- Kiddushin with stolen goods
Rav said inferred four laws from the previous Mishnah, including: קידשה בגזל אינה מקודשת – If one is mekadesh her with stolen goods, she is not married, אפילו בגזל דידה – even with stolen goods which are hers. Rebbe Zeira quoted this in Rebbe Yochanan’s presence, who responded, מי אמר רב הכי – “Did Rav really say this?” The Gemara wonders about his reaction, because he made a similar statement: גזל ולא נתייאשו הבעלים – If one stole property and the owners did not despair of retrieving it, שניהם אינם יכולים להקדיש – neither of them can be makdish it, זה לפי שאינו שלו – [the thief cannot,] because it is not his to be makdish, וזה לפי שאינו ברשותו – and [the owner cannot] because it is not in his domain. Since Rebbe Yochanan agrees that a thief does not own his stolen goods, why was he surprised that Rav held kiddushin with them is invalid? The Gemara explains that Rebbe Yochanan was surprised that Rav agreed with his view. A Baraisa teaching that kiddushin with stolen goods is valid is explained to refer to goods stolen from her. Although Rav said even such kiddushin is invalid, the Baraisa is a case of דשדיך – where they agreed to marry, which allows interpreting her silence as allowing him to acquire the items for kiddushin.
- כלך אצל יפות regarding kiddushin and terumah
The Gemara relates an incident in which a brewer was mekadesh a woman with date remnants belonging to his employer. When the employer realized, he said, אמאי לא תיתיב מהאי חריפא – “Why did you not give her from the stronger remnants instead?” Rava ruled that his comment cannot be interpreted as approval, although it is regarding terumah: a Baraisa teaches that one who separates terumah for someone else without permission, the terumah is invalid if the owner objects. The Baraisa explains how to interpret the owner’s reaction: If he said, כלך אצל יפות – “You should go to the better produce to separate as terumah instead,” then if there is better produce, his statement is taken literally and the terumah is valid. If there is not any better produce, his reaction is understood as sarcastically saying that if he would have had better produce, he would have stolen that as well. If the owner separates more and adds to the terumah taken, it indicates his approval to what was previously separated. Rava explains why this interpretation cannot be made regarding kiddushin: הכא משום כיסופא הוא דעבד – here, he made his comment out of embarrassment not to allow his employee to keep the remnants (as opposed to terumah, which he is obligated to separate).
- Using meat of korbanos for kiddushin
The next Mishnah states: המקדש בחלקו – one who is mekadesh a woman with his portion of meat from a korban, whether it is קדשי קדשים or קדשים קלים, the kiddushin is not valid, because the meat is not his personal property, and only his to eat. The Gemara wonders if this disagrees with Rebbe Yose Haglili, who says that קדשים קלים are the personal property of their owner (such that if one swears falsely that it is his, he is liable to the penalty of swearing falsely about personal property). It explains that Rebbe Yose Haglili only held this opinion about live korbanos, but after they are shechted, he agrees that they are not personally owned: כי קא זכו – when they acquire their portion, משלחן גבוה קא זכו – they acquire it from the Table of the Most High, and only for eating. In a Baraisa, Rebbe Yehudah says that kiddushin with korban meat is valid, and the Gemara explains that both opinions are based on one pasuk. Rebbe Yochanan said a vote was taken which concluded that such kiddushin is invalid, but Rav says it remains a machlokes.
