Thursday, August 09, 2007

pidyon hekdesh = kinyan kesef

I never thought about it in that way before, but the halacha of pidyon from hekdesh is not simply a din in issur v’heter, to remove the status of kedusha from an object by paying hekdesh, but is a dinei mamonos halacha of kinyanei kesef. The gemara (Kiddushin 29a) writes that if a person did a kinyan meshicha from hekdesh but did not yet pay for the object, the person must pay the increased price if the object appreicates in the interim. Even though meshicha removed the object from the reshus of hekdesh, the kinyan is not complete until payment is made (this proof is brought by R’ Moshe Soloveitchik).

5 comments:

  1. Interesting. Where is the RMS?

    Just a few thoughts that jump to mind: Does RMS work this through with the yesod of his father in hilchos meilah about the difference between kodshei mizbeach and kodshei bedek ha-bayis (one being a din in the kedushas ha-guf and the other being a kinyan hekdesh)? How would this yesod work with pidyon kodshei mizbeach that are baalei mumim, psulei hamukdashim (i.e. would the pidyon work differently for the two types of hekdesh)?

    ReplyDelete
  2. He mentions it in passing in the ch al harambam in hil avodah zarah and does not connect it to anything else. When you say "how would this yesod work" is there something in particular you have in mind?
    BTW, I thought it makes sense based on this that chilul works even on a shaveh perutah, but mederabbanan you have to make up the true value - in terms of kinyanim, a shaveh perutah suffices for a chalos kinyan, but in terms of dinei hekdesh there is a seperate halacha to not shortchange bedek habayis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. anon11:40 PM

    I guess what I meant that the whole analysis of the mamon side of pidyon would only apply to kodshei bedek habayis but not kodshei mizbeach, because there the kedusha is not manifested in a kinyan mamon but in a kedushas guf (like the famous line in BK 85 - meikara tora de-reuven vehashta tora de-reuven). So in that sense would the gemara on Kidushin 29a apply to kodshei mizbeach? Is that all hekdesh have the issur ve-heter side of pidyon but the mamon side is limited to kodshei bedek ha-bayis or do both have both? I guess that is what I had in mind. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have to look at the Gr"ch. Does that mean there are no kinyanei mamon, or just that the kedushas haguf is primary. After all, we still say amiraso l'gavoha on kodshei mizbeyach, and that is a halacha in kinyanim (Avnei Miluim on that sugya in kid 29).

    ReplyDelete
  5. anon13:08 PM

    I have thought about it. It gets a little tricky. Need to look at it some more. The place where the Grach goes through the piece in its fullest treatment (I think) is in the first piece on hilchos me'ilah. Bli neder I will check it out.

    ReplyDelete