משנה: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּעָרְלָה וּבְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וּבְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקַל וּבְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה וּבְצִיפּוֹרֵי מְצוֹרָע בִּשְׂעַר נָזִיר וּבְפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר וּבְבָשָׂר בֶּחָלָב וּבְחוּלִין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָעֲזָרָה אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מְכָרָן וְקִידֵּשׁ בִּדְמֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. MISHNAH: If a man performs preliminary marriage using ‘orlah211The fruit of a tree in the first three years after planting whose usufruct is forbidden (Leviticus.19.23-24">Lev. 19:23–24; cf. Introduction to Tractate ‘Orlah.) The entire list consists of items forbidden for usufruct. Since marriage is to the man’s advantage, items forbidden for usufruct cannot be used as marriage gifts., or kilaim of a vineyard212While mixtures of seeds are always forbidden (cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim), only foreign produce in a vineyard is forbidden for usufruct (Deuteronomy.22.9">Deut. 22:9)., or an ox sentenced to be stoned213An animal which killed a human (Exodus.21.28">Ex. 21:28,Exodus.21.29">29)., or a calf whose neck was broken214To atone for an unsolved murder (Deuteronomy.21.1-9">Deut. 21:1–9); cf. Tractate Soṭah, Chapter 9., or the birds of a sufferer from skin disease215The two birds the recovered sufferer from skin disease needs for his purification (Leviticus.14.1-7">Lev. 14:1–7)., the hair of a nazir216Which must be burned when his sacrifice is cooked, Numbers.6.18">Num. 6:18., or the first-born of a she-ass217This is forbidden for usufruct only before it was redeemed by a lamb, or whose neck broken. Exodus.13.11-13">Ex. 13:11–13. The question of the biblical root of the prohibition of usufruct is raised in the Halakhah., or meat cooked in milk218Exodus.23.19">Ex. 23:19, Exodus.34.26">34:26, Deuteronomy.14.21">Deut. 14:21., or profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct219Forbidden for usufruct by rabbinic interpretation., [the woman] is not preliminarily married. If he sells any of these items220While the sale is sinful, the coins received in payment are not forbidden. and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, she is preliminarily married.
הלכה: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּעָרְלָה וּבְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם כול׳. פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. מָה אִם הַבְּכוֹר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא מִידֵי אִיסּוּרִין בְּחַייָו אַתְּ אָמַר. מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. זֶה שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא מִידֵי אִיסּוּרִין בְּחַייָו לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. מַה נְפִיק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. עָבַר וּפְדָייוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. אֵינוֹ פָדוּי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. פָּדוּי. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וּפְלִיגָא עֲלוֹי. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הַגּוֹנֵב פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. וְסוֹפָא פְלִיגָא עֲלוֹי. שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בן עַכְשָׁיו יֵשׁ לוֹ בן לְאַחַר זְמָן. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. פָּתַר לָהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר לְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין לְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ פָדוּי. HALAKHAH: “If a man performs preliminary marriage using ‘orlah, or kilaim of a vineyard,” etc. The first-born of a she-ass, Rebbi Eleazar said, may be used to preliminarily marry a woman; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it may not be used to preliminarily marry a woman. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first-born of a she-ass may be used to preliminarily marry a woman by an argument de minore ad majus. Since you say that a firstling, whose prohibition cannot be lifted during its lifetime, can be used to preliminarily marry a woman, this one, whose prohibition can be lifted during its lifetime, not so much more221The firstlings of cattle, sheep, or goats (the animals admitted to the altar) must be given to a Cohen. If without blemish, the animal must be sacrificed and eaten by Cohanim. If blemished, it remains the property of the Cohen and may be eaten by any Jew. In both cases, the living animal cannot be used for any work. The only use permitted is as sanctified or profane food; as far as use goes it is forbidden during its lifetime and becomes permitted by slaughter. But the firstling of a she-ass is supposed to be redeemed by the gift of a lamb to a Cohen; by this act, the donkey becomes totally profane and can be put to work immediately.? What is the difference between them222What additional differences does one find between Rabbis Eleazar and Joḥanan?? If somebody transgressed and redeemed it without the knowledge of its owner223A third party gave a lamb to a Cohen to redeem the firstborn of the she-ass, without knowledge of the latter’s owner.. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not redeemed224For R. Eleazar the unredeemed donkey is his owner’s property; it cannot be redeemed without the owner’s knowledge. For R. Joḥanan the unredeemed donkey is not the owner’s money, being forbidden for the latter’s usufruct, but it can be redeemed by a third party.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is redeemed224For R. Eleazar the unredeemed donkey is his owner’s property; it cannot be redeemed without the owner’s knowledge. For R. Joḥanan the unredeemed donkey is not the owner’s money, being forbidden for the latter’s usufruct, but it can be redeemed by a third party.. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar and disagrees with him. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: 225Quoted in the Bekhorot.11a">Babli, Bekhorot11a. The translation follows the Babli in reading בּוֹ “in it” instead of בן “son” of the ms. If somebody steals the first-born of another person’s she-ass, he has to pay double restitution226This implies that the unredeemed firstling represents property value, agreeing with R. Eleazar.. The end227The second half of the baraita quoted, Kiddushin 2:8:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.8.2">Note 225. disagrees with him: For even though he has no interest in it now he will later228Since by giving a lamb to the Cohen the owner can establish ownership of the donkey. This agrees with R. Joḥanan’s opinion that the unredeemed firstling donkey is not his owner’s property.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman229A paraphrase of Mishnah 9.. Rebbi Eleazar explained that, after breaking of [the foal’s] neck. For Rebbi Eleazar said, everybody agrees that after its neck was broken it cannot be redeemed230If the owner prefers to break the neck of his firstling donkey rather than give a lamb to a Cohen, R. Eleazar agrees that by this act he has lost his ownership and the carcass is forbidden for any usufruct. The Babli agrees in the name of Babylonian authorities, 57b; Bekhorot.10b">Bekhorot 10b..
פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּתַרְתֵּיי. אִין בְּחַיי דִּפְלִיגָא עֲלוֹי מִן רַבָּנִין. אִין לְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה פְלִיגָא עֲלוֹי מִן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁמֵּת. עָֽרְפוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. עֲרִיפָה עֲרִיפָה. מָה עֲרִיפָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן עוֹרְפוֹ וְקוֹבְרוֹ וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה. אַף עֲרִיפָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה כָּאן עוֹרְפוֹ [וְקוֹבְרוֹ] וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר נִיחָא. בְּחַייָו הוּא מַתִּיר צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא אָסוּר עַל עֲרִיפָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְקַשְׁיָא. בְּחַייָו הוּא אָסוּר לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן לְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה. אָתָא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין. עַל דְּרַבָּנִין צְרִיכָה. שֶׁלֹֹּא תֹאמַר. הוֹאִיל וְהִקֵּישָׁתָהּ הַתּוֹרָה עֲרִיפָתוֹ לְפִדְיוֹנוֹ. מַה פִדְיוֹנוֹ יוֹצֵא לַחוּלִין אַף עֲרִיפָתוֹ יוֹצֵא לַחוּלִין. מָצִינוּ דָבָר שֶׁהֲרָמָתוֹ יוֹצֵא לַחוּלִין וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה. הָתִיבוֹן. הֲרֵי טֵבֵל טָבוֹל לְמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי הֲרֵי הוּא וַהֲרָמָתוֹ יוֹצֵא לַחוּלִין. וְאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי. הָאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתָיו טְבוּלִים לְמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי חַייָב מִיתָה. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. כָּךְ מֵשִׁיבִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי שִמְעוֹן. מָצִינוּ דָּבָר טָעוּן פִּדְיוֹן מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָייָה. הָתִיבוֹן. הֲרֵי בְּכוֹר אָדָם טָעוּן פִּדְיוֹן וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָייָה. 231This is a new baraita; in slightly different formulation it appears in the Bekhorot.10b-11a">Babli, Bekhorot 10b–11a.“One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” That disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar in two respects. If during its lifetime, it disagrees following the rabbis; if after breaking the neck, it disagrees following Rebbi Simeon232The baraita does not specify the status of the firstling. It is clear that after redemption the firstling is profane and can be used as a marriage gift. If the baraita speaks of the living unredeemed firstling, it contradicts R. Eleazar’s statement that it can be given as marriage gift. If it refers to the dead firstling, the assertion that R. Simeon permits its use contradicts the statement that everybody prohibits the dead fistling.. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Explain it that it died233It died a natural death before being redeemed. In this version, R. Simeon will agree that usufruct is forbidden after its neck was broken. This is the Babli’s explanation, loc.cit. Note 230.. If he broke its neck, it is forbidden for usufruct, but Rebbi Simeon permits it. 234A new baraita, Bekhorot.10b">Babli Bekhorot10b; Mekhilta dR.Ismael Pisḥa 18 (Horovitz-Rabin p. 71); Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai 13:13 (Epstein-Melamed p. 43). Then the comparison is between breaking the neck of the firstling and of the calf which atones for an unsolved murder. Since the calf has to be buried and its grave is forbidden for all usufruct (Sotah 9:5:10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.9.5.10">Soṭah 9:5, Note 132) it is clear that the carcass itself is forbidden for all usufruct.“Breaking the neck, breaking the neck.” Since “breaking the neck” mentioned there implies that one has to break its neck, bury it, and it is forbidden for usufruct, so “breaking of the neck” mentioned here implies that one has to break its neck, [bury it,]235Added from all parallel sources and a Genizah fragment. and it is forbidden for usufruct. Following Rebbi Eleazar it is understandable. He permits during its lifetime; he needs an argument to forbid it after the breaking of the neck. Following Rebbi Joḥanan it is difficult. If it is forbidden during its lifetime, not so much more after breaking of its neck? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: It is needed following the rabbis, lest you say that since the Torah combined the breaking of its neck with its redemption236The prohibition of usufruct of the firstling after its neck was broken is far from clear from the biblical text. Redemption by a lamb or breaking the neck are mentioned in the same verse (Exodus.13.13">Ex. 13:13, Exodus.34.20">34:20); one might assume that both follow the same rule. The same explanation is given in the Bekhorot.10b">Babli, Bekhorot 10b., and its redemption makes it profane, so also the breaking of its neck should make it profane236aA Genizah fragment adds here:
לפם כן צרך מימר עריפה ער' וגו'. ר' יעקב בר אחא בש' רב י.. ... שמעון את חכמין.
Therefore it was necessary to say "breaking the neck, breaking the neck." R. Jacob bar Aha in the name of Reb[bi] Y[ohanan].... one understands this for the Sages.
The text seems to be redundant; its omission in the Leiden text may be original.. Do we find anything whose lifting makes profane and which is forbidden for usufruct237This challenges R. Joḥanan’s position that the living unredeemed firstling is forbidden for ususfruct. In comparable cases, untithed produce (ṭevel) or sacrificial animals which developed a blemish, redemption transfers holiness to the redeeming object. But in the case of the donkey both it and the redeeming lamb are totally profane.? They objected: There is ṭevel containing the tithe of the poor238In general, ṭevel is produce from which either the required heave or the tithe was not taken; its consumption is sinful. The tithe of the poor is due in the third and sixth years of a Sabbatical cycle, when no Second Tithe is due. Its only claim to biblical status is from Deuteronomy.14.28">Deut. 14:28. Second Tithe, which must be eaten near the Sanctuary, has a status of holiness; produce from which Second Tithe was not taken is recognized as ṭevel(Ma‘aser Šeni 3:5, Notes 61ff.) But the tithe of the poor is totally profane; produce from which this tithe was not taken is referred to as ṭevel only here. which becomes totally profane by its lifting; but Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rebbi239It seems that one should read “Rav” instead of “Rebbi”.: A person eating produce which is ṭevel for the tithe of the poor is guilty of a deadly sin. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: So the rabbis answer Rebbi Simeon: Do we find anything that needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct240Any dedicated animals which become disqualified as sacrifices are forbidden for all use before being redeemed.? He replied to them: There is the first-born human who needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct241A first-born human male whose father did not redeem him by giving five Šeqalim to a Cohen must redeem himself when adult, but nowhere is there any restriction on his earning power before redemption..
מְכָרָן וְקִידֵּשׁ בִּדְמֵיהֶן מְקוּדָּשׁ. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. בְּשֶׁאֵין דְּמֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בִּגְזֵילָה. “If he sells any of these items and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, he is married.” Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Because it is not its proceeds. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that one cannot marry preliminary with [the proceeds of] robbery242This paragraph is quoted by Rosh (Qiddušin 2, #31) as follows:
רִבִּי חַגַּי בְשֵׁם רְבִּי זְעִירי, שֶׁאֵין תוֹפְסִין דְּמֵיהֶן. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, זֹּאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁמְּקַדְּשִׁין בְּגְזֵילָה . "Rebbi Haggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘iri: Because (the prohibition of usufruct) is not transferred to its proceeds. Rebbi Hanina said, this means that one can marry preliminarly with (the proceeds of) robbery."
However, Ran (Novellae Baba meṣi‘a7:1), Rashba (Novellae ad 57b), Ritba (Novellae ad 56b), and Meïri (Bet Habeḥira Qiddušin, ed. A Sopher, p. 261) all read the statement of R. Ḥaggai in the version of the Leiden ms. but that of R. Ḥanina in the version of Rosh. [It seems that most authors did not have access to the Yerushalmi but copied from Ran (R. Nissim Gerondi); they cannot be counted as independent sources.] His arguments and those of the other medieval authorities are discussed in great detail and at length by J. Rosanes (Mishneh Lammelekh, Maimonides Hilkhot Iššut 5:7)]. In the opinion of the Babli (Rashi Ḥulin 4a, ‘Avodah zarah 54a), the prohibition of usufruct is not transferred to the (illegitimate) proceeds except in the cases of idols and Sabbatical produce. However, our ms. sources (including the Constantinople print edition) do not support Ran’s reading of R. Ḥanina; one has to accept the ms. reading as it stands.
The statement of R. Ḥaggai is straightforward and was explained by Ran. Since objects forbidden for usufruct are worthless, the money received by the seller was not payment for the object. Since it was necessary to point out that the marriage was valid, it follows that if the money had been given in exchange for an object acquired unlawfully, the marriage would be invalid..