Kiddushin 53B

ולאו ממילא שמעת מינה? תרגמה רבין סבא קמיה דרב: אמר קרא: ״הוא״⁠ – בהוייתו יהא.

The Talmud asks: But don’t you understand it by itself from this verse? Since the verse compares the Jewish people to teruma, the categorization of “holy” evidently applies to teruma as well. Ravin the Elder interpreted it before Rav: The difference is that with regard to tithe the verse states: “It is for YHWH,” which indicates: As it is, it should be, as consecrated.

ובהקדש, במזיד ⁠– קידש, בשוגג ⁠– לא קידש, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר: בשוגג ⁠– קידש, במזיד ⁠– לא קידש. אמר רבי יעקב: שמעית מינה דרבי יוחנן תרתי: שגגת מעשר דרבי יהודה, שגגת הקדש דרבי מאיר ⁠– שניהם אין אשה מתקדשת בהם.

§ The Mishnah teaches: And if he betrothed a woman with consecrated property belonging to the Temple treasury, if he does so intentionally he has betrothed her, and if he does so unwittingly he has not betrothed her; this is the statement of R' Meir. R' Yehuda says the opposite: If he did so unwittingly he has betrothed her, but if he does so intentionally he has not betrothed her. R' Ya’akov said: I learned two halakhot from R' Yoḥanan, the halakha of an unwitting error involving tithe according to the opinion of R' Yehuda and the halakha of an unwitting error involving consecrated items according to the opinion of R' Meir. In both of these cases the woman is not betrothed with the items.

חדא ⁠– לפי שאין אשה רוצה, וחדא ⁠– לפי שאין שניהם רוצים, ולא ידענא הי מינייהו. אמר רבי ירמיה: ניחזי אנן: מעשר ⁠– איהי לא ניחא לה משום טרחא דאורחא, איהו ניחא ליה דניקני איתתא ממילא. אלא הקדש ⁠– תרוייהו לא ניחא להו דנתחיל הקדש על ידייהו.

He proceeds to explain. One of these halakhot is because the woman does not want to become betrothed with the item, and the reason for the other is because neither the man nor the woman wants it. He adds: And I do not know which of them is due to the woman alone, and which is due to both parties. R' Yirmeya said: Let us see which reason is applicable to which case. It must be that with regard to second tithe, which may be eaten only in Jerusalem, it is not satisfactory for her to be betrothed with it due to the trouble of transporting it all the way to Jerusalem to enjoy it, whereas it is satisfactory for him to betroth her with it, since he acquires a woman by itself, i.e., by the tithe alone, without having to spend additional money of his own. But in the case of consecrated items, it is not satisfactory for the two of them that consecrated property be desacralized by their using it for betrothal.