- אין חולקים בקדשים
A Baraisa derives from a series of derashos that a Kohen can never divide his share of one korban against another (offering his portion in one korban in exchange for his fellow’s portion in another korban). They are derived as successively greater novelties: (1) שאין חולקים מנחות כנגד זבחים – [Kohanim] cannot divide menachos against korbanos, (2) nor even menachos against bird-korbanos, although a minchah sometimes replaces a bird-korban in a case of poverty, (3) nor even birds against animals, although both are מיני דמים – types of blood offerings, (4) nor even menachos against other menachos, although both are prepared by hand (as opposed to birds and animals, where animals are shechted with a knife and birds are slaughtered with melikah by hand), (5) not only מחבת כנגד מרחשת – a shallow-pan [minchah] against a deep-pan [minchah], but even against other menachos of the same type (brought by different people), (6) nor even kodashim kalim against each other. The Baraisa also derives that every adult Kohen receives a portion of the korbanos, including a בעל מום who cannot perform avodah, but a קטן does not, even if he is unblemished.
- Who is unwilling to mistakenly use maaser sheni or hekdesh for kiddushin?
In the Mishnah on Daf 52b, Rebbe Meir taught that kiddushin made unknowingly with hekdesh is invalid (Rebbe Yehudah disagrees). Rebbe Yehudah had said that kiddushin made mistakenly with maaser sheni is invalid (Rebbe Meir disagrees). Rebbe Yaakov reported hearing Rebbe Yochanan explain that in one of these rulings, the woman would be unwilling to accept kiddushin with the item (had she known its status), and in the other, both parties are unwilling to effect kiddushin with it. However, Rebbe Yaakov was unsure which was said about which. Rebbe Yirmiyah suggested that regarding maaser sheni, she is unwilling to accept it משום טרחא דאורחא - because of the effort of the journey to eat it in Yerushalayim, but he would be willing to use it for kiddushin, דניקני איתתא ממילא – to acquire a wife easily. Both would be unwilling to use hekdesh for kiddushin, דנתחיל הקדש על ידייהו –thereby causing hekdesh to become chullin through them. Rebbe Yaakov was uncertain, because the opposite could be argued: Even the husband could be unwilling to use maaser sheni, משום אונסא דאורחא – because the possible loss of the maaser during the journey is his responsibility (since she cannot use it until reaching Yerushalayim). He may, however, be willing to use hekdesh (making it chullin, and having to repay), thereby easily acquiring a wife (if he did not have money at the time).
- If hekdesh becomes chullin in mistaken kiddushin, and if such a sale would be valid
Rava asked Rav Chisda: According to Rebbe Meir, that kiddushin made unknowingly with hekdesh is ineffective, does the money become chullin through the attempted act of kiddushin? Rav Chisda responded: אשה אין מתקדשת – Since the woman is not married and the transaction was void, מעות היאך יצאו לחולין – how could the money become chullin? Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rav Chisda if Rebbe Meir would validate a sale made unknowingly with hekdesh money, and he answered: אף במכר לא קנה – even with a sale, [the buyer] does not acquire it. Rashi notes that according to Rebbe Meir, it emerges that me’ilah (which is only liable when unintentional) is only possible when mistakenly consuming hekdesh, which effectively removes it from hekdesh’s domain; all unwitting transactions are ineffective, so the money remains hekdesh. This point is made by Bar Padda on Daf 54b.
