Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

August 27, 2023 | ื™ืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Kiddushin 13

ื›ื™ ืืžืจื” ืœื ื ืžื™ ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืžืื™ ื•ื”ื ืงืืžืจื” ืœื ืืœื ืœืื• ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืืžืจื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื” ืžืฉืชืงื” ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืœืื—ืจ ืžืชืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื™ื


that if she said: No, it would also be a betrothal. But why should that be the case? After all, she said: No. Rather, is it not to be explained in this manner, i.e., that the phrase: She wanted, means she said yes, and: She did not want, means that she remained silent. And one can learn from this that silence after the money is given is nothing. Her silence is not interpreted as an agreement to the betrothal.


ืงืฉื• ื‘ื” ื‘ืคื•ื ื ื”ืจื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืชื ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื” ืกื‘ืจื” ืื™ ืฉื“ื™ื ื ืœื”ื• ื•ืžื™ืชื‘ืจื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื ื ื‘ื”ื• ื”ื›ื ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื” ื•ืื™ ืื™ืชื ื“ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื” ืœื™ืฉื“ื™ื ื”ื•


In the city of Pum Nahara they raised a difficulty against Ravaโ€™s proof, in the name of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: Is it comparable? There, in the baraita, he gave her the money as a deposit but they are his. She therefore thinks: If I throw them and they break I will be obligated to pay for them, as would anyone who destroys another personโ€™s property. Consequently, her silence is interpreted as consent only to continue in her role of holding it as a deposit. By contrast, here he gives them to her as betrothal money so that they would belong to her. And if it is so, that she is not amenable to being betrothed, let her throw them away.


ืคืจื™ืš ืจื‘ ืื—ืื™ ืื˜ื• ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื ืฉื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจื” ืื™ ืฉื“ื™ื ื ืœื”ื• ื•ืžื™ืชื‘ืจื™ ืžื™ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ื ื ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชื™ื™ื”ื• ืฉืœื—ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื›ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ืื ืŸ ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืŸ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืชื•ืŸ ื“ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื›ื• ื—ื•ืฉื• ืœื”


Rav Aแธฅai refutes this argument: Is that to say that all women are learned in halakha? In this case also, she thinks: If I throw them and they break I will be responsible for them. Therefore, I will not throw them. One cannot deduce from the fact that she does not throw the coins that she accepted them as betrothal money. Rav Aแธฅa bar Rav, sent this question to Ravina: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Ravina sent the following response to him: We did not hear this statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. Therefore, we do not need to take it into consideration. You, who heard it, should be concerned about a possible betrothal.


ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืžื–ื‘ื ื” ื•ื•ืจืฉื›ื™ ืืชื ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื—ื˜ืฃ ื•ื•ืจืฉื›ื ืžื™ื ื” ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื”ื‘ื” ื ื™ื”ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื™ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ื ื ืœื™ืš ืžื™ืงื“ืฉืช ืœื™ ืฉืงืœืชื™ื” ื•ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืงืœื™ ื•ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืงืœื™


ยง The Gemara further relates: There was a certain woman who was selling belts. A certain man came and snatched a belt [varshekha] from her. She said to him: Give it to me. He said to her: If I give it to you will you be betrothed to me? She took it and was silent, and Rav Naแธฅman said: She could say: Yes, I took it, but I took my property. There is no proof that she agreed to accept it as a betrothal.


ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื•ื‘ื—ืžืก ื•ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ืื• ืฉื—ื˜ืฃ ืกืœืข ืžื™ื“ื” ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื”ืชื ื‘ื“ืฉื“ื™ืš


Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman from a baraita: If a man betrothed a woman with property that was taken by robbery; or with property taken by a forced transaction, when the owner was reluctant to sell, or with property that was taken by theft; or if he grabbed a sela from her hand and betrothed her with it, she is betrothed. If so, why does Rav Naแธฅman say here that when he took it from her and betrothed her she is not betrothed? Rav Naแธฅman answered: There, it is referring to a case where he had previously arranged to marry her, and therefore if she remained silent she certainly agreed to the betrothal.


ื•ืžื ื ืชื™ืžืจื ื“ืฉื ื™ ืœืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื“ื™ืš ื•ื“ืœื ืฉื“ื™ืš ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื›ื ืกื™ ืกืœืข ื–ื• ืฉืื ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื›ื™ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ืชืงื“ืฉื™ ืœื™ ื‘ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ืžืชืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ืจืฆืชื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืœื ืจืฆืชื” ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืœืื—ืจ ืžืชืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืจืฆืชื” ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช


And from where do you say that there is a difference between a case where he had previously arranged to marry her and where he had not arranged to do so? As it is taught in a baraita that with regard to a man who said to a woman: Take this sela that I owe you, and he went back and said to her: Be betrothed to me with it, if he said this at the time the money was given and she wanted it, she is betrothed; if she did not want it, she is not betrothed. If he issued his statement after the money was given, then even if she wanted it, she is not betrothed.


ืžืื™ ืจืฆืชื” ื•ืžืื™ ืœื ืจืฆืชื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืืžืจื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืืžืจื” ืœื ื”ื ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื ืชื ื™ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืกืชื ื›ื™ ื”ืชื


Rav Naแธฅman clarifies: What is the meaning of: She wanted, and what is the meaning of: She did not want? If we say that: She wanted, means that she said yes, and: She did not want, means that she explicitly said no, it can be inferred that if she was silent it is a valid betrothal. But if so, let the baraita teach simply that she is betrothed, without specification, as it did there in the previous case, with regard to one who said: Take this sela as a deposit. It is obvious that if she explicitly said no, she is not betrothed.


ืืœื ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืืžืจื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื•ืงื ืชื ื™ ื“ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืงืœื™ ื•ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืงืœื™


Rather, the phrase: She wanted, means she said yes, and: She did not want, means that she remained silent. And in this case of silence the baraita taught that she is not betrothed. What is the reason that she is not betrothed if she remained silent? It is that she can say: Yes I took it, but I took my own property and did not intend to become betrothed.


ื•ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ืš ื“ืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื•ื‘ื—ืžืก ื•ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ืื• ืฉื—ื˜ืฃ ืกืœืข ืžื™ื“ื” ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื ื“ืฉื“ื™ืš ื”ื ื“ืœื ืฉื“ื™ืš


But this is difficult with regard to that which we learned, that if a man betrothed her with property that was taken by robbery, or with property taken by a forced transaction, or with property that was taken by theft, or if he grabbed a sela from her hand and betrothed her with it, she is betrothed. Rather, isnโ€™t it correct to conclude from it that this ruling, that she is betrothed if she was silent, is referring to a case where he arranged the marriage beforehand, whereas this ruling, that she is not betrothed when she remained silent, is referring to a situation where he did not arrange it beforehand?


ื›ื™ ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืขื™ื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ืงื•ื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ืœืฉืžืขืชืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื”ื”ื•ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืฉืžื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื™ ื›ืฉื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืงืจืงืข ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืงืจืงืข ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”


ยง The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Asi died, the Sages assembled to collect his statements, i.e., they wished to review his rulings of halakha lest they be forgotten. A certain member of the Sages, and Rabbi Yaโ€™akov was his name, said to them: This is what Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Mani said: Just as a woman cannot be acquired by less than the value of one peruta, so too land cannot be acquired by less than the value of one peruta. They said to him: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Although a woman cannot be acquired by less than the value of one peruta, land can be acquired by less than the value of one peruta?


ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื›ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืงื•ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”


Rabbi Yaโ€™akov said to them: When that baraita is taught to the effect that land can be acquired by less than the value of one peruta but a woman cannot, it was with regard to acquisition through symbolic exchange, i.e., a legal act of acquisition formalizing the transfer of ownership of an article. As it is taught in a baraita: One can acquire land and movable items through a symbolic exchange by giving a vessel, even though it is not worth one peruta.


ื”ื“ืจ ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืงืืžืจื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ื‘ื˜ื™ื‘ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ื™ื”ื ืœื• ืขืกืง ืขืžื”ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžื“ื•ืจ ื”ืžื‘ื•ืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืœื” ื•ื›ื—ืฉ ื•ืจืฆื— ื•ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื ืืฃ ืคืจืฆื• ื•ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ื“ืžื™ื ื ื’ืขื•


They then sat and said additional statements in the name of Rabbi Asi. One statement concerned that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Anyone who does not know the nature of bills of divorce and betrothals should have no dealings in them, as his ignorance might lead people to commit serious sins. In this context, Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: And those who deal with these issues without proper knowledge are worse for the world than the generation of the flood, as it is stated: โ€œSwearing and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery. They break all bounds, and blood touches bloodโ€ (Hosea 4:2).


ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื›ื“ืžืชืจื’ื ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžื•ืœื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ืžื ืฉื™ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื”ื•ืŸ ื—ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ


The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this verse is referring to individuals of this kind and that they are worse for the world than the generation of the flood? The Gemara explains: As Rav Yosef translated the phrase โ€œand committing adultery, they break all bounds, and blood touches blood,โ€ as: They give birth to children through the wives of others; they add sins upon sins.


ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืŸ ืชืื‘ืœ ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืืžืœืœ ื›ืœ ื™ื•ืฉื‘ ื‘ื” ื‘ื—ื™ืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื•ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื•ื’ื ื“ื’ื™ ื”ื™ื ื™ืืกืคื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ืื™ืœื• ื‘ื“ื•ืจ ื”ืžื‘ื•ืœ ืœื ื ื’ื–ืจื” ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืขืœ ื“ื’ื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ื‘ื—ืจื‘ื” ืžืชื• ื•ืœื ื“ื’ื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ื’ื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื


And it is written in the next verse: โ€œTherefore the land mourns and everyone who dwells there languishes, with the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea are also taken awayโ€ (Hosea 4:3). This indicates that those who cause illegitimate children to be born lead to such a great tragedy that even the fish of the sea will die, whereas in the generation of the flood the decree was not imposed upon the fish in the sea, as it is stated: โ€œWhatever was on dry land diedโ€ (Genesis 7:22). The explicit mention of dry land indicates that the fish in the sea did not die. But here, in the punishment described in the verses in Hosea, even the fish in the sea died.


ื•ืื™ืžื ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืืœื” ืื‘ืœื” ื”ืืจืฅ


The Gemara asks: But one can say that this punishment is not administered until they perform all of them, i.e., only if they commit all of the sins mentioned in the verse, including taking false oaths, committing murder, and stealing. The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: โ€œFor because of swearing the land mournsโ€ (Jeremiah 23:10). This verse teaches that on account of taking false oaths alone the world can be destroyed, from which it may be inferred that each these acts on its own is enough to warrant destruction.


ื•ืื™ืžื ืืœื” ืœื—ื•ื“ ื•ื”ื ืš ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื”ื•ืŸ


The Gemara further asks: But one can say that taking a false oath is distinct, as it involves the desecration of Godโ€™s name, and these other sins are distinct, i.e., they are less severe offenses that entail a less serious punishment. Therefore, it is possible that this great tragedy will result only if one performs all of them.


ืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืคืจืฆื• ืคืจืฆื• ื›ืชื™ื‘


The Gemara explains: Is it written: And they break all bounds, with the conjunction: And, which would indicate that all the sins are included as one unit? Rather, it is written: โ€œThey break all bounds,โ€ from which it may be inferred that this punishment is given separately for each one of these sins.


ื”ื“ื•ืจ ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืงืืžืจื™ ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื”ื‘ื™ืื” ื—ื˜ืืชื” ื•ืžืชื” ื™ื‘ื™ืื• ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืขื•ืœืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉืชื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ืคืจื™ืฉืชื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืœื


ยง They then sat and said additional statements in the name of Rav Asi, one of which concerned that which we learned in a mishna (Kinnim 2:5): With regard to a woman after childbirth who brought her sin-offering for her ritual purification and died, the heirs bring her burnt-offering to fulfill her remaining sacrificial obligations. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And this is the halakha only when the woman herself had already separated, i.e., designated, the animal for the burnt-offering in her lifetime. But if she had not separated it in her lifetime, no, the heirs are not required to bring a burnt-offering on her behalf.


ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืขื‘ื•ื“ื ืœืื• ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ืฉืœื ื”ืคืจื™ืฉื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืขื‘ื•ื“ื ื”ื•ื” ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื


The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Shmuel maintains that the property of a debtor is not liened by Torah law. In other words, one does not say that because she was required to bring a burnt-offering there is a lien on her property and the debt must be paid even if she did not set aside the animal before her death. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This is the halakha even though she did not separate the burnt-offering in her lifetime. Apparently, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan maintains that the property of a debtor is liened by Torah law.


ื•ื”ื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ื“ืจื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืœื•ื” ืขืœ ืคื” ืื™ื ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืœื•ื” ืขืœ ืคื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช


The Gemara asks: But these Sages already disagreed about this issue once; why would they engage in the same dispute with regard to multiple applications? As Rav and Shmuel both say: With regard to a loan granted by oral agreement, i.e., without a document that places a lien on the land, if the debtor dies, the creditor cannot collect the loan from the heirs or from those who purchased the land. This is the halakha even if it is clear that there was a loan and the debtors do not dispute this fact. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish both say: With regard to a loan by oral agreement, the creditor can collect from the heirs and from those who purchased from the debtor. This shows that those same Sages already disagreed as to whether a lien on a property exists by Torah law in the absence of a document.


ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื‘ื”ืš ืงืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืžืœื•ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืš ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื” ืœื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ


The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach both cases as, if it were stated only about this case of a loan, one might say: It is only with regard to this situation that Shmuel says there is no lien on property, because it is a loan that is not written in the Torah. This loan is merely a private agreement between two individuals. But with regard to this obligation of a woman to bring a burnt-offering, one might say that he concedes to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and to Reish Lakish. Since this womanโ€™s obligation to bring a burnt-offering is written in the Torah, perhaps it creates a lien on her property despite the fact that there is no document to that effect.


ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืžืœื•ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื“ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืš ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฆืจื™ื›ื


And conversely, had the amoraโ€™im taught us about their dispute only in this case of the burnt-offering of a woman following childbirth, one might say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that the Torah imposes a lien only in this case of the burnt-offering, as a loan written in the Torah is like one written in a document. But with regard to this private loan, one might say that he concedes to Shmuel that the lien does not apply by Torah law. Therefore, it is necessary to state the dispute in both cases.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื™ืœื›ืชื ืžืœื•ื” ืขืœ ืคื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืขื‘ื•ื“ื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื•ืื™ื ื• ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืงืœื:


Rav Pappa said that the halakha is as follows: With regard to a loan by oral agreement, the creditor can collect from the heirs but he cannot collect from those who purchased from the debtor. The reason he can collect from the heirs is that the accepted opinion is that the property of a debtor is liened by Torah law. But he cannot collect from those who purchased from the debtor, because a loan by oral agreement does not generate publicity, i.e., people will not have heard about it. Therefore, they are not careful to avoid buying property from the debtor. These purchasers should not suffer due to a lien that was not well known.


ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ: ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื’ื˜ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืกืคืจ ื›ืจื™ืชืช


ยง The mishna teaches: And a woman acquires herself through a bill of divorce or through the death of the husband. The Gemara asks: Granted, this is the halakha with regard to a bill of divorce, as it is written explicitly in the Torah: โ€œAnd he writes for her a scroll of severance, and gives it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; and she departs out of his house and she goes and becomes another manโ€™s wifeโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:1โ€“2). This indicates that a bill of divorce enables a woman to marry whomever she wishes after the divorce.


ืืœื ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื ืœืŸ ืกื‘ืจื ื”ื•ื ื”ื•ื ืืกืจื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉืจืชื”


But from where do we derive that the death of the husband also enables a woman to remarry? The Gemara answers: This is based on logical reasoning: He, the husband, rendered her forbidden to every man, and he has permitted her. Since the husband is no longer alive, there is no one who renders her forbidden.


ื•ื”ื ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื“ืืกืจ ืœื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉืจื™ ืœื”ื• ืืœื ืžื“ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืืกื•ืจื” ื”ื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจืช


The Gemara asks: But consider the status of those with whom relations are forbidden, as he renders her forbidden to them, and yet he does not permit her to them when he dies. For example, one may not marry oneโ€™s fatherโ€™s wife even after the father dies. Rather, from the fact that the Merciful One states that a yevama who does not have children from her deceased husband is prohibited from marrying anyone besides the yavam, it may be inferred that a widow who has children from her deceased husband is permitted to remarry.


ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืืกื•ืจื” ืœืขืœืžื ื•ืฉืจื™ื ืœื™ื‘ื ื•ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื ืžื™ ืืกื•ืจื” ืืœื ืžื“ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœืžื ื” ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืืกื•ืจื” ื”ื ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉืจื™ื


The Gemara asks: But perhaps one should infer the following from that halakha: A woman who does not have children from her deceased husband is forbidden to everyone and permitted to the yavam, and a woman who has children from her deceased husband is forbidden to everyone also. Rather, the halakha that the death of the husband permits a woman to marry another man is derived from the fact that the Merciful One states that a widow is forbidden to a High Priest. This indicates that it is permitted for her to marry a common priest, and the same certainly applies to a non-priest.


ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืœืื• ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื‘ืขืฉื” ื”ืื™ ืขืฉื” ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื™ื” ืื™ ื“ืื”ื ื™ื ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืชื™ืฉืชืจื™ ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืื”ื ื™ื ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืชื•ืงืžื” ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื


The Gemara asks: But perhaps one can say that she is forbidden to a High Priest by a prohibition, whereas she is forbidden to everyone else only by dint of a positive mitzva. The Gemara asks: This positive mitzva, what is its purpose? If the death of the husband affects her status, she should be entirely permitted, and if the death of the husband does not affect her status she remains in her initial state when her husband was alive, and therefore those who engage in sexual intercourse with her would be liable to receive the death penalty.


ืืœืžื” ืœื ืืคื™ืงืชื” ืžืžื™ืชื” ื•ืื•ืงื™ืžืชื” ืขืœ ืขืฉื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืืคืกื•ืœื™ ื”ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื


The Gemara answers: And why is this suggestion not considered reasonable? One could argue that the death of the husband removed her from the class of people with whom one is punished with death for engaging in intercourse, and placed her in the class of people with whom one is prohibited to engage in intercourse due to a positive mitzva, just as it is with consecrated animals that have been disqualified. This is referring to animals that were designated as offerings but became invalid due to some blemish.


ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืืกื™ืจื™ ื‘ื’ื™ื–ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืคืจืงื™ื ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ืœื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ื’ื™ื–ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืืกื™ืจื™


The Gemara explains: The halakha with regard to such animals is that initially, when they are unblemished, they are subject to the halakhot of misuse, i.e., if one benefited from them he has misused consecrated items. And likewise shearing them and performing labor with them is prohibited. Once these animals have developed a blemish and one has redeemed them, the prohibition against misuse of consecrated items does not apply to them, but shearing them and performing labor with them remains prohibited. Based on this example, it is possible that the death of the husband does not render the woman entirely permitted. If so, one cannot derive from here that it is permitted for a wife whose husband has passed away to marry another man.


ืืœื ืžื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืคืŸ ื™ืžื•ืช ื‘ืžืœื—ืžื” ื•ืื™ืฉ ืื—ืจ ื™ืงื—ื ื” ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืื™ืžื ืžืืŸ ืื—ืจ ื™ื‘ื


Rather, the source that a widow may remarry is from that which the verse states: โ€œLest he die in battle and another man take herโ€ (Deuteronomy 20:7). This indicates that a man may marry a widow. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to this: One can say: Who is this other man mentioned by the verse? It is a yavam.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืฉืชื™ ืชืฉื•ื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื—ื“ื ื“ื™ื‘ื ืœื ืื™ืงืจื™ ืื—ืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉื ืื” ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืกืคืจ ื›ืจื™ืชืช ืื• ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืžื™ืชื” ืœื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืžื” ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืจื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืžืจืช ืืฃ ืžื™ืชื” ืฉืจื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืžืจืช:


Rav Ashi said that there are two refutations of this statement: First, a yavam is not called โ€œanother,โ€ as his relationship with her is not entirely separate from that of the first husband. And furthermore, it is written: โ€œAnd the latter husband hates her, and writes her a scroll of severance and gives it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband diesโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:3). In this manner the verse juxtaposes death to divorce: Just as divorce permits a woman to everyone and completes the severing of a husband from his wife, thereby allowing her to marry another man, so too, death permits her and completes the severing, allowing her to marry another man.


ื•ื”ื™ื‘ืžื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ื›ื•ืณ: ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื


ยง The mishna teaches: And a yevama can be acquired by the deceased husbandโ€™s brother, the yavam, only through intercourse. And she acquires herself through แธฅalitza or through the death of the yavam. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that she can be acquired through intercourse? The verse states:


  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddushin: 10- 17 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the reasons behind each opinion for how much money needs to be given in order...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 13: Could Women Have Known the Halakhot?

More cases of possible kiddushin. For example, betrothal with a mat of myrtle branches - to no response by the...

Kiddushin 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 13

ื›ื™ ืืžืจื” ืœื ื ืžื™ ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืžืื™ ื•ื”ื ืงืืžืจื” ืœื ืืœื ืœืื• ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืืžืจื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื” ืžืฉืชืงื” ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืœืื—ืจ ืžืชืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื™ื


that if she said: No, it would also be a betrothal. But why should that be the case? After all, she said: No. Rather, is it not to be explained in this manner, i.e., that the phrase: She wanted, means she said yes, and: She did not want, means that she remained silent. And one can learn from this that silence after the money is given is nothing. Her silence is not interpreted as an agreement to the betrothal.


ืงืฉื• ื‘ื” ื‘ืคื•ื ื ื”ืจื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืชื ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื” ืกื‘ืจื” ืื™ ืฉื“ื™ื ื ืœื”ื• ื•ืžื™ืชื‘ืจื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื ื ื‘ื”ื• ื”ื›ื ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื” ื•ืื™ ืื™ืชื ื“ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื” ืœื™ืฉื“ื™ื ื”ื•


In the city of Pum Nahara they raised a difficulty against Ravaโ€™s proof, in the name of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: Is it comparable? There, in the baraita, he gave her the money as a deposit but they are his. She therefore thinks: If I throw them and they break I will be obligated to pay for them, as would anyone who destroys another personโ€™s property. Consequently, her silence is interpreted as consent only to continue in her role of holding it as a deposit. By contrast, here he gives them to her as betrothal money so that they would belong to her. And if it is so, that she is not amenable to being betrothed, let her throw them away.


ืคืจื™ืš ืจื‘ ืื—ืื™ ืื˜ื• ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื ืฉื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจื” ืื™ ืฉื“ื™ื ื ืœื”ื• ื•ืžื™ืชื‘ืจื™ ืžื™ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ื ื ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชื™ื™ื”ื• ืฉืœื—ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื›ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ืื ืŸ ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืŸ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืชื•ืŸ ื“ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื›ื• ื—ื•ืฉื• ืœื”


Rav Aแธฅai refutes this argument: Is that to say that all women are learned in halakha? In this case also, she thinks: If I throw them and they break I will be responsible for them. Therefore, I will not throw them. One cannot deduce from the fact that she does not throw the coins that she accepted them as betrothal money. Rav Aแธฅa bar Rav, sent this question to Ravina: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Ravina sent the following response to him: We did not hear this statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. Therefore, we do not need to take it into consideration. You, who heard it, should be concerned about a possible betrothal.


ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืžื–ื‘ื ื” ื•ื•ืจืฉื›ื™ ืืชื ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื—ื˜ืฃ ื•ื•ืจืฉื›ื ืžื™ื ื” ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื”ื‘ื” ื ื™ื”ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื™ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ื ื ืœื™ืš ืžื™ืงื“ืฉืช ืœื™ ืฉืงืœืชื™ื” ื•ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืงืœื™ ื•ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืงืœื™


ยง The Gemara further relates: There was a certain woman who was selling belts. A certain man came and snatched a belt [varshekha] from her. She said to him: Give it to me. He said to her: If I give it to you will you be betrothed to me? She took it and was silent, and Rav Naแธฅman said: She could say: Yes, I took it, but I took my property. There is no proof that she agreed to accept it as a betrothal.


ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื•ื‘ื—ืžืก ื•ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ืื• ืฉื—ื˜ืฃ ืกืœืข ืžื™ื“ื” ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื”ืชื ื‘ื“ืฉื“ื™ืš


Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman from a baraita: If a man betrothed a woman with property that was taken by robbery; or with property taken by a forced transaction, when the owner was reluctant to sell, or with property that was taken by theft; or if he grabbed a sela from her hand and betrothed her with it, she is betrothed. If so, why does Rav Naแธฅman say here that when he took it from her and betrothed her she is not betrothed? Rav Naแธฅman answered: There, it is referring to a case where he had previously arranged to marry her, and therefore if she remained silent she certainly agreed to the betrothal.


ื•ืžื ื ืชื™ืžืจื ื“ืฉื ื™ ืœืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื“ื™ืš ื•ื“ืœื ืฉื“ื™ืš ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื›ื ืกื™ ืกืœืข ื–ื• ืฉืื ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื›ื™ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ืชืงื“ืฉื™ ืœื™ ื‘ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ืžืชืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ืจืฆืชื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืœื ืจืฆืชื” ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืœืื—ืจ ืžืชืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืจืฆืชื” ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช


And from where do you say that there is a difference between a case where he had previously arranged to marry her and where he had not arranged to do so? As it is taught in a baraita that with regard to a man who said to a woman: Take this sela that I owe you, and he went back and said to her: Be betrothed to me with it, if he said this at the time the money was given and she wanted it, she is betrothed; if she did not want it, she is not betrothed. If he issued his statement after the money was given, then even if she wanted it, she is not betrothed.


ืžืื™ ืจืฆืชื” ื•ืžืื™ ืœื ืจืฆืชื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืืžืจื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืืžืจื” ืœื ื”ื ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื ืชื ื™ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืกืชื ื›ื™ ื”ืชื


Rav Naแธฅman clarifies: What is the meaning of: She wanted, and what is the meaning of: She did not want? If we say that: She wanted, means that she said yes, and: She did not want, means that she explicitly said no, it can be inferred that if she was silent it is a valid betrothal. But if so, let the baraita teach simply that she is betrothed, without specification, as it did there in the previous case, with regard to one who said: Take this sela as a deposit. It is obvious that if she explicitly said no, she is not betrothed.


ืืœื ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืืžืจื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืฆืชื” ื“ืื™ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื•ืงื ืชื ื™ ื“ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืงืœื™ ื•ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืงืœื™


Rather, the phrase: She wanted, means she said yes, and: She did not want, means that she remained silent. And in this case of silence the baraita taught that she is not betrothed. What is the reason that she is not betrothed if she remained silent? It is that she can say: Yes I took it, but I took my own property and did not intend to become betrothed.


ื•ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ืš ื“ืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื•ื‘ื—ืžืก ื•ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ืื• ืฉื—ื˜ืฃ ืกืœืข ืžื™ื“ื” ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื ื“ืฉื“ื™ืš ื”ื ื“ืœื ืฉื“ื™ืš


But this is difficult with regard to that which we learned, that if a man betrothed her with property that was taken by robbery, or with property taken by a forced transaction, or with property that was taken by theft, or if he grabbed a sela from her hand and betrothed her with it, she is betrothed. Rather, isnโ€™t it correct to conclude from it that this ruling, that she is betrothed if she was silent, is referring to a case where he arranged the marriage beforehand, whereas this ruling, that she is not betrothed when she remained silent, is referring to a situation where he did not arrange it beforehand?


ื›ื™ ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืขื™ื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ืงื•ื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ืœืฉืžืขืชืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื”ื”ื•ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืฉืžื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื™ ื›ืฉื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืงืจืงืข ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืงืจืงืข ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”


ยง The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Asi died, the Sages assembled to collect his statements, i.e., they wished to review his rulings of halakha lest they be forgotten. A certain member of the Sages, and Rabbi Yaโ€™akov was his name, said to them: This is what Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Mani said: Just as a woman cannot be acquired by less than the value of one peruta, so too land cannot be acquired by less than the value of one peruta. They said to him: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Although a woman cannot be acquired by less than the value of one peruta, land can be acquired by less than the value of one peruta?


ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื›ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืงื•ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”


Rabbi Yaโ€™akov said to them: When that baraita is taught to the effect that land can be acquired by less than the value of one peruta but a woman cannot, it was with regard to acquisition through symbolic exchange, i.e., a legal act of acquisition formalizing the transfer of ownership of an article. As it is taught in a baraita: One can acquire land and movable items through a symbolic exchange by giving a vessel, even though it is not worth one peruta.


ื”ื“ืจ ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืงืืžืจื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ื‘ื˜ื™ื‘ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ื™ื”ื ืœื• ืขืกืง ืขืžื”ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžื“ื•ืจ ื”ืžื‘ื•ืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืœื” ื•ื›ื—ืฉ ื•ืจืฆื— ื•ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื ืืฃ ืคืจืฆื• ื•ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ื“ืžื™ื ื ื’ืขื•


They then sat and said additional statements in the name of Rabbi Asi. One statement concerned that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Anyone who does not know the nature of bills of divorce and betrothals should have no dealings in them, as his ignorance might lead people to commit serious sins. In this context, Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: And those who deal with these issues without proper knowledge are worse for the world than the generation of the flood, as it is stated: โ€œSwearing and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery. They break all bounds, and blood touches bloodโ€ (Hosea 4:2).


ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื›ื“ืžืชืจื’ื ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžื•ืœื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ืžื ืฉื™ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื”ื•ืŸ ื—ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ


The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this verse is referring to individuals of this kind and that they are worse for the world than the generation of the flood? The Gemara explains: As Rav Yosef translated the phrase โ€œand committing adultery, they break all bounds, and blood touches blood,โ€ as: They give birth to children through the wives of others; they add sins upon sins.


ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืŸ ืชืื‘ืœ ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืืžืœืœ ื›ืœ ื™ื•ืฉื‘ ื‘ื” ื‘ื—ื™ืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื•ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื•ื’ื ื“ื’ื™ ื”ื™ื ื™ืืกืคื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ืื™ืœื• ื‘ื“ื•ืจ ื”ืžื‘ื•ืœ ืœื ื ื’ื–ืจื” ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืขืœ ื“ื’ื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ื‘ื—ืจื‘ื” ืžืชื• ื•ืœื ื“ื’ื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ื’ื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื


And it is written in the next verse: โ€œTherefore the land mourns and everyone who dwells there languishes, with the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea are also taken awayโ€ (Hosea 4:3). This indicates that those who cause illegitimate children to be born lead to such a great tragedy that even the fish of the sea will die, whereas in the generation of the flood the decree was not imposed upon the fish in the sea, as it is stated: โ€œWhatever was on dry land diedโ€ (Genesis 7:22). The explicit mention of dry land indicates that the fish in the sea did not die. But here, in the punishment described in the verses in Hosea, even the fish in the sea died.


ื•ืื™ืžื ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืืœื” ืื‘ืœื” ื”ืืจืฅ


The Gemara asks: But one can say that this punishment is not administered until they perform all of them, i.e., only if they commit all of the sins mentioned in the verse, including taking false oaths, committing murder, and stealing. The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: โ€œFor because of swearing the land mournsโ€ (Jeremiah 23:10). This verse teaches that on account of taking false oaths alone the world can be destroyed, from which it may be inferred that each these acts on its own is enough to warrant destruction.


ื•ืื™ืžื ืืœื” ืœื—ื•ื“ ื•ื”ื ืš ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื”ื•ืŸ


The Gemara further asks: But one can say that taking a false oath is distinct, as it involves the desecration of Godโ€™s name, and these other sins are distinct, i.e., they are less severe offenses that entail a less serious punishment. Therefore, it is possible that this great tragedy will result only if one performs all of them.


ืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืคืจืฆื• ืคืจืฆื• ื›ืชื™ื‘


The Gemara explains: Is it written: And they break all bounds, with the conjunction: And, which would indicate that all the sins are included as one unit? Rather, it is written: โ€œThey break all bounds,โ€ from which it may be inferred that this punishment is given separately for each one of these sins.


ื”ื“ื•ืจ ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืงืืžืจื™ ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื”ื‘ื™ืื” ื—ื˜ืืชื” ื•ืžืชื” ื™ื‘ื™ืื• ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืขื•ืœืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉืชื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ืคืจื™ืฉืชื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืœื


ยง They then sat and said additional statements in the name of Rav Asi, one of which concerned that which we learned in a mishna (Kinnim 2:5): With regard to a woman after childbirth who brought her sin-offering for her ritual purification and died, the heirs bring her burnt-offering to fulfill her remaining sacrificial obligations. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And this is the halakha only when the woman herself had already separated, i.e., designated, the animal for the burnt-offering in her lifetime. But if she had not separated it in her lifetime, no, the heirs are not required to bring a burnt-offering on her behalf.


ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืขื‘ื•ื“ื ืœืื• ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ืฉืœื ื”ืคืจื™ืฉื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืขื‘ื•ื“ื ื”ื•ื” ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื


The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Shmuel maintains that the property of a debtor is not liened by Torah law. In other words, one does not say that because she was required to bring a burnt-offering there is a lien on her property and the debt must be paid even if she did not set aside the animal before her death. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This is the halakha even though she did not separate the burnt-offering in her lifetime. Apparently, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan maintains that the property of a debtor is liened by Torah law.


ื•ื”ื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ื“ืจื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืœื•ื” ืขืœ ืคื” ืื™ื ื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืœื•ื” ืขืœ ืคื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช


The Gemara asks: But these Sages already disagreed about this issue once; why would they engage in the same dispute with regard to multiple applications? As Rav and Shmuel both say: With regard to a loan granted by oral agreement, i.e., without a document that places a lien on the land, if the debtor dies, the creditor cannot collect the loan from the heirs or from those who purchased the land. This is the halakha even if it is clear that there was a loan and the debtors do not dispute this fact. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish both say: With regard to a loan by oral agreement, the creditor can collect from the heirs and from those who purchased from the debtor. This shows that those same Sages already disagreed as to whether a lien on a property exists by Torah law in the absence of a document.


ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื‘ื”ืš ืงืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืžืœื•ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืš ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื” ืœื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ


The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach both cases as, if it were stated only about this case of a loan, one might say: It is only with regard to this situation that Shmuel says there is no lien on property, because it is a loan that is not written in the Torah. This loan is merely a private agreement between two individuals. But with regard to this obligation of a woman to bring a burnt-offering, one might say that he concedes to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and to Reish Lakish. Since this womanโ€™s obligation to bring a burnt-offering is written in the Torah, perhaps it creates a lien on her property despite the fact that there is no document to that effect.


ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืžืœื•ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื“ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืš ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฆืจื™ื›ื


And conversely, had the amoraโ€™im taught us about their dispute only in this case of the burnt-offering of a woman following childbirth, one might say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that the Torah imposes a lien only in this case of the burnt-offering, as a loan written in the Torah is like one written in a document. But with regard to this private loan, one might say that he concedes to Shmuel that the lien does not apply by Torah law. Therefore, it is necessary to state the dispute in both cases.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื™ืœื›ืชื ืžืœื•ื” ืขืœ ืคื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืขื‘ื•ื“ื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื•ืื™ื ื• ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืงืœื:


Rav Pappa said that the halakha is as follows: With regard to a loan by oral agreement, the creditor can collect from the heirs but he cannot collect from those who purchased from the debtor. The reason he can collect from the heirs is that the accepted opinion is that the property of a debtor is liened by Torah law. But he cannot collect from those who purchased from the debtor, because a loan by oral agreement does not generate publicity, i.e., people will not have heard about it. Therefore, they are not careful to avoid buying property from the debtor. These purchasers should not suffer due to a lien that was not well known.


ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ: ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื’ื˜ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืกืคืจ ื›ืจื™ืชืช


ยง The mishna teaches: And a woman acquires herself through a bill of divorce or through the death of the husband. The Gemara asks: Granted, this is the halakha with regard to a bill of divorce, as it is written explicitly in the Torah: โ€œAnd he writes for her a scroll of severance, and gives it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; and she departs out of his house and she goes and becomes another manโ€™s wifeโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:1โ€“2). This indicates that a bill of divorce enables a woman to marry whomever she wishes after the divorce.


ืืœื ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื ืœืŸ ืกื‘ืจื ื”ื•ื ื”ื•ื ืืกืจื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉืจืชื”


But from where do we derive that the death of the husband also enables a woman to remarry? The Gemara answers: This is based on logical reasoning: He, the husband, rendered her forbidden to every man, and he has permitted her. Since the husband is no longer alive, there is no one who renders her forbidden.


ื•ื”ื ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื“ืืกืจ ืœื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉืจื™ ืœื”ื• ืืœื ืžื“ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืืกื•ืจื” ื”ื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจืช


The Gemara asks: But consider the status of those with whom relations are forbidden, as he renders her forbidden to them, and yet he does not permit her to them when he dies. For example, one may not marry oneโ€™s fatherโ€™s wife even after the father dies. Rather, from the fact that the Merciful One states that a yevama who does not have children from her deceased husband is prohibited from marrying anyone besides the yavam, it may be inferred that a widow who has children from her deceased husband is permitted to remarry.


ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืืกื•ืจื” ืœืขืœืžื ื•ืฉืจื™ื ืœื™ื‘ื ื•ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื ืžื™ ืืกื•ืจื” ืืœื ืžื“ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœืžื ื” ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืืกื•ืจื” ื”ื ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉืจื™ื


The Gemara asks: But perhaps one should infer the following from that halakha: A woman who does not have children from her deceased husband is forbidden to everyone and permitted to the yavam, and a woman who has children from her deceased husband is forbidden to everyone also. Rather, the halakha that the death of the husband permits a woman to marry another man is derived from the fact that the Merciful One states that a widow is forbidden to a High Priest. This indicates that it is permitted for her to marry a common priest, and the same certainly applies to a non-priest.


ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ืœืื• ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื‘ืขืฉื” ื”ืื™ ืขืฉื” ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื™ื” ืื™ ื“ืื”ื ื™ื ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืชื™ืฉืชืจื™ ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืื”ื ื™ื ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืชื•ืงืžื” ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื


The Gemara asks: But perhaps one can say that she is forbidden to a High Priest by a prohibition, whereas she is forbidden to everyone else only by dint of a positive mitzva. The Gemara asks: This positive mitzva, what is its purpose? If the death of the husband affects her status, she should be entirely permitted, and if the death of the husband does not affect her status she remains in her initial state when her husband was alive, and therefore those who engage in sexual intercourse with her would be liable to receive the death penalty.


ืืœืžื” ืœื ืืคื™ืงืชื” ืžืžื™ืชื” ื•ืื•ืงื™ืžืชื” ืขืœ ืขืฉื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืืคืกื•ืœื™ ื”ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื


The Gemara answers: And why is this suggestion not considered reasonable? One could argue that the death of the husband removed her from the class of people with whom one is punished with death for engaging in intercourse, and placed her in the class of people with whom one is prohibited to engage in intercourse due to a positive mitzva, just as it is with consecrated animals that have been disqualified. This is referring to animals that were designated as offerings but became invalid due to some blemish.


ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืืกื™ืจื™ ื‘ื’ื™ื–ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืคืจืงื™ื ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ืœื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ื’ื™ื–ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืืกื™ืจื™


The Gemara explains: The halakha with regard to such animals is that initially, when they are unblemished, they are subject to the halakhot of misuse, i.e., if one benefited from them he has misused consecrated items. And likewise shearing them and performing labor with them is prohibited. Once these animals have developed a blemish and one has redeemed them, the prohibition against misuse of consecrated items does not apply to them, but shearing them and performing labor with them remains prohibited. Based on this example, it is possible that the death of the husband does not render the woman entirely permitted. If so, one cannot derive from here that it is permitted for a wife whose husband has passed away to marry another man.


ืืœื ืžื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืคืŸ ื™ืžื•ืช ื‘ืžืœื—ืžื” ื•ืื™ืฉ ืื—ืจ ื™ืงื—ื ื” ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืื™ืžื ืžืืŸ ืื—ืจ ื™ื‘ื


Rather, the source that a widow may remarry is from that which the verse states: โ€œLest he die in battle and another man take herโ€ (Deuteronomy 20:7). This indicates that a man may marry a widow. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to this: One can say: Who is this other man mentioned by the verse? It is a yavam.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืฉืชื™ ืชืฉื•ื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื—ื“ื ื“ื™ื‘ื ืœื ืื™ืงืจื™ ืื—ืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉื ืื” ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืกืคืจ ื›ืจื™ืชืช ืื• ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืžื™ืชื” ืœื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืžื” ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืจื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืžืจืช ืืฃ ืžื™ืชื” ืฉืจื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืžืจืช:


Rav Ashi said that there are two refutations of this statement: First, a yavam is not called โ€œanother,โ€ as his relationship with her is not entirely separate from that of the first husband. And furthermore, it is written: โ€œAnd the latter husband hates her, and writes her a scroll of severance and gives it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband diesโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:3). In this manner the verse juxtaposes death to divorce: Just as divorce permits a woman to everyone and completes the severing of a husband from his wife, thereby allowing her to marry another man, so too, death permits her and completes the severing, allowing her to marry another man.


ื•ื”ื™ื‘ืžื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ื›ื•ืณ: ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื


ยง The mishna teaches: And a yevama can be acquired by the deceased husbandโ€™s brother, the yavam, only through intercourse. And she acquires herself through แธฅalitza or through the death of the yavam. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that she can be acquired through intercourse? The verse states:


Scroll To Top