All of you are betrothed to me,” not a single one of them are betrothed to him, for just as sisters cannot become betrothed [together to the same man], so all the others cannot betrothed to him, since he said, “all of you.”

And it once happened that five women, among whom were two sisters, that a man gathered a basket of figs, which was theirs, and which was of the seventh year, and he said, “Behold, you are betrothed to me with this basket,” and one accepted it on behalf of them all and the sages said: the sisters are not betrothed. This is a classic rabbinic story, utterly packed with information. The main thing which we learn is that if one tries to simultaneously betroth two sisters, neither sister is betrothed. However, we also learn the following halakhot. 1) A man can betroth a group of women with one act of betrothal, and even if the betrothal is ineffective with some of the women (the sisters) it is effective with the others. 2) During the seventh year (the sabbatical year) a man can betroth using the agricultural produce of the women he is betrothing. This is because such produce is considered ownerless during the sabbatical year and when the man picks it up he owns it. 3) One woman can simultaneously accept kiddushin for herself and for other women. By packing all of these details into one brief story, the story becomes an excellent didactic opportunity, far exceeding that which it is brought to explicitly demonstrate that if one tries to simultaneously betroth two sisters, neither sister is betrothed

המקדש בחלקו – [the portion] that he divided with his brothers who are Kohanim.

Introduction This mishnah deals with attempts to betroth using various different types of sanctified property. The real question is, does the property belong to the one using it such that his betrothal is effective?

אינה מקודשת – because the Kohanim became worthy from the table of “On-High” (i.e., God), and Scripture states (Numbers 18:9): “This shall be yours from the most holy sacrifices: the gifts….” Just as fire you cannot use other than for eating, so too, these gifts you shall not use them other then for eating. And regarding tithes, it is written that they are for God, and it shall remain in his status.

If he [a priest] betroths [a woman] with his portion, whether it is of higher holiness or of lower holiness, she is not betrothed. Portions of many sacrifices go to the priests who eat them. However, a priest cannot use them as his betrothal money because these portions are not considered to be his possessions. Rather, the priest’s right to them is limited to his or other priests eating. Since for kiddushin to be effective the man must own that which he gives to the woman, the priest’s portion in sacrifices may not be used.

רבי יהודה אומר מזיד קידש – Second Tithe, for it goes out to become non-sacred produce through redemption, and it was removed to non-sacred produce via this sanctification (i.e., betrothal). And Rabbi Meir there is no path of redemption in this manner.

[If one betroths] with second tithe, whether unwittingly or deliberately, he has not betrothed [her]: the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if unwittingly, he has not betrothed [her]; if deliberately, he has betrothed [her]. Second tithe must be taken to Jerusalem and there it may be eaten by its owner. According to Rabbi Meir, second tithe does not belong to its owners. It is sanctified property “kadosh” and just as portions of sacrifices cannot be used for kiddushin, so too second tithe cannot be used. Rabbi Judah says that second tithe does belong to its owner. Therefore if he deliberately did kiddushin with it, she is betrothed. However, if he unwittingly uses the second tithe for kiddushin then she is not betrothed for this was a mistaken act of kiddushin.

ובהקדש – of keeping the Temple in repair.

[If] with sanctified property, if deliberately, he has betrothed her; if unwittingly, he has not betrothed [her], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if unwittingly, he has betrothed her; if deliberately, he has not betrothed her. Sanctified property can become non-sanctified property if it is redeemed. However, if it is not redeemed then it remains sanctified and cannot be used for betrothal. According to Rabbi Meir, if the man intentionally uses sanctified property as his betrothal money, he is in essence redeeming it. The betrothal is valid and the man will owe to the Temple the value of that which he gave to the woman. However, if he does so unwittingly, then the sanctified property is not redeemed and therefore the betrothal is invalid. Rabbi Judah disagrees on both counts. He holds that one who intentionally uses the sanctified property for betrothal does not thereby redeem it, therefore the betrothal is invalid. However, if he unwittingly uses the sanctified property this is considered “me’ilah” improper use of sacred property. In such cases the object which was misappropriated loses its sacred status and the person who misappropriated the property owes the Temple the value of the object plus one-fifth and must bring a guilt offering. The key for our purposes is that the object is no longer sacred, and therefore the betrothal is valid.

מדיד קידש – for since he new that it was dedicated to the Temple and he removed it to non-sacred status on purpose, his holiness became profaned.

ובשוגג – that he did not know that it was dedicated Temple property and he did not like it that dedicated Temple property would become profaned by his hand, his holiness was not profaned, and she is not betrothed. But Rabbi Yehuda held the opposite, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir in tithing, and according to Rabbi Yehuda as regarding objects dedicated to the Temple worship.

המקדש בערלה וכו' אינה מקודשת – since all of them are forbidden to derive benefit [from them]. The fruit of trees from the first three years, as it is written (Leviticus 19:23): “[Three years it shall be forbidden to you,] not to be eaten,” both the prohibition of eating and the prohibition of deriving benefit by implication.

Introduction This mishnah lists things from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Therefore, a man who tries to betroth a woman with one of these items has not betrothed her. In my explanation I will explain what each of these items is.

ובכלאי הכרם – as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:9): “[You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed,] else the crop [from the seed you have sown – and the yield of the vineyard may not be used],” lest it be burned by fire.

“Orlah”: Fruit from a tree during its first three years (Leviticus 19:27). “Kilayim of the vineyard”: Wheat which has been planted in a vineyard (Deuteronomy 22:19). “An ox which is to be stoned”: An ox that has killed a person must be stoned to death (Exodus 21:28). “The heifer whose neck is to be broken”: This refers to the ceremony performed when a body is found and its murderer is unknown (Deuteronomy 21:4). “A leper’s bird-offerings”: At the end of his leprosy (tzaraat) the leper brings two birds as sacrifices (Leviticus 14:4). “A nazirite’s hair”: The nazirite cuts his hair at the end of his naziriteship and burns it (Numbers 6:18). “The first-born of a donkey”: The first-born of a donkey must be redeemed by donating a sheep. Until that point it is prohibited to derive benefit from it (Exodus 13:13). “Meat [boiled] in milk”: Exodus 23:19 and parallels. “Non-sacred meat slaughtered in the Temple court”: It is forbidden to slaughter non-sacrificial meat in the Temple court.

ובשור הנסקל – as it is written concerning it (Exodus 21:26): “[When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, that ox shall be stoned] and its flesh shall not be eaten….”

If he sells them and betroths [her] with the proceeds, she is betrothed. It is forbidden to derive benefit from all of the above items. They also may not be sold. However, if he does sell them, the money does not retain the prohibited status of the original item. Therefore, the money is effective for betrothal. Note that the mishnah does not state that it is permitted to use the money for betrothal. The act may be prohibited but nevertheless effective.

ובעגלה ערופה – as it is written about it “absolve” like with things dedicated to the Temple (Kiddushin 57a) as it states (Deuteronomy 21:8): “Absolve [O LORD, Your people Israel whom You redeemed, and do not let guilt for the blood of the innocent remain among Your people Israel] and they will be absolved of bloodguilt.”

בציפורי מצורע – As is taught in a Baraita (Kiddushin 57a – the School of Rabbi Yishmael): It is stated: an offering which makes it fit [for admission to the Temple or eating sacred food] and an offering which procures atonement are mentioned within [the Temple]; the guilt offering of the leper which qualifies him to eat sacred food, and his sin offering which atones, both of them are offered inside [the Temple]. And it is stated: an offering which makes him fit and atones outside, also qualifies him; the birds of the leper that qualify him to come into the camp [of Israel], and which atone; the heifer whose neck is broken – where it says concerning it “and they will be absolved of bloodguilt” (Deuteronomy 21:8), and both of them are performed outside of the Temple court. Just as it qualifies him and atones for him which is mentioned – inside the Temple, which are the guilt offering and sin-offering of the leper, that which qualifies him is like that which atones, for both of them are sacred things and it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them, so also that which qualifies him and atones for him outside, which are the birds of the leper and the heifer whose neck is broken, qualifies for him as it atones for him are also prohibited to derive benefit [from them]. And from when are the birds of the leper prohibited to derive benefit? From the time of their slaughter, and the slaughtered bird alone is prohibited to benefit from it; but the heifer whose neck is to be broken – its being brought down to an ever-flowing wadi, prohibit it [to derive benefit from it].

ובשער הנזיר – As Scripture states (Numbers 6:5): “[Throughout the term of his vow as nazirite, no razor shall touch his head;] it shall remain consecrated [until the completion of his term as nazirite of the LORD,] the hair of his head being left to grow untrimmed.” The growth of the untrimmed hair of his head makes it holy.

ופטר חמור – It is stated concerning him (i.e., the firstling ass) (Exodus 13:13): “[But every firstling ass you shall redeem with a sheep; if you do not redeem it] you must break its neck….” And it is stated concerning the heifer whose neck is to be broken (Deuteronomy 21:4): “There, in the wadi, they shall break the heifer’s neck. Just as the heifer whose neck is broken is prohibited to derive benefit from it, so also one may not derive benefit from the firstling ass, and it is not permitted to derive benefit from the heifer other an after its neck is broken.

ובבשר בחלב – it is stated three times [in the Torah: (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21): “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk,” One of them prohibits eating and one prohibits deriving benefit and one of them prohibits cooking.

ובחולין שנשחטו בעזרה – as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:21): “[If the place where the LORD has chosen to establish His name] is too far from you, you may slaughter [any of the cattle or sheep that LORD gives you…].”If the Place is distant from you, you may slaughter, but you may not slaughter if the Place is close to you. It is possible that you may not eat it, but rather cast it to dogs, as we learn (Exodus 22:30): “[You shall be holy people to Me: you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field;] you shall cast it to the dogs.” That (i.e., flesh torn by beasts in the field) you shall cast to the dogs, but not non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple court.

מכרן וקדש בדמיהן מקודשת – for you may not have anything that stamps its purchase price [with its own sacred character] that will be like it other than idolatry and Seventh-year produce. Idolatry – as it states (Deuteronomy 7:26): “[You must not bring an abhorrent thing into your house,] or you will be proscribed like it; [you must reject it as abominable and abhorrent, for it is proscribed].” Everything from which you derive benefit, it becomes like it. And [concerning] Seventh-year produce, where it says (Leviticus 25:12): “[For it is a jubilee.] It shall be holy to you; [you may only eat the growth direct from the field.]” It stamps its purchase price like something dedicated to the Temple. And Idolatry and Seventh-year produce are two verses that come with the same teaching, and all cases which have two verses that come with the same teaching, we don’t learn anything from them.

המקדש בתרומות – The Great Terumah (i.e., the two-percent that every Israelite gives to a Kohen) and the “tithe-of-the tithe” (i.e., the one-tenth of the tenth that the Levite receives from an Israelite that goes to a Kohen).

Introduction In this mishnah we learn about a man who betroths a woman using certain things from which it is not prohibited to derive benefit.

ובמעשרות – First Tithe and the Poor Tithe.

If he betroths with terumot, tithes, priestly gifts, the water of purification or the ashes of purification behold she is betrothed, even if he is an Israelite. Terumot: Terumah can only be eaten by a priest. A priest can use terumah for betrothal and then the woman may sell it. However, even an Israelite can potentially own terumah. For instance, if someone’s maternal grandfather is a priest, he is not a priest because the priesthood is not inherited through his mother. In such a case he will inherit from his grandfather, if his mother inherits from her father and then dies. The non-priest cannot eat the terumah which he inherits, but he can sell it. He could also use it for betrothal and then the woman can sell it. He would have to tell her that it is terumah, because terumah is less valuable than regular food. Tithes: These are given to the Levite, who may use them for betrothal. An Israelite can use them for betrothal in the same way described above. Priestly gifts: This refers to parts of non-sacred animals given to priests (see Deuteronomy 18:3). The priest can use them as betrothal money and if they come into the hands of an Israelite, he too can use them. The water and ash of purification: To purify someone who came into contact with a dead body, they would burn the red heifer and put its ash into water. According to the Talmud, our mishnah refers to someone who betroths with payment he received for drawing the water or for bringing the dust. One cannot betroth with the water or ahs itself because there is no financial benefit to be derived from them. I should note that I have explained that an Israelite cannot betroth with terumot or tithes that he separates from his own produce. Such gifts must be given for free directly to a priest or Levite. However, it is possible to explain that the mishnah is referring to the tithes or terumot that an Israelite himself separates from his produce. The Israelite has the benefit of being able to give such gifts to whichever priest or Levite he so desires. This benefit is worth money for it will make the priest or Levite look favorably upon him. It is with this benefit that he is betrothing the woman. She now has the benefit of giving the terumot or tithes to anyone she wishes. While this may be a small benefit, remember, it only takes a perutah.

ומתנות – the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach (see Deuteronomy 18:3).

ובמי חטאת – and with the water of the ashes of a sin-offering, and they are suitable to be sold to the impure to take from the reward for bringing them to the Temple place and the reward for drawing water for the altar. But the reward for sprinkling and the reward for Kiddush, which is giving the ashes in water, is forbidden.

ואפילו ישראל – this is how it should be understood: And even an Israelite to whom fell Terumot and gifs from the house of his mother’s father who is a Kohen, for he was found worthy of them and he is able to sell them to Kohanim, and if he betrothed a woman with them, she is betrothed. And even if Terumot did not fall to him, but rather eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, which had not yet been dedicated, for since, the Kohen inherits them, he stands to raise them and these Terumot are his. And this Israelite who inherited them also can separate from them the Terumah and it is his, and he can sell them to Kohanim, for the gifts that had not been dedicated are like those that had been dedicated.