daf bit: Kiddushin 56
Dec. 4th, 2008 09:05 amWhen a man betrothes a woman he must pay a bride-price, which need
not be in cash but can be in goods. However, the mishna teaches
that several possible payments are off limits: he cannot pay with
fruit that is forbidden to eat (orlah), nor with an animal destined for
sacrifice, nor with the ox condemned to be killed for goring, nor
with meat seethed in milk, among others. If he pays with these,
he is not betrothed. However, if he sells any of those
items and betrothes her with the money gained from the sale, then
he is betrothed. (56b)
Some of these (like the ox) are things I would have expected to be in the category of "you may derive no benefit from these". (The g'mara argues about this with respect to the meat/milk mixture on 57, today's daf.) I guess benefit ok but you have to have one level of indirection in the case of marriage contracts?
(I'm not sure where he would get buyers for some of these, but that is not the mishna's concern here.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-05 05:12 pm (UTC)He can't use these things because they are ALL prohibited to benefit from. As such they don't really belong to him, and he needs to use his own stuff to acquire rights to his bride. It has nothing to do with the prohibition involved, but rather that they are in a sense ownerless and unacquireable. Something prohibited for its normal use but permitted to benefitted from, such as a non-kosher fish, may be used b/c the woman could find another use for it besides eating. She might for example use it to slap her new husband.
He is prohibited to sell these things, but if he did, the money does not become prohibited from benefit (which is a concept called temura, that the status of A, when exchanged for B, becomes transfered to B.)