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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 11, 2016 | ื’ืณ ื‘ืื™ื™ืจ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Kiddushin 61

Another case is brought similar to the previous mishna – if a man betroths a woman claiming he own a piece of land a particular size or in a particular place. ย The gemara discusses how we determine the measurement – if it includes rocks and clefts or not. ย The next mishna raises a basic argument between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel regarding a condition – whether a tnai kaful is needed – does one need to state both sides of the condition – if x, then y and if not x then z? ย Or is it enough to state if x and one can infer what will happen if it’s not fulfilled.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื”ื™ื• ื ืงืขื™ื ืขืžื•ืงื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื• ืกืœืขื™ื ื’ื‘ื•ื”ื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืžื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ืืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืžื”

With regard to one who consecrates his field during the time of the Jubilee Year, i.e., in an era when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are observed, if he wishes to redeem it from the Temple treasury he gives fifty silver shekels for an area that yields a แธฅomer, i.e., a kor, of barley seed. If the field had crevices, i.e., deep fissures in its surface, ten handbreadths deep, or boulders ten handbreadths high, they are not measured with it, i.e., in the calculation of land that requires redemption. If the crevices or boulders are less than that, they are measured with it.

ื•ื”ื•ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื” ื ื”ื™ ื“ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ืืจืขื ืœื ืงื“ืฉื• ื ืงื“ืฉื• ื‘ืืคื™ ื ืคืฉื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ืžื” ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ ืœื ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื•

And we discussed the following problem: Granted, that these areas are not consecrated together with the field, as they are ten handbreadths higher or lower than the rest of the land; but let the crevices and boulders be consecrated by themselves, so that they should require their own redemption of fifty silver shekels per beit kor. And if you would say that as long as an area does not amount to a beit kor it is not important, the Gemara raises a contradiction against this claim from a baraita.

ืฉื“ื” ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืจืข ื—ืžืจ ืฉืขืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืขื ื™ืŸ ื”ื–ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืœืชืš ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืœืชืš ืกืื” ืชืจืงื‘ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืชืจืงื‘ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื•ื‘ืข ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื“ื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

The verse states with regard to one who consecrates his field: โ€œPart of a field of his possessionโ€ (Leviticus 27:16). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Since it is stated in the same verse: โ€œThe sowing of a แธฅomer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver,โ€ I have derived only that this halakha applies to one who consecrated in this manner, i.e., consecrated an area fit to sow a แธฅomer of barley. From where do I derive that this halakha includes a smaller area, e.g., one suitable for sowing a half-kor, and half of a half-kor, and the area for a seโ€™a, and a tarkav, which is half a seโ€™a, and half a tarkav, and even the area of a quarterkav? The baraita restates its question: From where is it derived that these areas of land can also be consecrated and redeemed based on the fixed values of the Torah? The verse states โ€œa fieldโ€ in any case.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื”ื›ื ื‘ื ืงืขื™ื ืžืœืื™ื ืžื™ื ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืกืœืขื™ื ื’ื‘ื•ื”ื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Therefore, the Gemaraโ€™s question remains: Why arenโ€™t the crevices and boulders measured by themselves? Mar Ukva bar แธคama said: Here we are dealing with crevices filled with water. Due to the fact that they are not fit for sowing, the crevices are not considered a field. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches the case of crevices, similar to the case of high boulders, which are also unsuitable for sowing. The Gemara affirms: Learn from this comparison that this explanation is correct.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื™ื›ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื”ื• ื ืื’ื ื™ ื“ืืจืขื ืžื™ืงืจื• ืฉื“ืจื ื“ืืจืขื ืžืงืจื•

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the crevices, like the boulders, are unfit for sowing, then even if there is a disparity of less than ten handbreadths as well, the crevices and boulders should likewise not be measured as part of the field. The Gemara answers: If they are separated from the field by less than ten handbreadths, these crevices are called the cracks in the ground. Similarly, boulders less than ten handbreadths high are called the spine of the ground. They are considered regular features of fields, which typically have a few pits and mounds.

ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื›ืจ ืชื ืŸ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ ืขืคืจ ืื ื™ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืœืš ื•ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ื ืงืขื™ื ืขืžื•ืงื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื• ืกืœืขื™ื ื’ื‘ื•ื”ื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ื ืขืžื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ืืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ื ืขืžื” ื•ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืœืื™ื ืžื™ื

With regard to a sale of a field, we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 102b): In the case of one who says to another: I am selling you a beit kor of earth, if there were crevices ten handbreadths deep or boulders ten handbreadths high in the field, they are not measured with it; if the crevices or boulders were less than that, they are measured with it. And Mar Ukva bar แธคama says: Even if they are not filled with water, nevertheless they are not included.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืจื•ืฆื” ืฉื™ืชืŸ ืืช ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื—ืช ื•ื™ืจืื” ืœื• ื›ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื›ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between the two rulings of Mar Ukva bar แธคama? Why in the case of a sale are crevices not considered part of the field even if they are not filled with water? Rav Pappa says: Because a person who buys a field does not want to give his money for one field and yet it appears to him like two or three places. When purchasing a parcel of land, it is important to the purchaser that the land be one contiguous unit so as to enable farming it without difficulty. Therefore, these areas of ten handbreadths are not measured as part of the field regardless of whether or not they are filled with water.

ื”ื›ื ืžืื™ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื“ืžื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืื• ืœืžื›ืจ ืžื“ืžื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื“ืžื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื ื ื˜ืจื—ื ื ื•ื–ืจืขื ื ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ื ื

Having discussed the halakhot of a field with regard to consecration and sales, the Gemara asks: What is the halakha here, with regard to measuring a field to see if it fulfills the condition stipulated by one who betroths a woman, if it contains large crevices that are not filled with water? Do we compare it to the halakha of consecrated property and include these places, or do we compare it to the halakha of a sale, which means that they are not included? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that we compare it to the case of consecrated property, as the husband can say to her: I will go to the trouble of sowing and bringing the produce from the lower or higher areas as well. Although the labor requires additional effort, he does possess a beit kor of land.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืชื ืื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื›ืชื ืื™ ื‘ื ื™ ื’ื“ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืชื ืื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื ืื ื™ืขื‘ืจื• ื‘ื ื™ ื’ื“ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื ืœื ื™ืขื‘ืจื• ื—ืœื•ืฆื™ื

MISHNA: Rabbi Meir says: Any condition that is not doubled, i.e., which does not specify both the result of fulfilling the condition and the result of the condition remaining unfulfilled, like the condition Moses stipulated with the children of Gad and the children of Reuben who sought to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan, is not a valid condition and is not taken into account at all. As it is stated: โ€œAnd Moses said to them, if the children of Gad and the children of Reuben pass over the Jordan with you, every man armed for battle before the Lord, and the land shall be subdued before you, then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possessionโ€ (Numbers 32:29). And it is written afterward: โ€œBut if they will not pass over armed with you, they shall receive a possession among you in the land of Canaanโ€ (Numbers 32:30).

ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืœืื•ืžืจื• ืฉืืœืžืœื ื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžืฉืžืข ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืืจืฅ ื›ื ืขืŸ ืœื ื™ื ื—ืœื•

Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel says: One cannot derive the requirements of conditions in general from that particular case, as with regard to the nullification of the condition of the children of Gad and Reuben it was necessary to state the matter, as otherwise, if the verse had not specified both sides of the condition, it might have been thought it meant that they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan. One might have thought that if the tribes of Gad and Reuben would not fulfill the condition, they would forfeit their right to inherit anywhere. It was therefore necessary to specify that they would not lose their portion in Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, it is possible that with regard to a standard condition, where no such misunderstanding is likely to take place, it is not necessary to mention both sides.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืœืื• ืœืชื ืื™ ื›ืคื•ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ื•ืื ืœื ื™ืขื‘ืจื• ื•ื ืื—ื–ื• ื‘ืชื›ื›ื ื‘ืืจืฅ ื›ื ืขืŸ

GEMARA: Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel is saying well, i.e., presenting a reasonable objection, to Rabbi Meir. He apparently refuted Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion entirely. How would Rabbi Meir respond? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: If it enters your mind that the verse does not come to teach the requirement of a compound condition to stipulate both positive and negative outcomes, let it merely write: But if they will not pass over they shall receive a possession among you, which would indicate that they have a portion in the land. The verse actually proceeds to state: โ€œIn the land of Canaan.โ€

ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืชื ืื™ ื›ืคื•ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

Why do I need this extra phrase? Conclude from it that it comes to teach the requirement of a compound condition.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืืžืจ ืื™ ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืืจืฅ ื›ื ืขืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื•ื ืื—ื–ื• ื‘ืชื›ื›ื ื‘ืืจืฅ ื’ืœืขื“ ืื‘ืœ ืืจืฅ ื›ื ืขืŸ ื›ืœืœ ืœื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ืชื›ื›ื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ืช ืœื›ื• ืžืฉืžืข

And Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel says: If the Merciful One had not written: โ€œIn the land of Canaan,โ€ I would say that the requirement: โ€œThey shall receive a possession among youโ€ (Numbers 32:30) is referring to the land of Gilead, i.e., this land must be shared with the other tribes. But they would not inherit in the land of Canaan at all. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir respond to this claim? He maintains that the expression: โ€œAmong you,โ€ means anywhere that you have taken possession, including the land of Canaan. Therefore, the subsequent phrase โ€œthe land of Canaanโ€ is superfluous and serves to teach that the condition must be doubled.

ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืžืฉืœ ืœืžื” ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืื“ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžื—ืœืง ื ื›ืกื™ื• ืœื‘ื ื™ื• ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื™ืจืฉ ืฉื“ื” ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื™ืจืฉ ืฉื“ื” ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืชืŸ ืžืืชื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื•ื™ื™ืจืฉ ืฉื“ื” ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืื ืœื ื™ืชืŸ ื™ื™ืจืฉ ืขื ืื—ื™ื• ื‘ืฉืืจ ื ื›ืกื™ื

It is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue that Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel said: Hear a parable: To what is this matter, i.e., the condition of the children of Gad and Reuben, comparable? It is comparable to a person who was dividing up his property among his sons, and said: My son so-and-so shall inherit such and such a field; and my son so-and-so shall inherit such and such a field; and my son so-and-so shall give two hundred dinars and inherit such and such a field, and if he does not give the money he will inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers.

ืžื™ ื’ืจื ืœื• ืœื™ืจืฉ ืขื ืื—ื™ื• ื‘ืฉืืจ ื ื›ืกื™ื ื›ืคื™ืœื• ื’ืจื ืœื•

What causes the last brother to inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers? The fatherโ€™s double formulation of the condition causes him to inherit in this manner. It was therefore necessary for the father to state both sides and explain what will happen if the third brother fails to give the money. Had the father not repeated the condition, upon failing to give the two hundred dinars the son would not have received any portion of the property.

ื•ื”ื ืœื ื“ืžื™ื ืžืฉืœ ืœืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื”ืชื ืงืชื ื™ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžืฉืžืข ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืืจืฅ ื›ื ืขืŸ ืœื ื™ื ื—ืœื• ืืœืžื ื›ืคื™ืœื” ืœืืจืฅ ื’ืœืขื“ ื ืžื™ ืžื”ื ื™

The Gemara asks: But the parable is not similar to the mishna, as there the mishna teaches: It might have been thought it meant that if they do not fulfill the condition they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan, and certainly not in the land of Gilead. This apparently indicates that the double formulation is also effective for them to inherit the land of Gilead with the other tribes. Otherwise, the children of Gad and Reuben would not receive any part of the Gilead either.

ื•ื”ื›ื ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ ื’ืจื ืœื• ืœื™ืจืฉ ืขื ืื—ื™ื• ื‘ืฉืืจ ื ื›ืกื™ื ื›ืคื™ืœื• ื’ืจื ืœื• ืืœืžื ื›ืคื™ืœื” ืœืฉืืจ ื ื›ืกื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงืžื”ื ื™

And yet here the baraita teaches: What causes the last brother to inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers? The fatherโ€™s double formulation causes him. This apparently indicates that the double formulation is effective for the rest of the property, whereas he would have received that portion of the field linked to the condition in any case. According to this reasoning, the children of Gad and Reuben would have been granted a portion in the land of Gilead even without the double formulation.

ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืžืงืžื™ ื“ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื ืื—ื–ื•

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this case, referring to Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamlielโ€™s ruling in the mishna, was stated before Rabbi Meir said to him that the verse could simply have stated: โ€œThey shall receive a possession among you.โ€ At that stage, Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel maintained that if the two tribes did not fulfill the condition they would not inherit even in the land of Gilead, as indicated by his use of the term: Even, in the mishna.

ื”ื ืœื‘ืชืจ ื“ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื ืื—ื–ื•

Whereas that case, referring to the parable in the baraita, was taught after Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel that when the phrase: โ€œThey shall receive a possession,โ€ appears by itself it is referring to the land of Canaan. As stated previously, Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel responded by explaining that had the verse not stated: โ€œIn the land of Canaan,โ€ one would have said that the requirement: โ€œThey shall receive a possession among youโ€ (Numbers 32:30), is referring to the land of Gilead, and they would not inherit in the land of Canaan. In other words, even without the compound condition they would have received a portion in Gilead, which is similar to the parable.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื ืชื™ื˜ื™ื‘ ืฉืืช ื•ืื ืœื ืชื™ื˜ื™ื‘ ืœืคืชื— ื—ื˜ืืช ืจื‘ืฅ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืื ืชื™ื˜ื™ื‘ ืื’ืจื ืื ืœื ืชื™ื˜ื™ื‘ ืœื ืื’ืจื ื•ืœื ื“ื™ื ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

ยง The Gemara proceeds to analyze these two opinions: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who requires a compound condition, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to Godโ€™s rebuke of Cain: โ€œIf you do well, shall it not be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin crouches at the doorโ€ (Genesis 4:7). However, according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel, why do I need both sides of this stipulation to be specified? The Gemara answers: Were it not for the double formulation it might enter your mind to say that the verse means: If you do well shall you not receive a reward? And if you do not do well you will receive neither reward nor punishment. The double formulation of the verse teaches us that if Cain fails to do well he will be actively punished.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื– ืชื ืงื” ืžืืœืชื™ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara asks another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to Abrahamโ€™s instruction to Eliezer to bring a wife for Isaac: โ€œThen you shall be clear from my oathโ€ฆif they will not give her to youโ€ (Genesis 24:41). However, according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel, why do I need this addition? The positive formulation of the oath already indicates the negative.

ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื”ื• ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for this to be stated; if Abraham had stated only: โ€œAnd take a wife for my sonโ€ (Genesis 24:38), it might enter your mind to say: In a case where the arrangement is satisfactory for her, but not satisfactory for her family, he should bring her against their wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that Eliezer is not obligated to bring her against her familyโ€™s wishes.

ืื ืœื ืชืื‘ื” ื”ืืฉื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ืœื“ื™ื“ื”ื• ื•ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara inquires about another verse in that chapter: โ€œIf the woman is not willing to follow youโ€ (Genesis 24:8). Why do I need this clause? The Gemara answers: It was necessary, since it might enter your mind to say: If it is satisfactory for them but not satisfactory for her, he should bring her against her wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that he should not bring her against her wishes.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื ื‘ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืœื›ื• ื•ืื ื‘ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืžืืกื• ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืื ื‘ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืœื›ื• ื‘ืจื›ื” ืื ื‘ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืžืืกื• ืœื ื‘ืจื›ื” ื•ืœื ืงืœืœื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks a related question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written: โ€œIf you walk in My statutesโ€ (Leviticus 26:3), you will receive blessings; conversely: โ€œAnd if you shall reject My statutesโ€ (Leviticus 26:15), you will receive curses. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel, why do I need both of these clauses? The Gemara answers: They are both necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: If you follow My statutes you will receive a blessing, whereas if you reject My statutes you will receive neither a blessing nor a curse. The verse therefore teaches us that the rejection of Godโ€™s statutes warrants a curse.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื ืชืื‘ื• ื•ืฉืžืขืชื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ืื ืชืžืื ื• ื•ืžืจื™ืชื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืื ืชืื‘ื• ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ื•ืื ืชืžืื ื• ืœื ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ื•ืœื ืจืขื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara again inquires: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written: โ€œIf you are willing and obedient you shall eat the good of the landโ€ (Isaiah 1:19), whereas: โ€œBut if you refuse and rebel you shall be devoured by the swordโ€ (Isaiah 1:20). But according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel, why do I need the double formulation? The Gemara answers in a similar fashion: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: โ€œIf you are willingโ€ you will receive good, i.e., reward, โ€œbut if you refuseโ€ you will receive neither good nor bad. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not the case, and one who rebels will receive punishment.

ืžืื™

In connection with the verse from Isaiah, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 61

ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื”ื™ื• ื ืงืขื™ื ืขืžื•ืงื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื• ืกืœืขื™ื ื’ื‘ื•ื”ื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืžื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ืืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืžื”

With regard to one who consecrates his field during the time of the Jubilee Year, i.e., in an era when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are observed, if he wishes to redeem it from the Temple treasury he gives fifty silver shekels for an area that yields a แธฅomer, i.e., a kor, of barley seed. If the field had crevices, i.e., deep fissures in its surface, ten handbreadths deep, or boulders ten handbreadths high, they are not measured with it, i.e., in the calculation of land that requires redemption. If the crevices or boulders are less than that, they are measured with it.

ื•ื”ื•ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื” ื ื”ื™ ื“ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ืืจืขื ืœื ืงื“ืฉื• ื ืงื“ืฉื• ื‘ืืคื™ ื ืคืฉื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ืžื” ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ ืœื ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื•

And we discussed the following problem: Granted, that these areas are not consecrated together with the field, as they are ten handbreadths higher or lower than the rest of the land; but let the crevices and boulders be consecrated by themselves, so that they should require their own redemption of fifty silver shekels per beit kor. And if you would say that as long as an area does not amount to a beit kor it is not important, the Gemara raises a contradiction against this claim from a baraita.

ืฉื“ื” ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืจืข ื—ืžืจ ืฉืขืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืขื ื™ืŸ ื”ื–ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืœืชืš ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืœืชืš ืกืื” ืชืจืงื‘ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืชืจืงื‘ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื•ื‘ืข ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื“ื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

The verse states with regard to one who consecrates his field: โ€œPart of a field of his possessionโ€ (Leviticus 27:16). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Since it is stated in the same verse: โ€œThe sowing of a แธฅomer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver,โ€ I have derived only that this halakha applies to one who consecrated in this manner, i.e., consecrated an area fit to sow a แธฅomer of barley. From where do I derive that this halakha includes a smaller area, e.g., one suitable for sowing a half-kor, and half of a half-kor, and the area for a seโ€™a, and a tarkav, which is half a seโ€™a, and half a tarkav, and even the area of a quarterkav? The baraita restates its question: From where is it derived that these areas of land can also be consecrated and redeemed based on the fixed values of the Torah? The verse states โ€œa fieldโ€ in any case.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื”ื›ื ื‘ื ืงืขื™ื ืžืœืื™ื ืžื™ื ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืกืœืขื™ื ื’ื‘ื•ื”ื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Therefore, the Gemaraโ€™s question remains: Why arenโ€™t the crevices and boulders measured by themselves? Mar Ukva bar แธคama said: Here we are dealing with crevices filled with water. Due to the fact that they are not fit for sowing, the crevices are not considered a field. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches the case of crevices, similar to the case of high boulders, which are also unsuitable for sowing. The Gemara affirms: Learn from this comparison that this explanation is correct.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื™ื›ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื”ื• ื ืื’ื ื™ ื“ืืจืขื ืžื™ืงืจื• ืฉื“ืจื ื“ืืจืขื ืžืงืจื•

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the crevices, like the boulders, are unfit for sowing, then even if there is a disparity of less than ten handbreadths as well, the crevices and boulders should likewise not be measured as part of the field. The Gemara answers: If they are separated from the field by less than ten handbreadths, these crevices are called the cracks in the ground. Similarly, boulders less than ten handbreadths high are called the spine of the ground. They are considered regular features of fields, which typically have a few pits and mounds.

ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื›ืจ ืชื ืŸ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ ืขืคืจ ืื ื™ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืœืš ื•ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ื ืงืขื™ื ืขืžื•ืงื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื• ืกืœืขื™ื ื’ื‘ื•ื”ื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ื ืขืžื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ืืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ื ืขืžื” ื•ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืœืื™ื ืžื™ื

With regard to a sale of a field, we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 102b): In the case of one who says to another: I am selling you a beit kor of earth, if there were crevices ten handbreadths deep or boulders ten handbreadths high in the field, they are not measured with it; if the crevices or boulders were less than that, they are measured with it. And Mar Ukva bar แธคama says: Even if they are not filled with water, nevertheless they are not included.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืจื•ืฆื” ืฉื™ืชืŸ ืืช ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื—ืช ื•ื™ืจืื” ืœื• ื›ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื›ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between the two rulings of Mar Ukva bar แธคama? Why in the case of a sale are crevices not considered part of the field even if they are not filled with water? Rav Pappa says: Because a person who buys a field does not want to give his money for one field and yet it appears to him like two or three places. When purchasing a parcel of land, it is important to the purchaser that the land be one contiguous unit so as to enable farming it without difficulty. Therefore, these areas of ten handbreadths are not measured as part of the field regardless of whether or not they are filled with water.

ื”ื›ื ืžืื™ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื“ืžื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืื• ืœืžื›ืจ ืžื“ืžื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื“ืžื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื ื ื˜ืจื—ื ื ื•ื–ืจืขื ื ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ื ื

Having discussed the halakhot of a field with regard to consecration and sales, the Gemara asks: What is the halakha here, with regard to measuring a field to see if it fulfills the condition stipulated by one who betroths a woman, if it contains large crevices that are not filled with water? Do we compare it to the halakha of consecrated property and include these places, or do we compare it to the halakha of a sale, which means that they are not included? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that we compare it to the case of consecrated property, as the husband can say to her: I will go to the trouble of sowing and bringing the produce from the lower or higher areas as well. Although the labor requires additional effort, he does possess a beit kor of land.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืชื ืื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื›ืชื ืื™ ื‘ื ื™ ื’ื“ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืชื ืื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื ืื ื™ืขื‘ืจื• ื‘ื ื™ ื’ื“ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื ืœื ื™ืขื‘ืจื• ื—ืœื•ืฆื™ื

MISHNA: Rabbi Meir says: Any condition that is not doubled, i.e., which does not specify both the result of fulfilling the condition and the result of the condition remaining unfulfilled, like the condition Moses stipulated with the children of Gad and the children of Reuben who sought to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan, is not a valid condition and is not taken into account at all. As it is stated: โ€œAnd Moses said to them, if the children of Gad and the children of Reuben pass over the Jordan with you, every man armed for battle before the Lord, and the land shall be subdued before you, then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possessionโ€ (Numbers 32:29). And it is written afterward: โ€œBut if they will not pass over armed with you, they shall receive a possession among you in the land of Canaanโ€ (Numbers 32:30).

ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืœืื•ืžืจื• ืฉืืœืžืœื ื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžืฉืžืข ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืืจืฅ ื›ื ืขืŸ ืœื ื™ื ื—ืœื•

Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel says: One cannot derive the requirements of conditions in general from that particular case, as with regard to the nullification of the condition of the children of Gad and Reuben it was necessary to state the matter, as otherwise, if the verse had not specified both sides of the condition, it might have been thought it meant that they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan. One might have thought that if the tribes of Gad and Reuben would not fulfill the condition, they would forfeit their right to inherit anywhere. It was therefore necessary to specify that they would not lose their portion in Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, it is possible that with regard to a standard condition, where no such misunderstanding is likely to take place, it is not necessary to mention both sides.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืœืื• ืœืชื ืื™ ื›ืคื•ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ื•ืื ืœื ื™ืขื‘ืจื• ื•ื ืื—ื–ื• ื‘ืชื›ื›ื ื‘ืืจืฅ ื›ื ืขืŸ

GEMARA: Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel is saying well, i.e., presenting a reasonable objection, to Rabbi Meir. He apparently refuted Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion entirely. How would Rabbi Meir respond? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: If it enters your mind that the verse does not come to teach the requirement of a compound condition to stipulate both positive and negative outcomes, let it merely write: But if they will not pass over they shall receive a possession among you, which would indicate that they have a portion in the land. The verse actually proceeds to state: โ€œIn the land of Canaan.โ€

ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืชื ืื™ ื›ืคื•ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

Why do I need this extra phrase? Conclude from it that it comes to teach the requirement of a compound condition.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืืžืจ ืื™ ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืืจืฅ ื›ื ืขืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื•ื ืื—ื–ื• ื‘ืชื›ื›ื ื‘ืืจืฅ ื’ืœืขื“ ืื‘ืœ ืืจืฅ ื›ื ืขืŸ ื›ืœืœ ืœื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ืชื›ื›ื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ืช ืœื›ื• ืžืฉืžืข

And Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel says: If the Merciful One had not written: โ€œIn the land of Canaan,โ€ I would say that the requirement: โ€œThey shall receive a possession among youโ€ (Numbers 32:30) is referring to the land of Gilead, i.e., this land must be shared with the other tribes. But they would not inherit in the land of Canaan at all. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir respond to this claim? He maintains that the expression: โ€œAmong you,โ€ means anywhere that you have taken possession, including the land of Canaan. Therefore, the subsequent phrase โ€œthe land of Canaanโ€ is superfluous and serves to teach that the condition must be doubled.

ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืžืฉืœ ืœืžื” ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืื“ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžื—ืœืง ื ื›ืกื™ื• ืœื‘ื ื™ื• ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื™ืจืฉ ืฉื“ื” ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื™ืจืฉ ืฉื“ื” ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืชืŸ ืžืืชื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื•ื™ื™ืจืฉ ืฉื“ื” ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืื ืœื ื™ืชืŸ ื™ื™ืจืฉ ืขื ืื—ื™ื• ื‘ืฉืืจ ื ื›ืกื™ื

It is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue that Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel said: Hear a parable: To what is this matter, i.e., the condition of the children of Gad and Reuben, comparable? It is comparable to a person who was dividing up his property among his sons, and said: My son so-and-so shall inherit such and such a field; and my son so-and-so shall inherit such and such a field; and my son so-and-so shall give two hundred dinars and inherit such and such a field, and if he does not give the money he will inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers.

ืžื™ ื’ืจื ืœื• ืœื™ืจืฉ ืขื ืื—ื™ื• ื‘ืฉืืจ ื ื›ืกื™ื ื›ืคื™ืœื• ื’ืจื ืœื•

What causes the last brother to inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers? The fatherโ€™s double formulation of the condition causes him to inherit in this manner. It was therefore necessary for the father to state both sides and explain what will happen if the third brother fails to give the money. Had the father not repeated the condition, upon failing to give the two hundred dinars the son would not have received any portion of the property.

ื•ื”ื ืœื ื“ืžื™ื ืžืฉืœ ืœืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื”ืชื ืงืชื ื™ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžืฉืžืข ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืืจืฅ ื›ื ืขืŸ ืœื ื™ื ื—ืœื• ืืœืžื ื›ืคื™ืœื” ืœืืจืฅ ื’ืœืขื“ ื ืžื™ ืžื”ื ื™

The Gemara asks: But the parable is not similar to the mishna, as there the mishna teaches: It might have been thought it meant that if they do not fulfill the condition they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan, and certainly not in the land of Gilead. This apparently indicates that the double formulation is also effective for them to inherit the land of Gilead with the other tribes. Otherwise, the children of Gad and Reuben would not receive any part of the Gilead either.

ื•ื”ื›ื ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ ื’ืจื ืœื• ืœื™ืจืฉ ืขื ืื—ื™ื• ื‘ืฉืืจ ื ื›ืกื™ื ื›ืคื™ืœื• ื’ืจื ืœื• ืืœืžื ื›ืคื™ืœื” ืœืฉืืจ ื ื›ืกื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงืžื”ื ื™

And yet here the baraita teaches: What causes the last brother to inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers? The fatherโ€™s double formulation causes him. This apparently indicates that the double formulation is effective for the rest of the property, whereas he would have received that portion of the field linked to the condition in any case. According to this reasoning, the children of Gad and Reuben would have been granted a portion in the land of Gilead even without the double formulation.

ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืžืงืžื™ ื“ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื ืื—ื–ื•

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this case, referring to Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamlielโ€™s ruling in the mishna, was stated before Rabbi Meir said to him that the verse could simply have stated: โ€œThey shall receive a possession among you.โ€ At that stage, Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel maintained that if the two tribes did not fulfill the condition they would not inherit even in the land of Gilead, as indicated by his use of the term: Even, in the mishna.

ื”ื ืœื‘ืชืจ ื“ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื ืื—ื–ื•

Whereas that case, referring to the parable in the baraita, was taught after Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel that when the phrase: โ€œThey shall receive a possession,โ€ appears by itself it is referring to the land of Canaan. As stated previously, Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel responded by explaining that had the verse not stated: โ€œIn the land of Canaan,โ€ one would have said that the requirement: โ€œThey shall receive a possession among youโ€ (Numbers 32:30), is referring to the land of Gilead, and they would not inherit in the land of Canaan. In other words, even without the compound condition they would have received a portion in Gilead, which is similar to the parable.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื ืชื™ื˜ื™ื‘ ืฉืืช ื•ืื ืœื ืชื™ื˜ื™ื‘ ืœืคืชื— ื—ื˜ืืช ืจื‘ืฅ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืื ืชื™ื˜ื™ื‘ ืื’ืจื ืื ืœื ืชื™ื˜ื™ื‘ ืœื ืื’ืจื ื•ืœื ื“ื™ื ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

ยง The Gemara proceeds to analyze these two opinions: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who requires a compound condition, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to Godโ€™s rebuke of Cain: โ€œIf you do well, shall it not be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin crouches at the doorโ€ (Genesis 4:7). However, according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel, why do I need both sides of this stipulation to be specified? The Gemara answers: Were it not for the double formulation it might enter your mind to say that the verse means: If you do well shall you not receive a reward? And if you do not do well you will receive neither reward nor punishment. The double formulation of the verse teaches us that if Cain fails to do well he will be actively punished.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื– ืชื ืงื” ืžืืœืชื™ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara asks another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to Abrahamโ€™s instruction to Eliezer to bring a wife for Isaac: โ€œThen you shall be clear from my oathโ€ฆif they will not give her to youโ€ (Genesis 24:41). However, according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel, why do I need this addition? The positive formulation of the oath already indicates the negative.

ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื”ื• ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for this to be stated; if Abraham had stated only: โ€œAnd take a wife for my sonโ€ (Genesis 24:38), it might enter your mind to say: In a case where the arrangement is satisfactory for her, but not satisfactory for her family, he should bring her against their wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that Eliezer is not obligated to bring her against her familyโ€™s wishes.

ืื ืœื ืชืื‘ื” ื”ืืฉื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ืœื“ื™ื“ื”ื• ื•ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara inquires about another verse in that chapter: โ€œIf the woman is not willing to follow youโ€ (Genesis 24:8). Why do I need this clause? The Gemara answers: It was necessary, since it might enter your mind to say: If it is satisfactory for them but not satisfactory for her, he should bring her against her wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that he should not bring her against her wishes.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื ื‘ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืœื›ื• ื•ืื ื‘ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืžืืกื• ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืื ื‘ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืœื›ื• ื‘ืจื›ื” ืื ื‘ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืžืืกื• ืœื ื‘ืจื›ื” ื•ืœื ืงืœืœื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks a related question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written: โ€œIf you walk in My statutesโ€ (Leviticus 26:3), you will receive blessings; conversely: โ€œAnd if you shall reject My statutesโ€ (Leviticus 26:15), you will receive curses. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel, why do I need both of these clauses? The Gemara answers: They are both necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: If you follow My statutes you will receive a blessing, whereas if you reject My statutes you will receive neither a blessing nor a curse. The verse therefore teaches us that the rejection of Godโ€™s statutes warrants a curse.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื ืชืื‘ื• ื•ืฉืžืขืชื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ืื ืชืžืื ื• ื•ืžืจื™ืชื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืื ืชืื‘ื• ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ื•ืื ืชืžืื ื• ืœื ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ื•ืœื ืจืขื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara again inquires: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written: โ€œIf you are willing and obedient you shall eat the good of the landโ€ (Isaiah 1:19), whereas: โ€œBut if you refuse and rebel you shall be devoured by the swordโ€ (Isaiah 1:20). But according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel, why do I need the double formulation? The Gemara answers in a similar fashion: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: โ€œIf you are willingโ€ you will receive good, i.e., reward, โ€œbut if you refuseโ€ you will receive neither good nor bad. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not the case, and one who rebels will receive punishment.

ืžืื™

In connection with the verse from Isaiah, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase:

Scroll To Top