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

Daf Yomi

October 1, 2023 | 讟状讝 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讚

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

Kiddushin 49

This week’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Aibel in honor of Natasha Shabat. “In honor of my teacher, who has opened many doors of Torah for me.”聽

Rava explained the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna to be referring to a case where the woman sent an agent to accept a betrothal for her and specified with what the husband would betroth her and the messenger accepted something else of higher value. He ruled that this betrothal is effective as she was merely suggesting a possible method. Abaye explains that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar each hold the same thing but in a different case – one regarding a regular document/tied document and the other regarding a woman who appoints an agent to receive her divorce document and also specifies the location where the agent is to go to receive it. Ula qualified the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis as a case of differences in monetary value, but not differences in social status as not every woman would be happy to marry a man of higher status. A braita is brought to strengthen his qualification and it is derived from the Mishnayot here as well. Mar, the son of Rav Ashi raises a difficulty about the derivation from the Mishna but it is resolved in two possible ways. The Gemara brings in a braita with possible terms a husband can use as a condition when betrothing a wife and an explanation is brought for each as to what is meant by that, such as, “that I am a learner,” what type of learner does he need to be, i.e. how do we check the veracity of his statement? Following a discussion on “on the condition that I am wise” which mentioned a number of examples of the best of the sages, the Gemara agra brings a series of statements: “Ten measures of…came down to the world and nine of them were taken by…”

讙讟 驻砖讜讟 注讚讬讜 诪转讜讻讜 诪拽讜砖专 注讚讬讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 驻砖讜讟 砖讻转讘讜 注讚讬讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 讜诪拽讜砖专 砖讻转讘讜 注讚讬讜 诪转讜讻讜 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜砖专 砖讻转讘讜 注讚讬讜 诪转讜讻讜 讻砖专 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注砖讜转讜 驻砖讜讟 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛


In an ordinary document, its witnesses are to sign inside it, i.e., on the written side of the paper. In a folded and tied document, its witnesses are to sign on the back of it. With regard to an ordinary document whose witnesses wrote their signatures on the back of it, or a tied document whose witnesses wrote their signatures inside of it, both of these are not valid. Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says: A tied document whose witnesses wrote their signatures inside of it is valid, because one can transform it into an ordinary document by untying it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is in accordance with regional custom. If an ordinary document is generally used and one wrote a bound one, or vice versa, the document is invalid.


讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘讗转专讗 讚谞讛讬讙讬 讘驻砖讜讟 讜注讘讚 诇讬讛 诪拽讜砖专 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讗转专讗 讚谞讛讬讙讬 讘诪拽讜砖专 讜注讘讚 诇讬讛 驻砖讜讟 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讜讚讗讬 拽驻讬讚讗


And we discussed it: And does the first tanna not accept that one should follow the regional custom? It is not reasonable that he should take issue with such a basic concept. And Rav Ashi says that they have a dispute in a case where one instructed a scribe to write a document for him: If they are in a place where the custom is to write an ordinary document, and he made a tied one for him; alternatively, if they are in a place where the custom is to write a tied document, and he made an ordinary one for him; in both of these cases, everyone agrees that he was certainly particular in his instructions to the agent that he should follow the regional custom, and if the latter deviated from the custom the document is invalid.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗转专讗 讚谞讛讬讙讬 讘讬谉 讘驻砖讜讟 讘讬谉 讘诪拽讜砖专 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讘讬讚 诇讬 驻砖讜讟 讜讗讝诇 讜注讘讚 诇讬讛 诪拽讜砖专 诪专 住讘专 拽驻讬讚讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪专讗讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 诇讜


The situation in which they disagree is where they are in a place where the custom is to use either an ordinary document or a tied one, and the one requesting the document said to the scribe: Make an ordinary document for me, and the scribe went and made a tied document for him. In such a case, one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the one requesting the document was particular about wanting an ordinary document, and since the scribe wrote a tied document, it is considered to have been written without his consent. And one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the one requesting the document was merely indicating his position to the scribe, stating that if the scribe wanted to save himself the trouble of writing a tied document there would no objection.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 诪诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜拽讘诇 诇讛 讙讬讟讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讻砖讬专 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诪专讗讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讗 诇讜


Rabbi Elazar also holds that when one instructs an agent in such a manner he is merely indicating his position to him, as we learned in a mishna (Gittin 65a): If there was a woman who said to her agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me from my husband in such and such a place, and he received her bill of divorce for her elsewhere, it is invalid. And Rabbi Elazar deems it valid. Apparently, he holds that she is merely indicating a place to him where he can receive the bill of divorce, but she does not insist that he accept it in that particular spot.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘讞 诪诪讜谉 讗讘诇 讘砖讘讞 讬讜讞住讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪住讗谞讗 讚专讘 诪讻专注讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 讛讟注讛 诇砖讘讞 讬讜讞住讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


Ulla says: The dispute in the mishna between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon is only where he misled her with enhanced monetary value, i.e., he gave her something worth more than the item he had stipulated. But where he misled her with enhanced lineage, so that she was under the impression that his genealogy was less impressive than it in fact is, everyone agrees that she is not betrothed. What is the reason for this? A woman says: I do not desire a shoe that is larger than my foot. She does not wish to marry a man whose social standing is far greater than her own. This is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:6): Rabbi Shimon concedes that if he misled her with enhanced lineage, she is not betrothed.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 讻讛谉 讜谞诪爪讗 诇讜讬 诇讜讬 讜谞诪爪讗 讻讛谉 谞转讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗 诪诪讝专 诪诪讝专 讜谞诪爪讗 谞转讬谉 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


Rav Ashi says: The wording of the mishna is also precise, as the following mishna (49b) teaches: If one betroths a woman and states that the betrothal is: On the condition that I am a priest, and he was found to be a Levite; or: On the condition that I am a Levite, and he was found to be a priest; or: On the condition that I am a Gibeonite, a people prohibited by rabbinic law from marrying into the congregation, i.e., from marrying a Jew of fit lineage, and he was found to be a mamzer, who is prohibited by Torah law from marrying into the congregation; or: On the condition that I am a mamzer, and he was found to be a Gibeonite, in all of these cases she is not betrothed. And Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with these rulings. This indicates that if one misled a woman with regard to his lineage, Rabbi Shimon concedes that she is not betrothed.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 讚拽转谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘转 讗讜 砖驻讞讛 诪讙讜讚诇转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讬砖 诇讜 讚砖讘讞 诪诪讜谉 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙


Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this inference: But what about that which is taught in the same mishna: If one betroths a woman and states that the betrothal is: On the condition that I have a grown daughter or maidservant, and he does not have one; or if one betroths a woman on the condition that he does not have a grown daughter or maidservant and he does have one, the latter of which is an issue of enhanced monetary value, as the difference between one who has a maidservant and one who does not impacts how hard the woman will have to work in the home; in these cases will you also say that Rabbi Shimon does not disagree simply because the mishna does not mention his opinion in that case?


讗诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇住讬驻讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇住讬驻讗


Rather, it must be that he disagrees in the first clause of the mishna with regard to enhanced monetary value, and the same is true with regard to the latter clause, i.e., he also disagrees in that clause, and it was not necessary to state his dispute another time. Here too, with regard to lineage, he disagrees in the first clause, and the same is true with regard to the latter clause.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚砖讘讞 诪诪讜谉 驻诇讬讙 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讘住讬驻讗 讛讻讗 讚砖讘讞 讬讜讞住讬诐 讛讜讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻诇讬讙 谞转谞讬


The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, where both this case and that case involve an inaccuracy of enhanced monetary value, it is possible that he disagreed in the first clause and the same is true in the last clause, and the mishna did not need to restate his opinion. But here, where it is a case of enhanced lineage, which is a different issue, if it is so that Rabbi Shimon disagrees, let him teach that explicitly. The fact that no dispute is recorded in the case of enhanced lineage is proof that he concedes in that case.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讘讞 讬讜讞住讬诐 诪讬 住讘专转 诪讗讬 诪讙讜讚诇转 讙讚讜诇讛 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 诪讙讜讚诇转 讙讚诇转 讚讗诪专讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚砖拽诇讛 诪讬诇讬 诪讬谞讗讬 讜讗讝诇讗 谞讚讬讗 拽诪讬 砖讬讘讘讜转讬讬


If you wish, say instead: Here too, the issue of a daughter or maidservant involves enhanced lineage, not enhanced monetary value. His statement should be understood differently. Do you maintain that what is the meaning of his statement that he has a grown daughter or maidservant; that she is actually grown up, so that she can be of help to his wife? That is not the meaning of his statement. Rather, what is the meaning of: Grown? That she grows and plaits hair, i.e., he has a daughter or maidservant who is a hairdresser. Why might the potential bride view this as a drawback? Because she can say: It is not satisfactory for me to live in the house with a hairdresser, as she will take words she hears from me and will go pass them before my neighbors, meaning she will gossip about me to others. This concern is more akin to a matter of lineage than a matter of monetary value.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 拽专讬讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 砖拽专讗 砖诇砖讛 驻住讜拽讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬拽专讗 讜讬转专讙诐 讬转专讙诐 诪讚注转讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪转专讙诐 驻住讜拽 讻爪讜专转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讚讗讬 讜讛诪讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讞专祝 讜诪讙讚祝 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 转专讙讜诐 转专讙讜诐 讚讬讚谉


The Sages taught: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am literate with regard to the Torah, once he has read three verses in the synagogue she is betrothed. Rabbi Yehuda says that she is not betrothed until he reads and translates the verses. The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that one translates according to his own understanding? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Megilla 3:21) that Rabbi Yehuda says: One who translates a verse literally is a liar, since he distorts the meaning of the text, and conversely, one who adds his own translation is tantamount to one who curses and blasphemes God? Rather, to which translation is Rabbi Yehuda referring? He is referring to our accepted translation.


讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛 拽专讬讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讛 拽专讗 讗谞讗 注讚 讚拽专讬 讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讘讬讗讬 讜讻转讜讘讬 讘讚讬讜拽讗


And this statement applies only if he said to her: I am literate, but if he said to her: I am a reader, this indicates that he is an expert in the reading of the Torah, and she is not betrothed unless he knows how to read the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings with precision.


注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讛诇讻讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转讜专讛


The Gemara discusses a similar case: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I study [shoneh], 岣zkiyya says it means that he studies halakhot, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says it means that he studies Torah, i.e., the written Torah.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 诪砖谞讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛诇讻讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讚专砖


The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan from a baraita: What is the meaning of: Mishna? Rabbi Meir says halakhot, Rabbi Yehuda says homiletics. Neither of them, however, says that it refers to the written Torah.


诪讗讬 转讜专讛 诪讚专砖 转讜专讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛 转谞讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讛 转谞讗 讗谞讗 注讚 讚转谞讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 住驻专讗 讜住讬驻专讬 讜转讜住驻转讗


What is the meaning of: Torah, that Rabbi Yo岣nan said? It is homiletic interpretation of the Torah. And this statement applies only if he said to her: I study [taneina]. But if he says to her: I am a tanna [tanna ana], she is not betrothed unless he studies halakha, i.e., Mishna, Sifra and Sifrei, and Tosefta.


注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 转诇诪讬讚 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讜讻砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讝讜诪讗 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖砖讜讗诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讘转诇诪讜讚讜 讜讗讜诪专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪住讻转讗 讚讻诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 讞讻诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讞讻诪讬 讬讘谞讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讘讬专讬讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖砖讜讗诇讬诐 讗讜转讜 讚讘专 讞讻诪讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗讜诪专讛


If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a student of Torah, one does not say that he must be a student who is scholarly like Shimon ben Azzai or like Shimon ben Zoma, who were called students despite their great knowledge, as they were never ordained. Rather, it means anyone who, when he is asked one matter in any topic of his studies, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned, and this suffices even if his statement was in the tractate of Kalla. Similarly, if a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a scholar, one does not say that he must be like the scholars of Yavne, like Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues. Rather, it is referring to anyone who, when he is asked about a matter of wisdom on any topic related to the Torah, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned.


注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 讙讘讜专 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讗讘谞专 讘谉 谞专 讜讻讬讜讗讘 讘谉 爪专讜讬讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讞讘讬专讬讜 诪转讬专讗讬诐 诪诪谞讜 诪驻谞讬 讙讘讜专转讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 注砖讬专 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讞专住讜诐 讜讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讘谞讬 注讬专讜 诪讻讘讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 诪驻谞讬 注讜砖专讜


If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am strong, one does not say that he must be as strong as Abner ben Ner, King Saul鈥檚 cousin and general, or as strong as Joab ben Zeruiah, King David鈥檚 nephew and general. Rather, it means anyone of whom others are afraid due to his strength. If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am wealthy, one does not say he must be as wealthy as Rabbi Elazar ben 岣rsom or as wealthy as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, but rather it can refer to anyone who is honored by the members of his town due to his wealth.


注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 爪讚讬拽 讗驻讬诇讜 专砖注 讙诪讜专 诪拽讜讚砖转 砖诪讗 讛专讛专 转砖讜讘讛 讘讚注转讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 专砖注 讗驻讬诇讜 爪讚讬拽 讙诪讜专 诪拽讜讚砖转 砖诪讗 讛专讛专 讚讘专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讚注转讜


If one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a righteous man, then even if he was a completely wicked man she is betrothed, as perhaps in the meantime he had thoughts of repentance in his mind and is now righteous. Similarly, if one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a wicked man, then even if he was a completely righteous man she is betrothed, as perhaps he had thoughts of idol worship in his mind, a serious sin that would earn him the label of wicked.


注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讞讻诪讛 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讬讜驻讬 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 注砖讬专讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 专讜诪讬 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 注谞讬讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 讘讘诇 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讙住讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 注讬诇诐 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜


搂 Apropos the discussion with regard to various attributes, the Gemara cites a related statement: Ten kav of wisdom descended to the world; Eretz Yisrael took nine of them and all the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of beauty descended to the world; Jerusalem took nine and all the rest of the world in its entirety took one. Ten kav of wealth descended to the world; Rome took nine and all the rest of the world in its entirety took one. Ten kav of poverty descended to the world; Babylonia took nine and all the rest of the world in its entirety took one. Ten kav of arrogance descended to the world; Eilam took nine and all the rest of the world in its entirety took one.


讜讙住讜转 诇讘讘诇 诇讗 谞讞讬转 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讗砖讗 注讬谞讬 讜讗专讗 讜讛谞讛 砖转讬诐 谞砖讬诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 讜专讜讞 讘讻谞驻讬讛诐 讜诇讛谞讛 讻谞驻讬诐 讻讻谞驻讬 讛讞住讬讚讛 讜转砖谞讛 讗转 讛讗讬驻讛 讘讬谉 讛讗专抓 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 讗诇 讛诪诇讗讱 讛讚讘专 讘讬 讗谞讛 讛诪讛 诪讜诇讻讜转 讗转 讛讗讬驻讛 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇讬 诇讘谞讜转 诇讛 讘讬转 讘讗专抓 砖谞注专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 讞谞讜驻讛 讜讙住讜转 讛专讜讞 砖讬专讚讜 诇讘讘诇


The Gemara asks: But did arrogance not descend to Babylonia? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hen I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold there came forth two women, and the wind was in their wings, for they had wings like the wings of a stork. And they lifted up the measure between the earth and the heaven. Then I said to the angel that spoke with me: 鈥楾o where do they take the measure?鈥 And he said to me: 鈥楾o build her a house in the land of Shinar鈥欌 (Zechariah 5:9鈥11). And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This refers to flattery and arrogance that descended to Babylonia, i.e., Shinar. This indicates that arrogance reached Babylonia as well.


讗讬谉 诇讛讻讗 谞讞讬转 讜讗砖转专讘讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚讗砖转专讘讜讘讬 诇讛转诐 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诇讘谞讜转 诇讛 讘讬转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara answers: Yes, it descended to here, to Babylonia, and it made its way to there, to Eilam. The language of the verse is also precise, as it teaches: 鈥淭o build her a house,鈥 which indicates that the original intention was to build a house in Babylonia, but it was not built there. The Gemara comments: Conclude from it that arrogance did not remain in Babylonia.


讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 住讬诪谉 诇讙住讜转 注谞讬讜转 讜注谞讬讜转 讘讘讘诇 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讗讬 注谞讬讜转 注谞讬讜转 讚转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞讜转 诇谞讜 拽讟谞讛 讜砖讚讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 注讬诇诐 砖讝讻转讛 诇诇诪讜讚 讜诇讗 讝讻转讛 诇诇诪讚


The Gemara further asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 the Master say: A sign of arrogance is poverty, and there is poverty in Babylonia, and not in Eilam. The Gemara answers: To what kind of poverty is this referring? It is poverty with regard to Torah, which was characteristic of Eilam. As it is written: 鈥淲e have a little sister, and she has no breasts鈥 (Song of Songs 8:8), and Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This refers to Eilam, whose inhabitants merited to learn but did not merit to teach. They did not produce Torah scholars capable of imparting their wisdom to others.


注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讙讘讜专讛 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讜 驻专住讬讬诐 讜讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讻谞讬诐 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 诪讚讬 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讻砖驻讬诐 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 诪爪专讬诐 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 谞讙注讬诐 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讜 讞讝讬专讬诐 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讝谞讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 注专讘讬讗 讻讜壮


The Gemara returns to its list of endowments of various groups: Ten kav of strength descended to the world; the Persians took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of lice descended to the world; Media took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of witchcraft descended to the world; Egypt took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of plagues descended to the world; pigs, which carry disease, took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of licentiousness descended to the world; Arabia took nine and the rest of the world took one.


注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 注讝讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 诪讬砖谉 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 砖讬讞讛 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讜 谞砖讬诐 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 砖讻专讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讜 讻讜砖讬诐 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 砖讬谞讛 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讜 注讘讚讬诐 讜讗讞讚 谞讟诇讜 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜


Ten kav of brazenness descended to the world; Meishan, near Babylonia, took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of conversation descended to the world; women took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of drunkenness descended to the world; the Kushites took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of sleep descended to the world; slaves took nine and all the rest of the world in its entirety took one.


诪转谞讬壮 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 讻讛谉 讜谞诪爪讗 诇讜讬 诇讜讬 讜谞诪爪讗 讻讛谉 谞转讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗 诪诪讝专 诪诪讝专 讜谞诪爪讗 谞转讬谉 讘谉 注讬专 讜谞诪爪讗 讘谉 讻专讱 讘谉 讻专讱 讜谞诪爪讗 讘谉 注讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讘讬转讬 拽专讜讘 诇诪专讞抓 讜谞诪爪讗 专讞讜拽 专讞讜拽 讜谞诪爪讗 拽专讜讘


MISHNA: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a priest, and he was found to be a Levite; or if he said: A Levite, and he was found to be a priest; or if he said: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a Gibeonite, a people prohibited by rabbinic law from marrying into the congregation, i.e., from marrying a Jew of fit lineage, and he was found to be a mamzer, who is prohibited by Torah law to marry into the congregation; or he said: A mamzer, and he was found to be a Gibeonite; or if he said: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a resident of a small town, and he was found to be a resident of a large city; or he said: A resident of a city, and he was found to be a resident of a town; or if he said: Be betrothed to me on the condition that my house is close to the bathhouse, and it was found to be far; or he said: Far from the bathhouse, and it was found to be close, she is not betrothed.


注诇 诪谞转 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘转 讗讜 砖驻讞讛 诪讙讜讚诇转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讬砖 诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬砖 诇讜 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讘讻讜诇诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讛 讘诇讘讬 讛讬讛 诇讛转拽讚砖 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 砖讛讟注转讜


Or if he said that she is betrothed to him on the condition that he has a grown daughter or a maidservant, and he does not have one, or on the condition that he does not have one and he has one; or on the condition that he has no sons, and he has sons, or on the condition that he has sons and he does not have sons, then she is not betrothed. And in all these cases, despite the fact that she later stated: I intended to become betrothed to him nevertheless, whether or not he fulfilled the condition, she is not betrothed. And similarly, if it was she who misled him by making the betrothal conditional upon a statement of hers that turned out to be incorrect, the betrothal will not take effect.


讙诪壮 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇谞讻住讬讛 讗讚注转讗 诇诪讬住拽 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘诇讘 讜讚讘专讬诐 砖讘诇讘 讗讬谞诐 讚讘专讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讛讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉


GEMARA: The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sold his property with the intention of ascending to Eretz Yisrael, but at the time that he sold the property he did not say anything with regard to his intention. Ultimately, he did not ascend to Eretz Yisrael, and he wished to renege on the sale. Rava said: Since he did not explicitly state that he was selling his property on the condition that he ascend to Eretz Yisrael, that is an unspoken matter that remained in the heart, and unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters. The Gemara asks: From where does Rava learn this principle? If we say it is from that which we learn in a baraita:


  • 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: 46 – 52 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the law if a man betrothes a woman by telling her he will give her...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 49: If I Were a Rich Man

A conditional kiddushin - where a statement is made as a prerequisite to the betrothal. With implications for lineage status...

Kiddushin 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 49

讙讟 驻砖讜讟 注讚讬讜 诪转讜讻讜 诪拽讜砖专 注讚讬讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 驻砖讜讟 砖讻转讘讜 注讚讬讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 讜诪拽讜砖专 砖讻转讘讜 注讚讬讜 诪转讜讻讜 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜砖专 砖讻转讘讜 注讚讬讜 诪转讜讻讜 讻砖专 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注砖讜转讜 驻砖讜讟 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛


In an ordinary document, its witnesses are to sign inside it, i.e., on the written side of the paper. In a folded and tied document, its witnesses are to sign on the back of it. With regard to an ordinary document whose witnesses wrote their signatures on the back of it, or a tied document whose witnesses wrote their signatures inside of it, both of these are not valid. Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says: A tied document whose witnesses wrote their signatures inside of it is valid, because one can transform it into an ordinary document by untying it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is in accordance with regional custom. If an ordinary document is generally used and one wrote a bound one, or vice versa, the document is invalid.


讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘讗转专讗 讚谞讛讬讙讬 讘驻砖讜讟 讜注讘讚 诇讬讛 诪拽讜砖专 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讗转专讗 讚谞讛讬讙讬 讘诪拽讜砖专 讜注讘讚 诇讬讛 驻砖讜讟 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讜讚讗讬 拽驻讬讚讗


And we discussed it: And does the first tanna not accept that one should follow the regional custom? It is not reasonable that he should take issue with such a basic concept. And Rav Ashi says that they have a dispute in a case where one instructed a scribe to write a document for him: If they are in a place where the custom is to write an ordinary document, and he made a tied one for him; alternatively, if they are in a place where the custom is to write a tied document, and he made an ordinary one for him; in both of these cases, everyone agrees that he was certainly particular in his instructions to the agent that he should follow the regional custom, and if the latter deviated from the custom the document is invalid.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗转专讗 讚谞讛讬讙讬 讘讬谉 讘驻砖讜讟 讘讬谉 讘诪拽讜砖专 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讘讬讚 诇讬 驻砖讜讟 讜讗讝诇 讜注讘讚 诇讬讛 诪拽讜砖专 诪专 住讘专 拽驻讬讚讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪专讗讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 诇讜


The situation in which they disagree is where they are in a place where the custom is to use either an ordinary document or a tied one, and the one requesting the document said to the scribe: Make an ordinary document for me, and the scribe went and made a tied document for him. In such a case, one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the one requesting the document was particular about wanting an ordinary document, and since the scribe wrote a tied document, it is considered to have been written without his consent. And one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the one requesting the document was merely indicating his position to the scribe, stating that if the scribe wanted to save himself the trouble of writing a tied document there would no objection.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 诪诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜拽讘诇 诇讛 讙讬讟讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讻砖讬专 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诪专讗讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讗 诇讜


Rabbi Elazar also holds that when one instructs an agent in such a manner he is merely indicating his position to him, as we learned in a mishna (Gittin 65a): If there was a woman who said to her agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me from my husband in such and such a place, and he received her bill of divorce for her elsewhere, it is invalid. And Rabbi Elazar deems it valid. Apparently, he holds that she is merely indicating a place to him where he can receive the bill of divorce, but she does not insist that he accept it in that particular spot.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘讞 诪诪讜谉 讗讘诇 讘砖讘讞 讬讜讞住讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪住讗谞讗 讚专讘 诪讻专注讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 讛讟注讛 诇砖讘讞 讬讜讞住讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


Ulla says: The dispute in the mishna between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon is only where he misled her with enhanced monetary value, i.e., he gave her something worth more than the item he had stipulated. But where he misled her with enhanced lineage, so that she was under the impression that his genealogy was less impressive than it in fact is, everyone agrees that she is not betrothed. What is the reason for this? A woman says: I do not desire a shoe that is larger than my foot. She does not wish to marry a man whose social standing is far greater than her own. This is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:6): Rabbi Shimon concedes that if he misled her with enhanced lineage, she is not betrothed.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 讻讛谉 讜谞诪爪讗 诇讜讬 诇讜讬 讜谞诪爪讗 讻讛谉 谞转讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗 诪诪讝专 诪诪讝专 讜谞诪爪讗 谞转讬谉 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


Rav Ashi says: The wording of the mishna is also precise, as the following mishna (49b) teaches: If one betroths a woman and states that the betrothal is: On the condition that I am a priest, and he was found to be a Levite; or: On the condition that I am a Levite, and he was found to be a priest; or: On the condition that I am a Gibeonite, a people prohibited by rabbinic law from marrying into the congregation, i.e., from marrying a Jew of fit lineage, and he was found to be a mamzer, who is prohibited by Torah law from marrying into the congregation; or: On the condition that I am a mamzer, and he was found to be a Gibeonite, in all of these cases she is not betrothed. And Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with these rulings. This indicates that if one misled a woman with regard to his lineage, Rabbi Shimon concedes that she is not betrothed.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 讚拽转谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘转 讗讜 砖驻讞讛 诪讙讜讚诇转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讬砖 诇讜 讚砖讘讞 诪诪讜谉 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙


Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this inference: But what about that which is taught in the same mishna: If one betroths a woman and states that the betrothal is: On the condition that I have a grown daughter or maidservant, and he does not have one; or if one betroths a woman on the condition that he does not have a grown daughter or maidservant and he does have one, the latter of which is an issue of enhanced monetary value, as the difference between one who has a maidservant and one who does not impacts how hard the woman will have to work in the home; in these cases will you also say that Rabbi Shimon does not disagree simply because the mishna does not mention his opinion in that case?


讗诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇住讬驻讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇住讬驻讗


Rather, it must be that he disagrees in the first clause of the mishna with regard to enhanced monetary value, and the same is true with regard to the latter clause, i.e., he also disagrees in that clause, and it was not necessary to state his dispute another time. Here too, with regard to lineage, he disagrees in the first clause, and the same is true with regard to the latter clause.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚砖讘讞 诪诪讜谉 驻诇讬讙 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讘住讬驻讗 讛讻讗 讚砖讘讞 讬讜讞住讬诐 讛讜讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻诇讬讙 谞转谞讬


The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, where both this case and that case involve an inaccuracy of enhanced monetary value, it is possible that he disagreed in the first clause and the same is true in the last clause, and the mishna did not need to restate his opinion. But here, where it is a case of enhanced lineage, which is a different issue, if it is so that Rabbi Shimon disagrees, let him teach that explicitly. The fact that no dispute is recorded in the case of enhanced lineage is proof that he concedes in that case.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讘讞 讬讜讞住讬诐 诪讬 住讘专转 诪讗讬 诪讙讜讚诇转 讙讚讜诇讛 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 诪讙讜讚诇转 讙讚诇转 讚讗诪专讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚砖拽诇讛 诪讬诇讬 诪讬谞讗讬 讜讗讝诇讗 谞讚讬讗 拽诪讬 砖讬讘讘讜转讬讬


If you wish, say instead: Here too, the issue of a daughter or maidservant involves enhanced lineage, not enhanced monetary value. His statement should be understood differently. Do you maintain that what is the meaning of his statement that he has a grown daughter or maidservant; that she is actually grown up, so that she can be of help to his wife? That is not the meaning of his statement. Rather, what is the meaning of: Grown? That she grows and plaits hair, i.e., he has a daughter or maidservant who is a hairdresser. Why might the potential bride view this as a drawback? Because she can say: It is not satisfactory for me to live in the house with a hairdresser, as she will take words she hears from me and will go pass them before my neighbors, meaning she will gossip about me to others. This concern is more akin to a matter of lineage than a matter of monetary value.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 拽专讬讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 砖拽专讗 砖诇砖讛 驻住讜拽讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬拽专讗 讜讬转专讙诐 讬转专讙诐 诪讚注转讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪转专讙诐 驻住讜拽 讻爪讜专转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讚讗讬 讜讛诪讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讞专祝 讜诪讙讚祝 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 转专讙讜诐 转专讙讜诐 讚讬讚谉


The Sages taught: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am literate with regard to the Torah, once he has read three verses in the synagogue she is betrothed. Rabbi Yehuda says that she is not betrothed until he reads and translates the verses. The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that one translates according to his own understanding? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Megilla 3:21) that Rabbi Yehuda says: One who translates a verse literally is a liar, since he distorts the meaning of the text, and conversely, one who adds his own translation is tantamount to one who curses and blasphemes God? Rather, to which translation is Rabbi Yehuda referring? He is referring to our accepted translation.


讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛 拽专讬讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讛 拽专讗 讗谞讗 注讚 讚拽专讬 讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讘讬讗讬 讜讻转讜讘讬 讘讚讬讜拽讗


And this statement applies only if he said to her: I am literate, but if he said to her: I am a reader, this indicates that he is an expert in the reading of the Torah, and she is not betrothed unless he knows how to read the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings with precision.


注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讛诇讻讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转讜专讛


The Gemara discusses a similar case: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I study [shoneh], 岣zkiyya says it means that he studies halakhot, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says it means that he studies Torah, i.e., the written Torah.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 诪砖谞讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛诇讻讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讚专砖


The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan from a baraita: What is the meaning of: Mishna? Rabbi Meir says halakhot, Rabbi Yehuda says homiletics. Neither of them, however, says that it refers to the written Torah.


诪讗讬 转讜专讛 诪讚专砖 转讜专讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛 转谞讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讛 转谞讗 讗谞讗 注讚 讚转谞讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 住驻专讗 讜住讬驻专讬 讜转讜住驻转讗


What is the meaning of: Torah, that Rabbi Yo岣nan said? It is homiletic interpretation of the Torah. And this statement applies only if he said to her: I study [taneina]. But if he says to her: I am a tanna [tanna ana], she is not betrothed unless he studies halakha, i.e., Mishna, Sifra and Sifrei, and Tosefta.


注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 转诇诪讬讚 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讜讻砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讝讜诪讗 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖砖讜讗诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讘转诇诪讜讚讜 讜讗讜诪专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪住讻转讗 讚讻诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 讞讻诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讞讻诪讬 讬讘谞讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讘讬专讬讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖砖讜讗诇讬诐 讗讜转讜 讚讘专 讞讻诪讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗讜诪专讛


If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a student of Torah, one does not say that he must be a student who is scholarly like Shimon ben Azzai or like Shimon ben Zoma, who were called students despite their great knowledge, as they were never ordained. Rather, it means anyone who, when he is asked one matter in any topic of his studies, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned, and this suffices even if his statement was in the tractate of Kalla. Similarly, if a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a scholar, one does not say that he must be like the scholars of Yavne, like Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues. Rather, it is referring to anyone who, when he is asked about a matter of wisdom on any topic related to the Torah, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned.


注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 讙讘讜专 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讗讘谞专 讘谉 谞专 讜讻讬讜讗讘 讘谉 爪专讜讬讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讞讘讬专讬讜 诪转讬专讗讬诐 诪诪谞讜 诪驻谞讬 讙讘讜专转讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 注砖讬专 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讞专住讜诐 讜讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讘谞讬 注讬专讜 诪讻讘讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 诪驻谞讬 注讜砖专讜


If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am strong, one does not say that he must be as strong as Abner ben Ner, King Saul鈥檚 cousin and general, or as strong as Joab ben Zeruiah, King David鈥檚 nephew and general. Rather, it means anyone of whom others are afraid due to his strength. If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am wealthy, one does not say he must be as wealthy as Rabbi Elazar ben 岣rsom or as wealthy as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, but rather it can refer to anyone who is honored by the members of his town due to his wealth.


注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 爪讚讬拽 讗驻讬诇讜 专砖注 讙诪讜专 诪拽讜讚砖转 砖诪讗 讛专讛专 转砖讜讘讛 讘讚注转讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 专砖注 讗驻讬诇讜 爪讚讬拽 讙诪讜专 诪拽讜讚砖转 砖诪讗 讛专讛专 讚讘专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讚注转讜


If one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a righteous man, then even if he was a completely wicked man she is betrothed, as perhaps in the meantime he had thoughts of repentance in his mind and is now righteous. Similarly, if one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a wicked man, then even if he was a completely righteous man she is betrothed, as perhaps he had thoughts of idol worship in his mind, a serious sin that would earn him the label of wicked.


注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讞讻诪讛 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讬讜驻讬 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 注砖讬专讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 专讜诪讬 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 注谞讬讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 讘讘诇 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讙住讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 注讬诇诐 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜


搂 Apropos the discussion with regard to various attributes, the Gemara cites a related statement: Ten kav of wisdom descended to the world; Eretz Yisrael took nine of them and all the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of beauty descended to the world; Jerusalem took nine and all the rest of the world in its entirety took one. Ten kav of wealth descended to the world; Rome took nine and all the rest of the world in its entirety took one. Ten kav of poverty descended to the world; Babylonia took nine and all the rest of the world in its entirety took one. Ten kav of arrogance descended to the world; Eilam took nine and all the rest of the world in its entirety took one.


讜讙住讜转 诇讘讘诇 诇讗 谞讞讬转 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讗砖讗 注讬谞讬 讜讗专讗 讜讛谞讛 砖转讬诐 谞砖讬诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 讜专讜讞 讘讻谞驻讬讛诐 讜诇讛谞讛 讻谞驻讬诐 讻讻谞驻讬 讛讞住讬讚讛 讜转砖谞讛 讗转 讛讗讬驻讛 讘讬谉 讛讗专抓 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 讗诇 讛诪诇讗讱 讛讚讘专 讘讬 讗谞讛 讛诪讛 诪讜诇讻讜转 讗转 讛讗讬驻讛 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇讬 诇讘谞讜转 诇讛 讘讬转 讘讗专抓 砖谞注专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 讞谞讜驻讛 讜讙住讜转 讛专讜讞 砖讬专讚讜 诇讘讘诇


The Gemara asks: But did arrogance not descend to Babylonia? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hen I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold there came forth two women, and the wind was in their wings, for they had wings like the wings of a stork. And they lifted up the measure between the earth and the heaven. Then I said to the angel that spoke with me: 鈥楾o where do they take the measure?鈥 And he said to me: 鈥楾o build her a house in the land of Shinar鈥欌 (Zechariah 5:9鈥11). And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This refers to flattery and arrogance that descended to Babylonia, i.e., Shinar. This indicates that arrogance reached Babylonia as well.


讗讬谉 诇讛讻讗 谞讞讬转 讜讗砖转专讘讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚讗砖转专讘讜讘讬 诇讛转诐 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诇讘谞讜转 诇讛 讘讬转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara answers: Yes, it descended to here, to Babylonia, and it made its way to there, to Eilam. The language of the verse is also precise, as it teaches: 鈥淭o build her a house,鈥 which indicates that the original intention was to build a house in Babylonia, but it was not built there. The Gemara comments: Conclude from it that arrogance did not remain in Babylonia.


讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 住讬诪谉 诇讙住讜转 注谞讬讜转 讜注谞讬讜转 讘讘讘诇 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讗讬 注谞讬讜转 注谞讬讜转 讚转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞讜转 诇谞讜 拽讟谞讛 讜砖讚讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 注讬诇诐 砖讝讻转讛 诇诇诪讜讚 讜诇讗 讝讻转讛 诇诇诪讚


The Gemara further asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 the Master say: A sign of arrogance is poverty, and there is poverty in Babylonia, and not in Eilam. The Gemara answers: To what kind of poverty is this referring? It is poverty with regard to Torah, which was characteristic of Eilam. As it is written: 鈥淲e have a little sister, and she has no breasts鈥 (Song of Songs 8:8), and Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This refers to Eilam, whose inhabitants merited to learn but did not merit to teach. They did not produce Torah scholars capable of imparting their wisdom to others.


注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讙讘讜专讛 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讜 驻专住讬讬诐 讜讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讻谞讬诐 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 诪讚讬 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讻砖驻讬诐 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 诪爪专讬诐 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 谞讙注讬诐 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讜 讞讝讬专讬诐 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 讝谞讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 注专讘讬讗 讻讜壮


The Gemara returns to its list of endowments of various groups: Ten kav of strength descended to the world; the Persians took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of lice descended to the world; Media took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of witchcraft descended to the world; Egypt took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of plagues descended to the world; pigs, which carry disease, took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of licentiousness descended to the world; Arabia took nine and the rest of the world took one.


注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 注讝讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讛 诪讬砖谉 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 砖讬讞讛 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讜 谞砖讬诐 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 砖讻专讜转 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讜 讻讜砖讬诐 讻讜壮 注砖专讛 拽讘讬诐 砖讬谞讛 讬专讚讜 诇注讜诇诐 转砖注讛 谞讟诇讜 注讘讚讬诐 讜讗讞讚 谞讟诇讜 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜


Ten kav of brazenness descended to the world; Meishan, near Babylonia, took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of conversation descended to the world; women took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of drunkenness descended to the world; the Kushites took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of sleep descended to the world; slaves took nine and all the rest of the world in its entirety took one.


诪转谞讬壮 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗谞讬 讻讛谉 讜谞诪爪讗 诇讜讬 诇讜讬 讜谞诪爪讗 讻讛谉 谞转讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗 诪诪讝专 诪诪讝专 讜谞诪爪讗 谞转讬谉 讘谉 注讬专 讜谞诪爪讗 讘谉 讻专讱 讘谉 讻专讱 讜谞诪爪讗 讘谉 注讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讘讬转讬 拽专讜讘 诇诪专讞抓 讜谞诪爪讗 专讞讜拽 专讞讜拽 讜谞诪爪讗 拽专讜讘


MISHNA: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a priest, and he was found to be a Levite; or if he said: A Levite, and he was found to be a priest; or if he said: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a Gibeonite, a people prohibited by rabbinic law from marrying into the congregation, i.e., from marrying a Jew of fit lineage, and he was found to be a mamzer, who is prohibited by Torah law to marry into the congregation; or he said: A mamzer, and he was found to be a Gibeonite; or if he said: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a resident of a small town, and he was found to be a resident of a large city; or he said: A resident of a city, and he was found to be a resident of a town; or if he said: Be betrothed to me on the condition that my house is close to the bathhouse, and it was found to be far; or he said: Far from the bathhouse, and it was found to be close, she is not betrothed.


注诇 诪谞转 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘转 讗讜 砖驻讞讛 诪讙讜讚诇转 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讬砖 诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬砖 诇讜 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讘讻讜诇诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讛 讘诇讘讬 讛讬讛 诇讛转拽讚砖 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 砖讛讟注转讜


Or if he said that she is betrothed to him on the condition that he has a grown daughter or a maidservant, and he does not have one, or on the condition that he does not have one and he has one; or on the condition that he has no sons, and he has sons, or on the condition that he has sons and he does not have sons, then she is not betrothed. And in all these cases, despite the fact that she later stated: I intended to become betrothed to him nevertheless, whether or not he fulfilled the condition, she is not betrothed. And similarly, if it was she who misled him by making the betrothal conditional upon a statement of hers that turned out to be incorrect, the betrothal will not take effect.


讙诪壮 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇谞讻住讬讛 讗讚注转讗 诇诪讬住拽 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘诇讘 讜讚讘专讬诐 砖讘诇讘 讗讬谞诐 讚讘专讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讛讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉


GEMARA: The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sold his property with the intention of ascending to Eretz Yisrael, but at the time that he sold the property he did not say anything with regard to his intention. Ultimately, he did not ascend to Eretz Yisrael, and he wished to renege on the sale. Rava said: Since he did not explicitly state that he was selling his property on the condition that he ascend to Eretz Yisrael, that is an unspoken matter that remained in the heart, and unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters. The Gemara asks: From where does Rava learn this principle? If we say it is from that which we learn in a baraita:


Scroll To Top