In redeeming sanctified items, the item is acquired when paying money and not by meshicha, pulling. What is the law if the price changes between the paying of the money and the pulling of the item or between the pulling and the paying of the money? The Mishna explains that the mitzvot that a father is required to do for his son are only incumbent on men and not on women (mothers). The Mishna also explains which types of mitzvot are obligatory for women and which are women exempt from, including time-bound positive commandments. The Gemara brings a braita that gives examples of the mitzvot that the father is required to do to his son – circumcision, redeeming the firstborn son, teaching him Torah, marrying him off, teaching him a trade and some say swimming as well. The Gemara begins to go over the examples and brings sources from the Torah for the father’s obligation and the mother’s exemption. Who is obligated in the event that the father doesn’t take care of it?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
Kiddushin
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
Kiddushin
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
Kiddushin 29
עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ וְיַחְזִיק. מְשָׁכוֹ בְּמָנֶה וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִפְדּוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָאתַיִם – נוֹתֵן מָאתַיִם. מַאי טַעְמָא – ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״.
until he pulls or takes possession of it. Additionally, the Temple treasury has the following advantage: If a commoner pulled a consecrated item for the purpose of acquiring it with one hundred dinars, and he did not manage to redeem it by paying the one hundred dinars to the Temple treasurer before the item’s price stood at two hundred dinars, he gives two hundred dinars. What is the reason for this? It states: He will give the money and it will be assured to him (see Leviticus 27:19). This indicates that one can acquire an item from the Temple treasury only by the actual transfer of money.
מְשָׁכוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִפְדּוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָנֶה – נוֹתֵן מָאתַיִם. מַאי טַעְמָא – לֹא יְהֵא כֹּחַ הֶדְיוֹט חָמוּר מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ.
By contrast, in the reverse case, when the commoner pulled an item when it was worth two hundred dinars, and he did not manage to redeem it before the value of the item stood at one hundred dinars, he gives two hundred dinars. What is the reason for this? The power of a commoner should not be greater than that of the Temple treasury of consecrated property. Since a commoner completes his acquisition by pulling, the item is acquired by him at that price, and the Temple treasury should not suffer a loss in a case where the commoner could not have reneged on his commitment had he been dealing with another commoner.
פְּדָאוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְמוֹשְׁכוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָנֶה – נוֹתֵן מָאתַיִם, מַאי טַעְמָא – ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״. פְּדָאוֹ בְּמָנֶה וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְמוֹשְׁכוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָאתַיִם – מַה שֶּׁפָּדָה פָּדוּי, וְאֵין נוֹתֵן אֶלָּא מָנֶה.
Similarly, if the commoner redeemed it at two hundred dinars, but he did not manage to pull it before its value stood at one hundred dinars, he gives two hundred dinars. What is the reason? It states: He will give the money and it will be assured to him, which indicates that the redemption of consecrated property is effected with money. By contrast, if he redeemed it at one hundred dinars and did not manage to pull it before it stood at two hundred dinars, what he redeemed is redeemed, and he gives only one hundred dinars.
אַמַּאי? הָכִי נָמֵי נֵימָא: לֹא יְהֵא כֹּחַ הֶדְיוֹט חָמוּר מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ?
The Gemara asks: Why is this the halakha? So too, let us say: The power of a commoner should not be greater than that of the Temple treasury of consecrated property, and if this occurred in a case where he was dealing with another commoner he would need to pay the full two hundred dinars, which was the value of the item when he pulled it. Shouldn’t the Temple treasury have as much power as a common person?
אַטּוּ הֶדְיוֹט לָאו בְּמִי שֶׁפָּרַע קָאֵי?
The Gemara answers: There is an additional impediment to reneging on an agreement with another commoner. Is that to say that a commoner who gave a seller money and changed his mind before acquiring the item is not forced to accept upon himself the curse of: He Who exacted payment from the generation of the flood (see Genesis, chapter 7) and the generation of the dispersion (see Genesis, chapter 11) will punish one who does not keep his word? Although a commoner can legally renege on his agreement at this stage, the Sages disapproved of such dishonest conduct, and one who did so would be cursed in this manner. Consequently, the power of a commoner is not greater than that of the Temple treasury, as it is not a simple matter to renege on an agreement with another commoner.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכׇל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן – אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין. וְכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים חַיָּיבִין.
MISHNA: With regard to all mitzvot of a son with regard to his father, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all mitzvot of a father with regard to his son, both men and women are obligated to perform them. The mishna notes an additional difference between the obligations of men and women in the performance of mitzvot: With regard to all positive, time-bound mitzvot, i.e., those which must be performed at specific times, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all positive mitzvot that are not time bound, both men and women are obligated to perform them.
וְכׇל מִצְוֹת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, בֵּין שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים חַיָּיבִין, חוּץ מִ״בַּל תַּקִּיף״ וּ״בַל תַּשְׁחִית״, וּ״בַל תִּטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים״.
And with regard to all prohibitions, whether they are time-bound or whether they are not time-bound, both men and women are obligated to observe them, except for the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of your head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard, which are derived from the verse: “You shall not round the corners of your head and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), and a prohibition that concerns only priests: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse (see Leviticus 21:1). These mitzvot apply only to men, not women, despite the fact that they are prohibitions.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב״? אִילֵּימָא כׇּל מִצְוֹת דְּמִיחַיַּיב בְּרָא לְמִיעְבַּד לְאַבָּא, נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ״, הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם!
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: All mitzvot of a son with regard to his father? If we say that it is referring to all mitzvot that the son is obligated to perform with regard to his father, are women exempt from obligations of this kind? But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning a verse that deals with the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3)? I have derived only that a man is obligated in this mitzva. From where do I derive that a woman is also obligated? When it says in the same verse: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), employing the plural form of the verb, this indicates that there are two that are obligated here, both a man and a woman.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן הַמּוּטָּלוֹת עַל הָאָב לַעֲשׂוֹת לִבְנוֹ – אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת.
Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to all mitzvot of a son that are incumbent upon his father to perform for his son, men are obligated in them and women are exempt.
תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאָב חַיָּיב בִּבְנוֹ לְמוּלוֹ, וְלִפְדוֹתוֹ, וּלְלַמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה, וּלְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה, וּלְלַמְּדוֹ אוּמָּנוּת. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף לַהֲשִׁיטוֹ בַּמַּיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְלַמֵּד אֶת בְּנוֹ אוּמָּנוּת – מְלַמְּדוֹ לִיסְטוּת. לִיסְטוּת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא: כְּאִילּוּ מְלַמְּדוֹ לִיסְטוּת.
The Gemara comments: According to this interpretation, we learn in this mishna that which the Sages taught in a baraita: A father is obligated with regard to his son to circumcise him, and to redeem him if he is a firstborn son who must be redeemed by payment to a priest, and to teach him Torah, and to marry him to a woman, and to teach him a trade. And some say: A father is also obligated to teach his son to swim. Rabbi Yehuda says: Any father who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry [listut]. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Can it enter your mind that he actually teaches him banditry? Rather, the baraita means that it is as though he teaches him banditry. Since the son has no profession with which to support himself, he is likely to turn to theft for a livelihood. This baraita accords with Rav Yehuda’s interpretation of the mishna.
״לְמוּלוֹ״ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּמׇל אַבְרָהָם אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ״. וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא מַהְלֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ מִיחַיְּיבִי בֵּי דִינָא לְמִימְהֲלֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״הִמּוֹל לָכֶם כׇּל זָכָר״. וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא מַהְלוּהּ בֵּי דִינָא מִיחַיַּיב אִיהוּ לְמִימְהַל נַפְשֵׁיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל אֶת בְּשַׂר עׇרְלָתוֹ וְנִכְרְתָה״.
§ The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to circumcise his son. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac” (Genesis 21:4). The Gemara comments: And in a case where one’s father did not circumcise him the court is obligated to circumcise him, i.e., if this obligation is not fulfilled by the father it applies to the community as a whole, as it is written: “Every male among you shall be circumcised” (Genesis 17:10), in the form of a general mitzva that does not apply only to the father. And in a case where the court did not circumcise him the son is obligated to circumcise himself when he reaches adulthood, as it is written: “And the uncircumcised male, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Genesis 17:14).
אִיהִי מְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיחַיְּיבָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים״ – אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ.
From where do we derive that his mother is not obligated to circumcise her son? As it is written: “And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God commanded him” (Genesis 21:4). The verse emphasizes that God commanded him, and not her.
אַשְׁכְּחַן מִיָּד, לְדוֹרוֹת מְנָלַן? תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״צַו״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא זֵירוּז, מִיָּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת.
We found a source for this mitzva immediately, i.e., when it was given to Abraham; from where do we derive that this is the halakha for the men of all generations? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that any place where it is stated: “Command,” it is nothing other than an expression of galvanization both immediately and for generations. The mitzva of circumcision is presented by means of this term.
זֵירוּז, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְצַו אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְחַזְּקֵהוּ וְאַמְּצֵהוּ״. מִיָּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ וָהָלְאָה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם״
The Gemara elaborates: From where is it derived that the term “command” indicates a galvanization? As it is written: “And command Joshua, and encourage him and strengthen him” (Deuteronomy 3:28). In this context, the term “command” is not referring to a specific command but is a general expression of galvanization. From where is it derived that this applies immediately and for generations? As it is written: “From the day that the Lord commanded and onward throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:23). This shows that whenever the word “command” is used it is referring to that day onward for all generations.
לִפְדּוֹתוֹ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה״. וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא פַּרְקֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ מִיחַיַּיב אִיהוּ לְמִפְרְקֵיהּ דִּכְתִיב: ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפָּדֶה״.
§ The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to redeem his son. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20). And in a case where one’s father does not redeem him he is obligated to redeem himself, as it is written: “You shall redeem [pado tifde]” (Numbers 18:15). The repetition of the verb indicates that a firstborn is required to be redeemed in any case, even if his father neglects to do so.
וְאִיהִי מְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיפַּקְדָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״תִּיפָּדֶה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״, כֹּל שֶׁמְּצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ – מְצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֶת אֲחֵרִים, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ – אֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֲחֵרִים.
And from where do we derive that a mother is not commanded to redeem her son? As it is written: “You shall redeem [tifde]” which can be read as: You shall be redeemed [tippadeh]. This indicates that whoever is commanded to redeem himself is commanded to redeem others, and whoever is not commanded to redeem himself is not commanded to redeem others. Since a woman is not commanded to redeem herself, she is not commanded to redeem her son either.
וְאִיהִי מְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיחַיְּיבָא לְמִיפְרַק נַפְשַׁהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּיפָּדֶה״, כֹּל שֶׁאֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוים לִפְדּוֹתוֹ – מְצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין אֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוים לִפְדּוֹתוֹ – אֵין מְצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין אֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוין לִפְדּוֹתָהּ? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה״ – בָּנֶיךָ וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֶיךָ.
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that she is not obligated to redeem herself? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “You shall redeem [tifde],” which can be read as: You shall be redeemed [tippadeh]. This indicates that any person whom others are commanded to redeem is commanded to redeem himself, and any person whom others are not commanded to redeem is not commanded to redeem himself. Since there is no mitzva for a parent to redeem his daughter, there is similarly no mitzva for a daughter to redeem herself. And from where is it derived that others are not commanded to redeem a daughter? As the verse states: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20), i.e., your sons and not your daughters.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא לִפְדּוֹת וּבְנוֹ לִפְדּוֹת – הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּנוֹ קוֹדְמוֹ. שֶׁזֶּה מִצְוָתוֹ עַל אָבִיו, וְזֶה מִצְוַת בְּנוֹ עָלָיו.
The Sages taught: If a firstborn has not yet been redeemed and he himself has a firstborn son, he is obligated to redeem himself and he is also obligated to redeem his firstborn son, and he takes precedence over his son. If he does not have enough money to redeem both of them, he redeems himself. Rabbi Yehuda says: His son takes precedence over him. Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is that with regard to this one, the father, the mitzva of his redemption was upon his father, and only when his father did not observe the mitzva did it apply to the adult son. And that mitzva of the redemption of his firstborn son applies to him directly. Consequently, he should first fulfill the mitzva that applies to him by redeeming his son.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הַכֹּל מוֹדִין
Rabbi Yirmeya says: Everyone agrees
כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים – הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִצְוָה דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיפָא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא חָמֵשׁ מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים וְחָמֵשׁ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.
that anywhere that there are only five sela available, i.e., enough to redeem only one man, and one is obligated to redeem both himself and his son, he, the father, takes precedence over his son. What is the reason? It is that his own mitzva is preferable to one that he performs on behalf of others. When they disagree is in a case where there is land worth five sela that is liened property that has been sold, i.e., he sold this land to other people but it can be reclaimed by his prior creditor, and five sela which is entirely unsold property.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מִלְוָה (דִּכְתִיב) [הַכְּתוּבָה] בַּתּוֹרָה כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא, בְּהָנֵי חָמֵשׁ פָּרֵיק לִבְרֵיהּ וְאָזֵיל כֹּהֵן וְטָרֵיף לֵיהּ לְחָמֵשׁ מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים לְדִידֵיהּ.
And the reasoning behind the dispute is as follows: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a loan that is written in the Torah, i.e., any financial obligation that applies by Torah law, is considered as though it is written in a document, and therefore it can be collected from liened property, like any loan recorded in a document. This means that the liened property worth five sela is available for one’s own redemption, but not for that of his son, as the sale of the property occurred before the birth of his firstborn. Consequently, with these five sela upon which there is no lien he redeems his son, and the priest goes and repossesses the land worth five sela that is liened property for his own redemption. In this manner one can fulfill both mitzvot.
וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִלְוָה דִּכְתִיב בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָאו כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא, וְהִילְכָּךְ מִצְוָה דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיף.
And the Rabbis maintain: A loan that is written in the Torah is not considered as though it is written in a document, since buyers will not be aware of this obligation, so that they should be aware that the land may be repossessed. And therefore there is no advantage for this man to redeem his son with the five sela upon which there is no lien, and his own mitzva is preferable, which means he redeems himself with the free land. With the liened property that is left he cannot redeem his son, as the land was sold before the birth of his firstborn.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לִפְדּוֹת אֶת בְּנוֹ וְלַעֲלוֹת לָרֶגֶל – פּוֹדֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ עוֹלֶה לָרֶגֶל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עוֹלֶה לָרֶגֶל, וְאַחַר כָּךְ פּוֹדֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ. שֶׁזּוֹ מִצְוָה עוֹבֶרֶת, וְזוֹ מִצְוָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבֶרֶת.
The Sages taught: If one has money to redeem his son and to ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival, he redeems his son and then ascends to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival. Rabbi Yehuda says: He ascends to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival and then redeems his son. His reasoning is that this trip to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival is a mitzva whose time soon passes, and this, the redemption of the firstborn son, is a mitzva whose time does not soon pass, as it can be fulfilled later.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כִּדְקָאָמַר טַעְמָא. אֶלָּא רַבָּנַן מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה״, וַהֲדַר: ״לֹא יֵרָאוּ פָנַי רֵיקָם״.
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is as he stated in his reasoning, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda provided the rationale for his opinion. But what is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who say that he should first redeem his son? The Gemara answers that the reason is that the verse states: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20), and it then states, in the same verse: “And none shall appear before me empty,” referring to the pilgrimage Festival in Jerusalem. The order of the verse indicates that one should redeem his firstborn son before traveling to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הָיוּ לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה בָּנִים מֵחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת כּוּלָּן – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֹּל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה״. פְּשִׁיטָא, בְּפֶטֶר רֶחֶם תְּלָא רַחֲמָנָא!
The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if one had five firstborn sons, from five different women, he is obligated to redeem them all? The verse states: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20), and the emphasis of “all” includes any of one’s firstborn sons. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious this is the case? After all, the Merciful One made this mitzva dependent upon the opening of the womb, as it states: “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn, whoever opens the womb” (Exodus 13:2). Since each of these sons is the firstborn of his mother, it is clear that the father is required to redeem each of them.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נֵילַף בְּכוֹר בְּכוֹר מִנַּחֲלָה, מָה לְהַלָּן ״רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ״, אַף כָּאן ״רֵאשִׁית אוֹנוֹ״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers that this ruling is necessary lest you say that we should derive a verbal analogy between “firstborn” stated here and “firstborn” from the verses dealing with inheritance: Just as there, the verse describes a firstborn who receives a double portion of the inheritance as: “The first fruit of his strength” (Deuteronomy 21:17), i.e., he is the firstborn son to his father, and not the first child born to his mother; so too here, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn son, it is referring to the first fruit of his strength, which would mean that the father need redeem only his oldest child. Therefore, this baraita teaches us that this is not the case. Rather, every firstborn son to his mother must be redeemed.
לְלַמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אֹתָם אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם״. וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא אַגְמְרֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ מִיחַיַּיב אִיהוּ לְמִיגְמַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּלְמַדְתֶּם״.
§ The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to teach his son Torah. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this requirement? As it is written: “And you shall teach them [velimadtem] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19). And in a case where his father did not teach him he is obligated to teach himself, as it is written, i.e., the verse can be read with a different vocalization: And you shall study [ulmadtem].
אִיהִי מְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיחַיְּיבָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלִימַּדְתֶּם״ ״וּלְמַדְתֶּם״, כֹּל שֶׁמְּצֻוֶּוה לִלְמוֹד – מְצֻוֶּוה לְלַמֵּד, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה לִלְמוֹד – אֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה לְלַמֵּד.
From where do we derive that a woman is not obligated to teach her son Torah? As it is written: “And you shall teach [velimadtem],” which can be read as: And you shall study [ulmadtem]. This indicates that whoever is commanded to study Torah is commanded to teach, and whoever is not commanded to study is not commanded to teach. Since a woman is not obligated to learn Torah, she is likewise not obligated to teach it.
וְאִיהִי מְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיחַיְּיבָה לְמֵילַף נַפְשַׁהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלִימַּדְתֶּם״ ״וּלְמַדְתֶּם״, כֹּל שֶׁאֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוין לְלַמְּדוֹ – מְצֻוֶּוה לְלַמֵּד אֶת עַצְמוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין אֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוין לְלַמְּדוֹ – אֵין מְצֻוֶּוה לְלַמֵּד אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין אֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוין לְלַמְּדָהּ? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אֹתָם אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם״ אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם, וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם.
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that she is not obligated to teach herself? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And you shall teach [velimadtem],” which can be read as: And you shall study [ulmadtem], which indicates that whoever others are commanded to teach is commanded to teach himself, and whoever others are not commanded to teach is not commanded to teach himself. And from where is it derived that others are not commanded to teach a woman? As the verse states: “And you shall teach them to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), which emphasizes: Your sons and not your daughters.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא לִלְמוֹד וּבְנוֹ לִלְמוֹד – הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם בְּנוֹ זָרִיז וּמְמוּלָּח וְתַלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ – בְּנוֹ קוֹדְמוֹ. כִּי הָא דְּרַב יַעֲקֹב בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב שַׁדְּרֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי. כִּי אֲתָא חַזְיֵיהּ דְּלָא הֲוָה מִיחַדְּדָן שְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא עֲדִיפָא מִינָּךְ, תּוּב אַתְּ, דְּאֵיזִיל אֲנָא.
The Sages taught: If one wishes to study Torah himself and his son also wants to study, he takes precedence over his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his son is diligent and sharp, and his study will endure, his son takes precedence over him. This is like that anecdote which is told about Rav Ya’akov, son of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, whose father sent him to Abaye to study Torah. When the son came home, his father saw that his studies were not sharp, as he was insufficiently bright. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said to his son: I am preferable to you, and it is better that I go and study. Therefore, you sit and handle the affairs of the house so that I can go and study.
שְׁמַע אַבָּיֵי דְּקָא הֲוָה אָתֵי. הֲוָה הָהוּא מַזִּיק בֵּי רַבָּנַן דְּאַבָּיֵי, דְּכִי הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בִּתְרֵין אֲפִילּוּ בִּימָמָא הֲווֹ מִיתַּזְּקִי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא לִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ אִינָשׁ אוּשְׁפִּיזָא, אֶפְשָׁר דְּמִתְרְחִישׁ נִיסָּא.
Abaye heard that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov was coming. There was a certain demon in the study hall of Abaye, which was so powerful that when two people would enter they would be harmed, even during the day. Abaye said to the people of the town: Do not give Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov lodging [ushpiza] so that he will be forced to spend the night in the study hall. Since Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov is a righteous man, perhaps a miracle will occur on his behalf and he will kill the demon.
עָל, בָּת בְּהָהוּא בֵּי רַבָּנַן. אִידְּמִי לֵיהּ כְּתַנִּינָא דְּשִׁבְעָה רֵישְׁווֹתֵיהּ. כֹּל כְּרִיעָה דִּכְרַע נְתַר חַד רֵישֵׁיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ לִמְחַר: אִי לָא אִיתְרְחִישׁ נִיסָּא סַכֵּינְתִּין.
Rav Aḥa found no place to spend the night, and he entered and spent the night in that study hall of the Sages. The demon appeared to him like a serpent with seven heads. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov began to pray, and with every bow that he bowed one of the demon’s heads fell off, until it eventually died. The next day Rav Aḥa said to the townspeople: If a miracle had not occurred, you would have placed me in danger.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה וְלִישָּׂא אִשָּׁה – יִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה. וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ בְּלֹא אִשָּׁה – יִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה, נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה.
The Sages taught: If one has to decide whether to study Torah or to marry a woman, which should he do first? He should study Torah and afterward marry a woman. And if it is impossible for him to be without a wife, he should marry a woman and then study Torah. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that one should marry a woman and afterward study Torah.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: רֵיחַיִים בְּצַוָּארוֹ וְיַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה?! וְלָא פְּלִיגִי: הָא – לַן, וְהָא – לְהוּ.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: How can one do this? With a millstone hanging from his neck, i.e., with the responsibility of providing for his family weighing upon him, can he engage in Torah study? The Gemara comments: And the amora’im do not disagree; this is for us and that is for them. In other words, one statement applies to the residents of Babylonia, whereas the other is referring to those living in Eretz Yisrael.
מִשְׁתַּבַּח לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הוּנָא בִּדְרַב הַמְנוּנָא דְּאָדָם גָּדוֹל הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁיָּבֹא לְיָדְךָ – הֲבִיאֵהוּ לְיָדִי. כִּי אֲתָא חַזְיֵיהּ דְּלָא פָּרֵיס סוּדָרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא פָּרֵיסַתְּ סוּדָרָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּלָא נְסֵיבְנָא. אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְאַפֵּיהּ מִינֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי דְּלָא חָזֵית לְהוּ לְאַפַּי עַד דְּנָסְבַתְּ.
§ With regard to marriage, the Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda would praise Rav Hamnuna to Rav Huna by saying that he is a great man. Rav Huna said to him: When he comes to you, send him to me. When Rav Hamnuna came before him, Rav Huna saw that he did not cover his head with a cloth, as Torah scholars did. Rav Huna said to him: What is the reason that you do not cover your head with a cloth? Rav Hamnuna said to him: The reason is that I am not married, and it was not customary for unmarried men to cover their heads with a cloth. Rav Huna turned his face away from him in rebuke, and he said to him: See to it that you do not see my face until you marry.
רַב הוּנָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְלֹא נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה – כׇּל יָמָיו בַּעֲבֵירָה. בַּעֲבֵירָה סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כָּל יָמָיו בְּהִרְהוּר עֲבֵירָה.
The Gemara notes: Rav Huna conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: If one is twenty years old and has not yet married a woman, all of his days will be in a state of sin concerning sexual matters. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that he will be in a state of sin all of his days? Rather, say that this means the following: All of his days will be in a state of thoughts of sin, i.e., sexual thoughts. One who does not marry in his youth will become accustomed to thoughts of sexual matters, and the habit will remain with him the rest of his life.
אָמַר רָבָא, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: עַד עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה יוֹשֵׁב הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּמְצַפֶּה לָאָדָם מָתַי יִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא נָשָׂא, אוֹמֵר: תִּיפַּח עַצְמוֹתָיו.
Rava said, and similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Until one reaches the age of twenty years the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and waits for a man, saying: When will he marry a woman? Once he reaches the age of twenty and has not married, He says: Let his bones swell, i.e., he is cursed and God is no longer concerned about him.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַאי דַּעֲדִיפְנָא מֵחַבְרַאי, דִּנְסֵיבְנָא בְּשִׁיתְּסַר, וְאִי הֲוָה נָסֵיבְנָא בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר
Rav Ḥisda said: The fact that I am superior to my colleagues is because I married at the age of sixteen, and if I would have married at the age of fourteen,
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
A Daf Of Their Own –Schita By a Woman
נשים שוחטות- דף משלהן
Zevachim Daf 15-21 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
ערל: בין הגדרה פיזיולוגית להגדרה מהותית- גפ”ת
A Daf Of Their Own –Defining Your Identity
ערל לב- דף משלהן
Din & Daf: The Kohen Gadol’s New Clothes: Yom Kippur as Renewal
Zevachim Daf 8-14 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
A Daf Of Their Own –The Kohen’s Garments
בגדי כהונה- דף משלהן
Zevachim Daf 2-7 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
New York, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Minnesota, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Kiddushin 29
עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ וְיַחְזִיק. מְשָׁכוֹ בְּמָנֶה וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִפְדּוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָאתַיִם – נוֹתֵן מָאתַיִם. מַאי טַעְמָא – ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״.
until he pulls or takes possession of it. Additionally, the Temple treasury has the following advantage: If a commoner pulled a consecrated item for the purpose of acquiring it with one hundred dinars, and he did not manage to redeem it by paying the one hundred dinars to the Temple treasurer before the item’s price stood at two hundred dinars, he gives two hundred dinars. What is the reason for this? It states: He will give the money and it will be assured to him (see Leviticus 27:19). This indicates that one can acquire an item from the Temple treasury only by the actual transfer of money.
מְשָׁכוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִפְדּוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָנֶה – נוֹתֵן מָאתַיִם. מַאי טַעְמָא – לֹא יְהֵא כֹּחַ הֶדְיוֹט חָמוּר מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ.
By contrast, in the reverse case, when the commoner pulled an item when it was worth two hundred dinars, and he did not manage to redeem it before the value of the item stood at one hundred dinars, he gives two hundred dinars. What is the reason for this? The power of a commoner should not be greater than that of the Temple treasury of consecrated property. Since a commoner completes his acquisition by pulling, the item is acquired by him at that price, and the Temple treasury should not suffer a loss in a case where the commoner could not have reneged on his commitment had he been dealing with another commoner.
פְּדָאוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְמוֹשְׁכוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָנֶה – נוֹתֵן מָאתַיִם, מַאי טַעְמָא – ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״. פְּדָאוֹ בְּמָנֶה וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְמוֹשְׁכוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָאתַיִם – מַה שֶּׁפָּדָה פָּדוּי, וְאֵין נוֹתֵן אֶלָּא מָנֶה.
Similarly, if the commoner redeemed it at two hundred dinars, but he did not manage to pull it before its value stood at one hundred dinars, he gives two hundred dinars. What is the reason? It states: He will give the money and it will be assured to him, which indicates that the redemption of consecrated property is effected with money. By contrast, if he redeemed it at one hundred dinars and did not manage to pull it before it stood at two hundred dinars, what he redeemed is redeemed, and he gives only one hundred dinars.
אַמַּאי? הָכִי נָמֵי נֵימָא: לֹא יְהֵא כֹּחַ הֶדְיוֹט חָמוּר מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ?
The Gemara asks: Why is this the halakha? So too, let us say: The power of a commoner should not be greater than that of the Temple treasury of consecrated property, and if this occurred in a case where he was dealing with another commoner he would need to pay the full two hundred dinars, which was the value of the item when he pulled it. Shouldn’t the Temple treasury have as much power as a common person?
אַטּוּ הֶדְיוֹט לָאו בְּמִי שֶׁפָּרַע קָאֵי?
The Gemara answers: There is an additional impediment to reneging on an agreement with another commoner. Is that to say that a commoner who gave a seller money and changed his mind before acquiring the item is not forced to accept upon himself the curse of: He Who exacted payment from the generation of the flood (see Genesis, chapter 7) and the generation of the dispersion (see Genesis, chapter 11) will punish one who does not keep his word? Although a commoner can legally renege on his agreement at this stage, the Sages disapproved of such dishonest conduct, and one who did so would be cursed in this manner. Consequently, the power of a commoner is not greater than that of the Temple treasury, as it is not a simple matter to renege on an agreement with another commoner.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכׇל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן – אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין. וְכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים חַיָּיבִין.
MISHNA: With regard to all mitzvot of a son with regard to his father, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all mitzvot of a father with regard to his son, both men and women are obligated to perform them. The mishna notes an additional difference between the obligations of men and women in the performance of mitzvot: With regard to all positive, time-bound mitzvot, i.e., those which must be performed at specific times, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all positive mitzvot that are not time bound, both men and women are obligated to perform them.
וְכׇל מִצְוֹת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, בֵּין שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים חַיָּיבִין, חוּץ מִ״בַּל תַּקִּיף״ וּ״בַל תַּשְׁחִית״, וּ״בַל תִּטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים״.
And with regard to all prohibitions, whether they are time-bound or whether they are not time-bound, both men and women are obligated to observe them, except for the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of your head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard, which are derived from the verse: “You shall not round the corners of your head and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), and a prohibition that concerns only priests: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse (see Leviticus 21:1). These mitzvot apply only to men, not women, despite the fact that they are prohibitions.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב״? אִילֵּימָא כׇּל מִצְוֹת דְּמִיחַיַּיב בְּרָא לְמִיעְבַּד לְאַבָּא, נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ״, הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם!
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: All mitzvot of a son with regard to his father? If we say that it is referring to all mitzvot that the son is obligated to perform with regard to his father, are women exempt from obligations of this kind? But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning a verse that deals with the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3)? I have derived only that a man is obligated in this mitzva. From where do I derive that a woman is also obligated? When it says in the same verse: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), employing the plural form of the verb, this indicates that there are two that are obligated here, both a man and a woman.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן הַמּוּטָּלוֹת עַל הָאָב לַעֲשׂוֹת לִבְנוֹ – אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת.
Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to all mitzvot of a son that are incumbent upon his father to perform for his son, men are obligated in them and women are exempt.
תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאָב חַיָּיב בִּבְנוֹ לְמוּלוֹ, וְלִפְדוֹתוֹ, וּלְלַמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה, וּלְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה, וּלְלַמְּדוֹ אוּמָּנוּת. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף לַהֲשִׁיטוֹ בַּמַּיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְלַמֵּד אֶת בְּנוֹ אוּמָּנוּת – מְלַמְּדוֹ לִיסְטוּת. לִיסְטוּת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא: כְּאִילּוּ מְלַמְּדוֹ לִיסְטוּת.
The Gemara comments: According to this interpretation, we learn in this mishna that which the Sages taught in a baraita: A father is obligated with regard to his son to circumcise him, and to redeem him if he is a firstborn son who must be redeemed by payment to a priest, and to teach him Torah, and to marry him to a woman, and to teach him a trade. And some say: A father is also obligated to teach his son to swim. Rabbi Yehuda says: Any father who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry [listut]. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Can it enter your mind that he actually teaches him banditry? Rather, the baraita means that it is as though he teaches him banditry. Since the son has no profession with which to support himself, he is likely to turn to theft for a livelihood. This baraita accords with Rav Yehuda’s interpretation of the mishna.
״לְמוּלוֹ״ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּמׇל אַבְרָהָם אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ״. וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא מַהְלֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ מִיחַיְּיבִי בֵּי דִינָא לְמִימְהֲלֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״הִמּוֹל לָכֶם כׇּל זָכָר״. וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא מַהְלוּהּ בֵּי דִינָא מִיחַיַּיב אִיהוּ לְמִימְהַל נַפְשֵׁיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל אֶת בְּשַׂר עׇרְלָתוֹ וְנִכְרְתָה״.
§ The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to circumcise his son. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac” (Genesis 21:4). The Gemara comments: And in a case where one’s father did not circumcise him the court is obligated to circumcise him, i.e., if this obligation is not fulfilled by the father it applies to the community as a whole, as it is written: “Every male among you shall be circumcised” (Genesis 17:10), in the form of a general mitzva that does not apply only to the father. And in a case where the court did not circumcise him the son is obligated to circumcise himself when he reaches adulthood, as it is written: “And the uncircumcised male, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Genesis 17:14).
אִיהִי מְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיחַיְּיבָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים״ – אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ.
From where do we derive that his mother is not obligated to circumcise her son? As it is written: “And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God commanded him” (Genesis 21:4). The verse emphasizes that God commanded him, and not her.
אַשְׁכְּחַן מִיָּד, לְדוֹרוֹת מְנָלַן? תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״צַו״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא זֵירוּז, מִיָּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת.
We found a source for this mitzva immediately, i.e., when it was given to Abraham; from where do we derive that this is the halakha for the men of all generations? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that any place where it is stated: “Command,” it is nothing other than an expression of galvanization both immediately and for generations. The mitzva of circumcision is presented by means of this term.
זֵירוּז, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְצַו אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְחַזְּקֵהוּ וְאַמְּצֵהוּ״. מִיָּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ וָהָלְאָה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם״
The Gemara elaborates: From where is it derived that the term “command” indicates a galvanization? As it is written: “And command Joshua, and encourage him and strengthen him” (Deuteronomy 3:28). In this context, the term “command” is not referring to a specific command but is a general expression of galvanization. From where is it derived that this applies immediately and for generations? As it is written: “From the day that the Lord commanded and onward throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:23). This shows that whenever the word “command” is used it is referring to that day onward for all generations.
לִפְדּוֹתוֹ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה״. וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא פַּרְקֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ מִיחַיַּיב אִיהוּ לְמִפְרְקֵיהּ דִּכְתִיב: ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפָּדֶה״.
§ The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to redeem his son. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20). And in a case where one’s father does not redeem him he is obligated to redeem himself, as it is written: “You shall redeem [pado tifde]” (Numbers 18:15). The repetition of the verb indicates that a firstborn is required to be redeemed in any case, even if his father neglects to do so.
וְאִיהִי מְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיפַּקְדָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״תִּיפָּדֶה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״, כֹּל שֶׁמְּצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ – מְצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֶת אֲחֵרִים, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ – אֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֲחֵרִים.
And from where do we derive that a mother is not commanded to redeem her son? As it is written: “You shall redeem [tifde]” which can be read as: You shall be redeemed [tippadeh]. This indicates that whoever is commanded to redeem himself is commanded to redeem others, and whoever is not commanded to redeem himself is not commanded to redeem others. Since a woman is not commanded to redeem herself, she is not commanded to redeem her son either.
וְאִיהִי מְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיחַיְּיבָא לְמִיפְרַק נַפְשַׁהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּיפָּדֶה״, כֹּל שֶׁאֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוים לִפְדּוֹתוֹ – מְצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין אֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוים לִפְדּוֹתוֹ – אֵין מְצֻוֶּוה לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין אֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוין לִפְדּוֹתָהּ? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה״ – בָּנֶיךָ וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֶיךָ.
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that she is not obligated to redeem herself? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “You shall redeem [tifde],” which can be read as: You shall be redeemed [tippadeh]. This indicates that any person whom others are commanded to redeem is commanded to redeem himself, and any person whom others are not commanded to redeem is not commanded to redeem himself. Since there is no mitzva for a parent to redeem his daughter, there is similarly no mitzva for a daughter to redeem herself. And from where is it derived that others are not commanded to redeem a daughter? As the verse states: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20), i.e., your sons and not your daughters.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא לִפְדּוֹת וּבְנוֹ לִפְדּוֹת – הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּנוֹ קוֹדְמוֹ. שֶׁזֶּה מִצְוָתוֹ עַל אָבִיו, וְזֶה מִצְוַת בְּנוֹ עָלָיו.
The Sages taught: If a firstborn has not yet been redeemed and he himself has a firstborn son, he is obligated to redeem himself and he is also obligated to redeem his firstborn son, and he takes precedence over his son. If he does not have enough money to redeem both of them, he redeems himself. Rabbi Yehuda says: His son takes precedence over him. Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is that with regard to this one, the father, the mitzva of his redemption was upon his father, and only when his father did not observe the mitzva did it apply to the adult son. And that mitzva of the redemption of his firstborn son applies to him directly. Consequently, he should first fulfill the mitzva that applies to him by redeeming his son.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הַכֹּל מוֹדִין
Rabbi Yirmeya says: Everyone agrees
כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים – הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִצְוָה דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיפָא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא חָמֵשׁ מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים וְחָמֵשׁ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.
that anywhere that there are only five sela available, i.e., enough to redeem only one man, and one is obligated to redeem both himself and his son, he, the father, takes precedence over his son. What is the reason? It is that his own mitzva is preferable to one that he performs on behalf of others. When they disagree is in a case where there is land worth five sela that is liened property that has been sold, i.e., he sold this land to other people but it can be reclaimed by his prior creditor, and five sela which is entirely unsold property.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מִלְוָה (דִּכְתִיב) [הַכְּתוּבָה] בַּתּוֹרָה כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא, בְּהָנֵי חָמֵשׁ פָּרֵיק לִבְרֵיהּ וְאָזֵיל כֹּהֵן וְטָרֵיף לֵיהּ לְחָמֵשׁ מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים לְדִידֵיהּ.
And the reasoning behind the dispute is as follows: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a loan that is written in the Torah, i.e., any financial obligation that applies by Torah law, is considered as though it is written in a document, and therefore it can be collected from liened property, like any loan recorded in a document. This means that the liened property worth five sela is available for one’s own redemption, but not for that of his son, as the sale of the property occurred before the birth of his firstborn. Consequently, with these five sela upon which there is no lien he redeems his son, and the priest goes and repossesses the land worth five sela that is liened property for his own redemption. In this manner one can fulfill both mitzvot.
וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִלְוָה דִּכְתִיב בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָאו כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא, וְהִילְכָּךְ מִצְוָה דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיף.
And the Rabbis maintain: A loan that is written in the Torah is not considered as though it is written in a document, since buyers will not be aware of this obligation, so that they should be aware that the land may be repossessed. And therefore there is no advantage for this man to redeem his son with the five sela upon which there is no lien, and his own mitzva is preferable, which means he redeems himself with the free land. With the liened property that is left he cannot redeem his son, as the land was sold before the birth of his firstborn.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לִפְדּוֹת אֶת בְּנוֹ וְלַעֲלוֹת לָרֶגֶל – פּוֹדֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ עוֹלֶה לָרֶגֶל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עוֹלֶה לָרֶגֶל, וְאַחַר כָּךְ פּוֹדֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ. שֶׁזּוֹ מִצְוָה עוֹבֶרֶת, וְזוֹ מִצְוָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבֶרֶת.
The Sages taught: If one has money to redeem his son and to ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival, he redeems his son and then ascends to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival. Rabbi Yehuda says: He ascends to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival and then redeems his son. His reasoning is that this trip to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival is a mitzva whose time soon passes, and this, the redemption of the firstborn son, is a mitzva whose time does not soon pass, as it can be fulfilled later.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כִּדְקָאָמַר טַעְמָא. אֶלָּא רַבָּנַן מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה״, וַהֲדַר: ״לֹא יֵרָאוּ פָנַי רֵיקָם״.
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is as he stated in his reasoning, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda provided the rationale for his opinion. But what is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who say that he should first redeem his son? The Gemara answers that the reason is that the verse states: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20), and it then states, in the same verse: “And none shall appear before me empty,” referring to the pilgrimage Festival in Jerusalem. The order of the verse indicates that one should redeem his firstborn son before traveling to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הָיוּ לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה בָּנִים מֵחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת כּוּלָּן – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֹּל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה״. פְּשִׁיטָא, בְּפֶטֶר רֶחֶם תְּלָא רַחֲמָנָא!
The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if one had five firstborn sons, from five different women, he is obligated to redeem them all? The verse states: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20), and the emphasis of “all” includes any of one’s firstborn sons. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious this is the case? After all, the Merciful One made this mitzva dependent upon the opening of the womb, as it states: “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn, whoever opens the womb” (Exodus 13:2). Since each of these sons is the firstborn of his mother, it is clear that the father is required to redeem each of them.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נֵילַף בְּכוֹר בְּכוֹר מִנַּחֲלָה, מָה לְהַלָּן ״רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ״, אַף כָּאן ״רֵאשִׁית אוֹנוֹ״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers that this ruling is necessary lest you say that we should derive a verbal analogy between “firstborn” stated here and “firstborn” from the verses dealing with inheritance: Just as there, the verse describes a firstborn who receives a double portion of the inheritance as: “The first fruit of his strength” (Deuteronomy 21:17), i.e., he is the firstborn son to his father, and not the first child born to his mother; so too here, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn son, it is referring to the first fruit of his strength, which would mean that the father need redeem only his oldest child. Therefore, this baraita teaches us that this is not the case. Rather, every firstborn son to his mother must be redeemed.
לְלַמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אֹתָם אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם״. וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא אַגְמְרֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ מִיחַיַּיב אִיהוּ לְמִיגְמַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּלְמַדְתֶּם״.
§ The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to teach his son Torah. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this requirement? As it is written: “And you shall teach them [velimadtem] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19). And in a case where his father did not teach him he is obligated to teach himself, as it is written, i.e., the verse can be read with a different vocalization: And you shall study [ulmadtem].
אִיהִי מְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיחַיְּיבָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלִימַּדְתֶּם״ ״וּלְמַדְתֶּם״, כֹּל שֶׁמְּצֻוֶּוה לִלְמוֹד – מְצֻוֶּוה לְלַמֵּד, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה לִלְמוֹד – אֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה לְלַמֵּד.
From where do we derive that a woman is not obligated to teach her son Torah? As it is written: “And you shall teach [velimadtem],” which can be read as: And you shall study [ulmadtem]. This indicates that whoever is commanded to study Torah is commanded to teach, and whoever is not commanded to study is not commanded to teach. Since a woman is not obligated to learn Torah, she is likewise not obligated to teach it.
וְאִיהִי מְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיחַיְּיבָה לְמֵילַף נַפְשַׁהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלִימַּדְתֶּם״ ״וּלְמַדְתֶּם״, כֹּל שֶׁאֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוין לְלַמְּדוֹ – מְצֻוֶּוה לְלַמֵּד אֶת עַצְמוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין אֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוין לְלַמְּדוֹ – אֵין מְצֻוֶּוה לְלַמֵּד אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין אֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוין לְלַמְּדָהּ? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אֹתָם אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם״ אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם, וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם.
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that she is not obligated to teach herself? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And you shall teach [velimadtem],” which can be read as: And you shall study [ulmadtem], which indicates that whoever others are commanded to teach is commanded to teach himself, and whoever others are not commanded to teach is not commanded to teach himself. And from where is it derived that others are not commanded to teach a woman? As the verse states: “And you shall teach them to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), which emphasizes: Your sons and not your daughters.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא לִלְמוֹד וּבְנוֹ לִלְמוֹד – הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם בְּנוֹ זָרִיז וּמְמוּלָּח וְתַלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ – בְּנוֹ קוֹדְמוֹ. כִּי הָא דְּרַב יַעֲקֹב בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב שַׁדְּרֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי. כִּי אֲתָא חַזְיֵיהּ דְּלָא הֲוָה מִיחַדְּדָן שְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא עֲדִיפָא מִינָּךְ, תּוּב אַתְּ, דְּאֵיזִיל אֲנָא.
The Sages taught: If one wishes to study Torah himself and his son also wants to study, he takes precedence over his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his son is diligent and sharp, and his study will endure, his son takes precedence over him. This is like that anecdote which is told about Rav Ya’akov, son of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, whose father sent him to Abaye to study Torah. When the son came home, his father saw that his studies were not sharp, as he was insufficiently bright. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said to his son: I am preferable to you, and it is better that I go and study. Therefore, you sit and handle the affairs of the house so that I can go and study.
שְׁמַע אַבָּיֵי דְּקָא הֲוָה אָתֵי. הֲוָה הָהוּא מַזִּיק בֵּי רַבָּנַן דְּאַבָּיֵי, דְּכִי הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בִּתְרֵין אֲפִילּוּ בִּימָמָא הֲווֹ מִיתַּזְּקִי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא לִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ אִינָשׁ אוּשְׁפִּיזָא, אֶפְשָׁר דְּמִתְרְחִישׁ נִיסָּא.
Abaye heard that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov was coming. There was a certain demon in the study hall of Abaye, which was so powerful that when two people would enter they would be harmed, even during the day. Abaye said to the people of the town: Do not give Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov lodging [ushpiza] so that he will be forced to spend the night in the study hall. Since Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov is a righteous man, perhaps a miracle will occur on his behalf and he will kill the demon.
עָל, בָּת בְּהָהוּא בֵּי רַבָּנַן. אִידְּמִי לֵיהּ כְּתַנִּינָא דְּשִׁבְעָה רֵישְׁווֹתֵיהּ. כֹּל כְּרִיעָה דִּכְרַע נְתַר חַד רֵישֵׁיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ לִמְחַר: אִי לָא אִיתְרְחִישׁ נִיסָּא סַכֵּינְתִּין.
Rav Aḥa found no place to spend the night, and he entered and spent the night in that study hall of the Sages. The demon appeared to him like a serpent with seven heads. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov began to pray, and with every bow that he bowed one of the demon’s heads fell off, until it eventually died. The next day Rav Aḥa said to the townspeople: If a miracle had not occurred, you would have placed me in danger.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה וְלִישָּׂא אִשָּׁה – יִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה. וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ בְּלֹא אִשָּׁה – יִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה, נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה.
The Sages taught: If one has to decide whether to study Torah or to marry a woman, which should he do first? He should study Torah and afterward marry a woman. And if it is impossible for him to be without a wife, he should marry a woman and then study Torah. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that one should marry a woman and afterward study Torah.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: רֵיחַיִים בְּצַוָּארוֹ וְיַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה?! וְלָא פְּלִיגִי: הָא – לַן, וְהָא – לְהוּ.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: How can one do this? With a millstone hanging from his neck, i.e., with the responsibility of providing for his family weighing upon him, can he engage in Torah study? The Gemara comments: And the amora’im do not disagree; this is for us and that is for them. In other words, one statement applies to the residents of Babylonia, whereas the other is referring to those living in Eretz Yisrael.
מִשְׁתַּבַּח לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הוּנָא בִּדְרַב הַמְנוּנָא דְּאָדָם גָּדוֹל הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁיָּבֹא לְיָדְךָ – הֲבִיאֵהוּ לְיָדִי. כִּי אֲתָא חַזְיֵיהּ דְּלָא פָּרֵיס סוּדָרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא פָּרֵיסַתְּ סוּדָרָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּלָא נְסֵיבְנָא. אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְאַפֵּיהּ מִינֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי דְּלָא חָזֵית לְהוּ לְאַפַּי עַד דְּנָסְבַתְּ.
§ With regard to marriage, the Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda would praise Rav Hamnuna to Rav Huna by saying that he is a great man. Rav Huna said to him: When he comes to you, send him to me. When Rav Hamnuna came before him, Rav Huna saw that he did not cover his head with a cloth, as Torah scholars did. Rav Huna said to him: What is the reason that you do not cover your head with a cloth? Rav Hamnuna said to him: The reason is that I am not married, and it was not customary for unmarried men to cover their heads with a cloth. Rav Huna turned his face away from him in rebuke, and he said to him: See to it that you do not see my face until you marry.
רַב הוּנָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְלֹא נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה – כׇּל יָמָיו בַּעֲבֵירָה. בַּעֲבֵירָה סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כָּל יָמָיו בְּהִרְהוּר עֲבֵירָה.
The Gemara notes: Rav Huna conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: If one is twenty years old and has not yet married a woman, all of his days will be in a state of sin concerning sexual matters. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that he will be in a state of sin all of his days? Rather, say that this means the following: All of his days will be in a state of thoughts of sin, i.e., sexual thoughts. One who does not marry in his youth will become accustomed to thoughts of sexual matters, and the habit will remain with him the rest of his life.
אָמַר רָבָא, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: עַד עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה יוֹשֵׁב הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּמְצַפֶּה לָאָדָם מָתַי יִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא נָשָׂא, אוֹמֵר: תִּיפַּח עַצְמוֹתָיו.
Rava said, and similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Until one reaches the age of twenty years the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and waits for a man, saying: When will he marry a woman? Once he reaches the age of twenty and has not married, He says: Let his bones swell, i.e., he is cursed and God is no longer concerned about him.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַאי דַּעֲדִיפְנָא מֵחַבְרַאי, דִּנְסֵיבְנָא בְּשִׁיתְּסַר, וְאִי הֲוָה נָסֵיבְנָא בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר
Rav Ḥisda said: The fact that I am superior to my colleagues is because I married at the age of sixteen, and if I would have married at the age of fourteen,
