POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kidushin 53
KIDUSHIN 51-55 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) TRADING KODSHIM
(a) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): (A man was Mekadesh with Kodshei
Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim -) the Kidushin is valid;
2) KIDUSHIN WITH MA'ASER SHENI
1. R. Yosi says, it is invalid.
(b) (R. Yochanan): They both learn from the verse "This will
be to you from the Kodshei Kodashim from the fire" - R.
Yehudah explains, "to you" - for all your needs;
1. R. Yosi explains, as "fire" - just as the Altar
consumes its share, the share of Kohanim is for
(c) (R. Yochanan): A vote was taken - the consensus was, she
is not Mekudeshes (and R. Yehudah retracted).
(d) (Rav): They still argue, neither side retracted.
(e) (Abaye): A Beraisa supports R. Yochanan.
1. (Beraisa) Question: From where do we know that
Menachos (flour-offerings) may not be traded for
(f) (Rava): A different Beraisa supports Rav!
2. Answer: "Every Minchah baked in an oven...will be to
all Benei Aharon".
3. Suggestion: Perhaps Menachos may not be traded for
animal offerings, because a (moderately) poor person
never brings a Minchah in place of an animal - but
Menachos may be traded for birds, because a poor
person brings a Minchah in place of birds.
4. Rejection: "(Any Minchah made) in a deep pan...will
be to all Benei Aharon".
5. Suggestion: Perhaps Menachos may not be traded for
birds, because they are so different (birds are
living beings, Menachos are made of flour) - but
birds may be traded for animals, because both are
6. Rejection: "(Any Minchah made) in a shallow
pan...will be to all Benei Aharon" (the verse is not
needed to teach about Menachos, it is expounded to
teach about other offerings).
7. Suggestion: Perhaps birds may not be traded for
animals, because animals are slaughtered with a
vessel, and Melikah of birds is with the Kohen's
body (fingernail) - but Menachos may be traded for
other Menachos, since they are both offered by hand.
8. Rejection: "Any Minchah kneaded with oil...will be
to all Benei Aharon".
9. Suggestion: Perhaps Menachos made in deep pans may
not be traded for Menachos made in shallow pans, for
the former are soft and the latter are hard - but
Menachos of the same consistency may be traded for
10. Rejection: "Or a dry Minchah (i.e. without oil) will
be to all Benei Aharon".
11. Suggestion: Perhaps Kohanim may not trade Kodshei
Kodashim, but they may trade Kodshim Kalim.
12. Rejection: "A man as his brother...if for a
thanksgiving offering" - just as they may not trade
(Menachos which are) Kodshei Kodashim, they may not
trade Kodshim Kalim (e.g. thanksgiving offerings).
13. "A man" - an adult Kohen receives a share, even if
he is blemished, but minors never receive.
i. A Sifra (a Beraisa expounding verses in
Vayikra), if no author is mentioned, is as R.
Yehudah - and he says, Kodshim may not be
traded at all! (This is the support for R.
1. (Beraisa): The modest Kohanim would refrain (from
taking from the Lechem ha'Panim), the ravenous
Kohanim would divide it.
(g) Rejection: No - this means, they would grab it.
1. (End of the Beraisa): One Kohen once grabbed his
portion and that of another Kohen - they called him
"ben Chamtzan" (the robber) until the day he died.
2. Question: From where do we know that Chamtzan is a
3. Answer #1 (Rabah bar Rav Shilo): This is from the
verse "Hash-m, save me...from a Chometz".
4. Answer #2 (Rabah): It is from "Support the Chamutz
(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir) If a man was Mekadesh with Ma'aser
Sheni - whether or not he knew it was Ma'aser Sheni, the
Kidushin is invalid; R. Yehudah says, if he knew it was
Ma'aser Sheni, the Kidushin is valid.
(b) Question: From where do they learn?
(c) Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): "All Ma'aser of the land,
from fruits of the tree, to Hash-m, it is Kodesh to
Hash-m" - Ma'aser is to Hash-m, not to Mekadesh a woman.
(d) Question: But by Terumas Ma'aser, it says "Terumas
Hash-m" (and it can Mekadesh)!
1. (Mishnah): A man that is Mekadesh a woman with
Terumos - she is Mekudeshes.
(e) Answer: There, it does not say Kodesh.
(f) Question: But by Shemitah, it says "It is Kodesh to you"
(and it can Mekadesh)!
1. (Mishnah): A man that is Mekadesh a woman with fruit
of Shemitah - she is Mekudeshes.
(g) Answer: There, it does not say 'to Hash-Me'ilah'.
(h) Question: But by Terumah, it says "Yisrael are Kodesh to
Hash-m, the beginning of his crop" (and Terumah can
(i) Answer #1: The verse says that Yisrael are to Hash-m, not
(j) Question: But the verse says that Yisrael are as Terumah,
i.e. both are to Hash-m!
3) KIDUSHIN WITH HEKDESH
(k) Answer #2 (Ravin): By Ma'aser, it says "It is" - this
teaches, it will always keep its status (of being to
(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): If a man was Mekadesh with Hekdesh -
if he knew it was Hekdesh, the Kidushin is valid; if not,
1. R. Yehudah says, if he knew it was Hekdesh, the
Kidushin is invalid; if not, it is valid.
(b) (R. Yakov): R. Yochanan explained why R. Yehudah says
that she is not Mekudeshes when he unknowingly gave her
Ma'aser, and why R. Meir says that she is not Mekudeshes
when he unknowingly gave her Hekdesh.
1. In 1 case, the woman would not agree if she knew; in
the other case, neither party would agree if he or
(c) Question (Rava): She is not Mekudeshes - does the money
2. R. Yakov: I do not know which of these applies to
Ma'aser, and which to Hekdesh.
3. R. Yirmeyah: By Ma'aser, she is not happy, for now
she must take the money to Yerushalayim to use it;
he is happy, for he acquired a woman with money
which was of limited use;
i. By Hekdesh, neither is happy that Hekdesh was
profaned through them.
4. R. Yakov holds, one could say the opposite: by
Ma'aser, she is not happy, for now she must take the
money to Yerushalayim to use it; he is unhappy, for
if the money is lost on the way, the Kidushin is
invalid (or - she is Mekudeshes, but she will be
5. By Hekdesh, she is not happy that Hekdesh was
profaned through her, but he is happy that he
acquired a woman with money which was of limited
(d) Answer (Rav Chisda): Since she is not Mekudeshes, of
course the money remains Hekdesh!
(e) Question (R. Chiya bar Avin): What is the case by a
purchase (in which unknowingly, Hekdesh money was given)?
(f) Answer (Rav Chisda): Also by a purchase, it is invalid.
(g) Question (Mishnah - R. Meir): A grocer has the same law
as a common man (i.e. if Reuven unknowingly gave him
coins of Hekdesh, even if they were unwrapped, if the
grocer uses them, he transgresses Me'ilah);
1. R. Yehudah says, his law is as a moneychanger (he
transgresses Me'ilah only if the coins were wrapped
- if they were unwrapped, Reuven transgresses, for
he knows that the grocer will use them).
(h) Answer: R. Meir does not hold this way - in that Mishnah,
he addresses R. Yehudah on R. Yehudah's terms.
2. They only argue regarding the status of a grocer -
but all agree that one who spends Hekdesh coins, he
1. R. Meir: I hold, even if he spent them, he did not
transgress Me'ilah - granted, you argue on this, but
at least admit that a grocer is as a common man (so
Reuven is exempt)!
2. R. Yehudah: No, a grocer is as a moneychanger.