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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 12, 2016 | 讚壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Kiddushin 62

More verses are brought to raise questions against the different opinions regarding a tanai kaful. 聽One cannot betroth a woman based on something that is not in existence. 聽The gemara brings different opinions as to what extent do we say something is/is not in existence.

讞专讘 转讗讻诇讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬诇讞讗 讙诇诇谞讬转讗 谞讛诪讗 讚砖注专讬 讗拽讜砖讗 讜讘爪诇讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 驻转 驻讜专谞讬 讞专讬讘讛 讘诪诇讞 讜讘爪诇讬诐 拽砖讬诐 诇讙讜祝 讻讞专讘讜转

鈥淵ou shall be devoured by the sword鈥 (Isaiah 1:20)? Rava says: This verse should be interpreted as if it states: You shall devour the sword, i.e., you shall eat food that harms the body like a sword, e.g., coarse grains [gelalenita] of salt, hard barley bread, and onions. As the Master said: Dried bakery [purnei] bread eaten with salt and onions harms the body like swords.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 诇讗 砖讻讘 讗讬砖 讗转讱 讜讗诐 诇讗 砖讟讬转 讟诪讗讛 转讞转 讗讬砖讱 讛谞拽讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞谞拽讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 讛谞拽讬 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel, this is the reason that it is written with regard to a sota: 鈥淚f no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone aside to uncleanness, being under your husband, you shall be free [hinnaki]鈥 (Numbers 5:19), without specifying the negative side of this condition. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the verse should have stated: And if a man has lain with you, you should choke [岣nnaki] and die. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the verse should have clarified the other side of the condition and its ensuing punishment. Rabbi Tan岣m said: Indeed, a truncated form of hinnaki without the letter yod is written. This indicates that the word should be interpreted in two ways, as both hinnaki and 岣nnaki.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞拽讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诐 诇讗 砖讻讘 讗讬砖 讛谞拽讬 讜讗诐 砖讻讘 诇讗 讛谞拽讬 讜诇讗 讞谞拽讬 讗诇讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara continues: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written hinnaki without the yod, to allude to the other side of the condition. But according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel, why do I need this word to be written in this way? The Gemara answers: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: If no man has lain with you, you shall be free, and if he has lain with you, you should neither be free nor choke; rather, it is merely a prohibition that does not warrant a severe punishment. The unusual form of the term hinnaki teaches us that this is not the case.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛讜讗 讬转讞讟讗 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讬讟讛专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬转讞讟讗 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讛 诇讬

Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to one being purified with the water of purification from contact with a corpse: 鈥淗e shall purify himself with it on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall be pure; but if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day he shall not be pure鈥 (Numbers 19:11鈥12). But according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel, why do I need this double formulation?

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪爪讜转 讛讝讗讛 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘砖讘讬注讬 讜讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 讘讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讘讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: The mitzva of sprinkling the water of purification must be performed on the third and seventh days ab initio, but if he performed it on one of them alone, the ritual is considered performed and he is purified after the fact. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖诇讬砖讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖谞讬 砖讘讬注讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖砖讬 讚拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘砖诪讬谞讬 讚拽讗 诪驻讬砖 讘讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 讗讬诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks about a later verse in the same chapter: 鈥淎nd the pure shall sprinkle on the impure on the third day and on the seventh day鈥 (Numbers 19:19). Why do I need this repetition of the command? This was already stated earlier. The Gemara answers: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that the third day excludes the second, i.e., he cannot receive the sprinkling of the water of purification before the third day, and similarly the seventh excludes the sixth day, because he thereby decreases the days of purity before the sprinkling. But if he performed the sprinkling on the third and on the eighth days, in which case he increases and adds to the days of purity, you might say that this is proper. The verse therefore teaches us that there must be a fixed interval of four days between each sprinkling ritual.

讜讞讟讗讜 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇转专讜诪讛 讘讞讚 谞诪讬 住讙讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara further analyzes this verse: Why do I need the phrase: 鈥淎nd on the seventh day he shall purify him鈥 (Numbers 19:19)? The Gemara answers: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: This matter, i.e., the requirement to receive the sprinkling twice, applies only for eating and touching consecrated meat; but for partaking of teruma one sprinkling is also sufficient. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讚砖 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讗诪专 讻住讘讜专 讛讬讬转讬 砖讛讬讗 讻讛谞转 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 诇讜讬讛 诇讜讬讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讛谞转 注谞讬讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 注砖讬专讛 注砖讬专讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 注谞讬讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讟注转讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who betroths a woman and later says: When I betrothed her I thought that she was the daughter of a priest, and it turned out that she is the daughter of a Levite, or if he claims that he thought she was the daughter of a Levite and she is actually the daughter of a priest, or if he claims that he thought she was poor and she is wealthy; or wealthy and she is poor, in all of these cases she is betrothed, because she did not mislead him, and no explicit condition was stated with regard to these matters.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗转讙讬讬专 讗讜 诇讗讞专 砖转转讙讬讬专讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗砖转讞专专 讗讜 诇讗讞专 砖转砖转讞专专讬 诇讗讞专 砖讬诪讜转 讘注诇讬讱 讗讜 诇讗讞专 砖转诪讜转 讗讞讜转讬讱 诇讗讞专 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讬讱 讬讘诪讬讱 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after I convert, or: After you convert, or if he was a Canaanite slave and says: After I am emancipated, or if she was a Canaanite maidservant and he says: After you are emancipated, or if he says to a married woman: After your husband dies, or to his wife鈥檚 sister: After your sister dies, or if he says to a woman awaiting levirate marriage or 岣litza from a brother-in-law [yavam], who in the opinion of this tanna cannot be betrothed by another man: After your yavam performs 岣litza for you, in all these cases she is not betrothed. Since he cannot betroth her at the present time, his attempt at betrothal is ineffective.

讜讻谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗诐 讬诇讚讛 讗砖转讱 谞拽讘讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗砖转 讞讘专讜 诪注讜讘专转 讜讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讗诐 讬诇讚讛 谞拽讘讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

And similarly, with regard to one who says to another: If your wife gives birth to a female the child is hereby betrothed to me, even if she becomes pregnant, or is pregnant but her pregnancy is not known, if she gives birth to a girl, that child is not betrothed to him. But if he said this when the wife of the other man was pregnant and her fetus was discernible at the time, i.e., her pregnancy was known, his statement is upheld, and therefore if she gives birth to a girl, the child is betrothed to him.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪谉 讛转诇讜砖 注诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 讜讗诐 转专诐 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Terumot 1:5): One may not separate teruma from produce that has been detached from the ground for, i.e., to render permitted, produce that is attached to the ground. Produce still attached to the ground is not included in the obligation of teruma. And if he separated teruma in this manner, his teruma is not teruma, even after the produce has been detached from the ground.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬诐 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专讬诐 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专讬诐 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬诐 诇讻砖讬转诇砖讜 讜谞转诇砖讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讘讬讚讜 诇讗讜 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

Rav Asi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: What is the halakha if one said: The detached produce of this garden bed should be teruma for the attached produce of this garden bed; or: The attached produce of this garden bed should be teruma for the detached produce of this garden bed, not now but when they will be detached; and the produce was subsequently detached? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Anything that is in one鈥檚 power to perform is not considered lacking in its action. Since he could theoretically detach the produce at this very moment, teruma can be separated from it.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗转讙讬讬专 诇讗讞专 砖转转讙讬讬专讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗砖转讞专专 诇讗讞专 砖转砖转讞专专讬 诇讗讞专 砖讬诪讜转 讘注诇讬讱 诇讗讞专 砖转诪讜转 讗讞讜转讬讱 诇讗讞专 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讬讱 讬讘诪讬讱 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

Rav Asi raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from the mishna. With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after I convert, or: After you convert, or: After I am emancipated, or: After you are emancipated, or: After your husband dies, or: After your sister dies, or: After your yavam performs 岣litza for you, in all of these cases she is not betrothed.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜 讗诇讗 讙专 讛讜讬 讘讬讚讜 讙专 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rav Asi explains his objection: Granted, in all of these cases but one it is not in his power to bring about the situation when he will be able to betroth her, but in the case of a convert, the matter is in his power, as he could convert now if he so chooses. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, any action that could potentially be performed is considered as though it has actually been performed. The Gemara responds: In the case of a convert, it is also not in his power to convert whenever he wants, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says:

讙专 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖驻讟 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻讚讬谉 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讝讚拽拽讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 转诇转讗

A convert requires the presence of three Jews for his conversion. What is the reason for this requirement? It is written with regard to a convert: 鈥淵ou shall have one manner of law, for the convert as for the homeborn鈥 (Leviticus 24:22), which indicates that a conversion is considered a judgment that requires three judges. And if he requires three judges, who says that those three will be available to him? Since he cannot convert at a time of his choosing, it is not considered within his power to convert.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛谞讜转谉 驻专讜讟讛 诇砖驻讞转讜 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗砖转讞专专讬讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讘讛诪讛 讛砖转讗 讚注转 讗讞专转

Rabbi Abba bar Memel objects to this: If that is so, and anything that is in one鈥檚 power to perform is not considered lacking in its action, one who gives one peruta to his Canaanite maidservant and says: You are hereby betrothed to me after I emancipate you, so too will you say that it is a betrothal because he has the power to emancipate her? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: How can these cases be compared? There, the Canaanite maidservant initially had the legal status of an animal, i.e., she is not subject to betrothal at all, whereas now she has an independent mind. Once she has been emancipated she has the status of a Jew and is not considered the same person at all. Consequently, the attempted betrothal is certainly considered lacking an action.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 驻专讜讟讛 诇讗砖转讜 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗讙专砖讬讱 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 谞讛讬 讚讘讬讚讜 诇讙专砖讛 讘讬讚讜 诇拽讚砖讛

The Gemara asks: But that which Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to one who gives one peruta to his wife and says to her: You are hereby betrothed to me after I divorce you, she is not betrothed, so too according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan will you say that it is a betrothal because he has the power to divorce her? The Gemara answers: Although he has the power to divorce her, does he have the power to betroth her against her will? It is not in his power to effect the betrothal, as once she has divorced him the matter is no longer exclusively dependent upon him.

转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 砖转讬 驻专讜讟讜转 诇讗砖讛 讘讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讘讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗讙专砖讬讱 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转驻住讬 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讛砖转讗 转驻住讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讞专 讻谉

The Gemara comments: Being that it is not in his power to effect the betrothal, you can use this logic to resolve the dilemma raised by Rav Oshaya: What is the halakha with regard to one who gives two perutot to a woman, and with one he says to her: Be betrothed to me today, and with the other one he says to her: Be betrothed to me after I divorce you? What is her status after he divorces her? That dilemma was left unanswered, and the Gemara suggests that you can resolve from here that it is not a betrothal. The Gemara explains that this case is different, and Rav Oshaya鈥檚 dilemma was actually as follows: Perhaps in that situation, just as the betrothal is effective now, it is also effective afterward. Since she is currently under her own authority and agrees to betroth herself to him, it is possible that she can now consent to a betrothal that will take effect at a later time.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪谉 讛转诇讜砖 注诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 讜讗诐 转专诐 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬谉 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专转 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专转 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讻砖讬转诇砖讜 讜谞转诇砖讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: One may not separate teruma from the detached for the attached, and if he separated teruma, his teruma is not teruma. How so? If he said: The detached produce of this garden bed will be teruma for the attached produce of this garden bed, or: The attached produce of this garden bed will be teruma for the detached produce of this garden bed, he has not said anything of consequence, as the obligation to separate teruma applies only to detached produce. But if he said that the attached produce will be teruma when they will be detached, and they become detached, his statement is valid, as he has the power to detach them.

讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬谉 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专转 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专转 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬谉 诇讻砖讬讘讬讗讜 砖诇讬砖 讜讬转诇砖讜 讜讛讘讬讗讜 砖诇讬砖 讜谞转诇砖讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

Moreover, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov said that even if one said: The detached produce of this garden bed will be teruma for the attached produce of this garden bed, or: The attached produce of this garden bed will be teruma for the detached produce of this garden bed when they, i.e., the attached produce, will reach one-third of their growth and are detached, although at the time they had yet to ripen which means that the obligations of terumot and tithes do not apply to them, when they will reach one-third of their growth and are detached, his statement is upheld.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 讘砖讞转 讗讘诇 讘讗讙诐 诇讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讙诐 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讗讙诐 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讘讜爪诇谞讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛诇讻祝 讻讗讙诪谉 专讗砖讜

Rabba says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says this ruling only with regard to fodder, produce that has grown stalks even if it is not yet ripe. But he did not refer to produce that is still completely soft [agam]. Rav Yosef says: He even referred to soft produce. In relation to this dispute, the Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this word agam is a term of growth [butzlana]? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Elazar said that this is as the verse states: 鈥淚s it to bow down his head as a bulrush [ke鈥檃gmon]鈥 (Isaiah 58:5), i.e., like a soft, drooping plant.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘专讜 讗诐 讬诇讚讛 讗砖转讱 谞拽讘讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讗讘诇 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘讛 讻砖讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 讗讬 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛

搂 The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in the following baraita: With regard to one who says to another: If your wife gives birth to a female she is betrothed to me, he has not said anything? And Rabbi 岣nina says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the other鈥檚 wife is not pregnant. But if his wife is pregnant his statement is upheld. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? The Gemara answers: The baraita can be explained in accordance with everyone鈥檚 opinion. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, it is referring to a situation where her fetus was already noticeable, just as the stalks of fodder are recognizable. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, the halakha of the baraita applies even if her fetus was not yet noticeable.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 讘砖讞转 讚讘讬 讻讬讘砖讗 讗讘诇 讘砖讞转 讚讘讬 砖拽讬讗 诇讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讞转 讚讘讬 砖拽讬讗

And there are those who say a different version of this dispute. Rabba says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says his ruling only with regard to fodder of a non-irrigated field, which is not watered. But he did not speak about fodder of an irrigated field. Since the produce of this field will not grow on its own if it is not watered, it is not considered as if this produce has entered the world. Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov referred even to fodder of an irrigated field, as this produce too is treated as having entered the world when it reaches the stage of fodder.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗诐 讬诇讚讛 讗砖转讱 谞拽讘讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讗讘诇 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬诐 讻诪讗谉 讻砖讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

The Gemara asks: According to this version of the dispute, in accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in the following baraita: If one says to another: If your wife gives birth to a female she is betrothed to me, he has not said anything? And Rabbi 岣nina says: They taught this only when his wife is not pregnant, but if his wife is pregnant his statement is upheld. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? The baraita must be referring to a case where her fetus was noticeable, and therefore everyone agrees with this ruling. The baraita is in accordance with the opinions of both Rabba and Rav Yosef, as even Rav Yosef agrees that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov was referring only to fodder whose stalks were already noticeable.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗

Abaye says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Meir all hold the following principle: A person can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world. That is, one can perform an act of acquisition for an item that is not yet in existence. The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov is referring to that which we just said, that one can separate teruma even for produce not yet included in this mitzva. Where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi state a similar opinion? As it is taught in a baraita:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 62

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 62

讞专讘 转讗讻诇讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬诇讞讗 讙诇诇谞讬转讗 谞讛诪讗 讚砖注专讬 讗拽讜砖讗 讜讘爪诇讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 驻转 驻讜专谞讬 讞专讬讘讛 讘诪诇讞 讜讘爪诇讬诐 拽砖讬诐 诇讙讜祝 讻讞专讘讜转

鈥淵ou shall be devoured by the sword鈥 (Isaiah 1:20)? Rava says: This verse should be interpreted as if it states: You shall devour the sword, i.e., you shall eat food that harms the body like a sword, e.g., coarse grains [gelalenita] of salt, hard barley bread, and onions. As the Master said: Dried bakery [purnei] bread eaten with salt and onions harms the body like swords.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 诇讗 砖讻讘 讗讬砖 讗转讱 讜讗诐 诇讗 砖讟讬转 讟诪讗讛 转讞转 讗讬砖讱 讛谞拽讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞谞拽讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 讛谞拽讬 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel, this is the reason that it is written with regard to a sota: 鈥淚f no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone aside to uncleanness, being under your husband, you shall be free [hinnaki]鈥 (Numbers 5:19), without specifying the negative side of this condition. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the verse should have stated: And if a man has lain with you, you should choke [岣nnaki] and die. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the verse should have clarified the other side of the condition and its ensuing punishment. Rabbi Tan岣m said: Indeed, a truncated form of hinnaki without the letter yod is written. This indicates that the word should be interpreted in two ways, as both hinnaki and 岣nnaki.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞拽讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诐 诇讗 砖讻讘 讗讬砖 讛谞拽讬 讜讗诐 砖讻讘 诇讗 讛谞拽讬 讜诇讗 讞谞拽讬 讗诇讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara continues: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written hinnaki without the yod, to allude to the other side of the condition. But according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel, why do I need this word to be written in this way? The Gemara answers: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: If no man has lain with you, you shall be free, and if he has lain with you, you should neither be free nor choke; rather, it is merely a prohibition that does not warrant a severe punishment. The unusual form of the term hinnaki teaches us that this is not the case.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛讜讗 讬转讞讟讗 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讬讟讛专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬转讞讟讗 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讛 诇讬

Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to one being purified with the water of purification from contact with a corpse: 鈥淗e shall purify himself with it on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall be pure; but if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day he shall not be pure鈥 (Numbers 19:11鈥12). But according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel, why do I need this double formulation?

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪爪讜转 讛讝讗讛 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘砖讘讬注讬 讜讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 讘讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讘讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: The mitzva of sprinkling the water of purification must be performed on the third and seventh days ab initio, but if he performed it on one of them alone, the ritual is considered performed and he is purified after the fact. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖诇讬砖讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖谞讬 砖讘讬注讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖砖讬 讚拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘砖诪讬谞讬 讚拽讗 诪驻讬砖 讘讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 讗讬诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks about a later verse in the same chapter: 鈥淎nd the pure shall sprinkle on the impure on the third day and on the seventh day鈥 (Numbers 19:19). Why do I need this repetition of the command? This was already stated earlier. The Gemara answers: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that the third day excludes the second, i.e., he cannot receive the sprinkling of the water of purification before the third day, and similarly the seventh excludes the sixth day, because he thereby decreases the days of purity before the sprinkling. But if he performed the sprinkling on the third and on the eighth days, in which case he increases and adds to the days of purity, you might say that this is proper. The verse therefore teaches us that there must be a fixed interval of four days between each sprinkling ritual.

讜讞讟讗讜 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇转专讜诪讛 讘讞讚 谞诪讬 住讙讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara further analyzes this verse: Why do I need the phrase: 鈥淎nd on the seventh day he shall purify him鈥 (Numbers 19:19)? The Gemara answers: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: This matter, i.e., the requirement to receive the sprinkling twice, applies only for eating and touching consecrated meat; but for partaking of teruma one sprinkling is also sufficient. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讚砖 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讗诪专 讻住讘讜专 讛讬讬转讬 砖讛讬讗 讻讛谞转 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 诇讜讬讛 诇讜讬讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讛谞转 注谞讬讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 注砖讬专讛 注砖讬专讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 注谞讬讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讟注转讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who betroths a woman and later says: When I betrothed her I thought that she was the daughter of a priest, and it turned out that she is the daughter of a Levite, or if he claims that he thought she was the daughter of a Levite and she is actually the daughter of a priest, or if he claims that he thought she was poor and she is wealthy; or wealthy and she is poor, in all of these cases she is betrothed, because she did not mislead him, and no explicit condition was stated with regard to these matters.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗转讙讬讬专 讗讜 诇讗讞专 砖转转讙讬讬专讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗砖转讞专专 讗讜 诇讗讞专 砖转砖转讞专专讬 诇讗讞专 砖讬诪讜转 讘注诇讬讱 讗讜 诇讗讞专 砖转诪讜转 讗讞讜转讬讱 诇讗讞专 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讬讱 讬讘诪讬讱 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after I convert, or: After you convert, or if he was a Canaanite slave and says: After I am emancipated, or if she was a Canaanite maidservant and he says: After you are emancipated, or if he says to a married woman: After your husband dies, or to his wife鈥檚 sister: After your sister dies, or if he says to a woman awaiting levirate marriage or 岣litza from a brother-in-law [yavam], who in the opinion of this tanna cannot be betrothed by another man: After your yavam performs 岣litza for you, in all these cases she is not betrothed. Since he cannot betroth her at the present time, his attempt at betrothal is ineffective.

讜讻谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗诐 讬诇讚讛 讗砖转讱 谞拽讘讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗砖转 讞讘专讜 诪注讜讘专转 讜讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讗诐 讬诇讚讛 谞拽讘讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

And similarly, with regard to one who says to another: If your wife gives birth to a female the child is hereby betrothed to me, even if she becomes pregnant, or is pregnant but her pregnancy is not known, if she gives birth to a girl, that child is not betrothed to him. But if he said this when the wife of the other man was pregnant and her fetus was discernible at the time, i.e., her pregnancy was known, his statement is upheld, and therefore if she gives birth to a girl, the child is betrothed to him.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪谉 讛转诇讜砖 注诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 讜讗诐 转专诐 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Terumot 1:5): One may not separate teruma from produce that has been detached from the ground for, i.e., to render permitted, produce that is attached to the ground. Produce still attached to the ground is not included in the obligation of teruma. And if he separated teruma in this manner, his teruma is not teruma, even after the produce has been detached from the ground.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬诐 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专讬诐 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专讬诐 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬诐 诇讻砖讬转诇砖讜 讜谞转诇砖讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讘讬讚讜 诇讗讜 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

Rav Asi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: What is the halakha if one said: The detached produce of this garden bed should be teruma for the attached produce of this garden bed; or: The attached produce of this garden bed should be teruma for the detached produce of this garden bed, not now but when they will be detached; and the produce was subsequently detached? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Anything that is in one鈥檚 power to perform is not considered lacking in its action. Since he could theoretically detach the produce at this very moment, teruma can be separated from it.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗转讙讬讬专 诇讗讞专 砖转转讙讬讬专讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗砖转讞专专 诇讗讞专 砖转砖转讞专专讬 诇讗讞专 砖讬诪讜转 讘注诇讬讱 诇讗讞专 砖转诪讜转 讗讞讜转讬讱 诇讗讞专 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讬讱 讬讘诪讬讱 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

Rav Asi raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from the mishna. With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after I convert, or: After you convert, or: After I am emancipated, or: After you are emancipated, or: After your husband dies, or: After your sister dies, or: After your yavam performs 岣litza for you, in all of these cases she is not betrothed.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜 讗诇讗 讙专 讛讜讬 讘讬讚讜 讙专 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rav Asi explains his objection: Granted, in all of these cases but one it is not in his power to bring about the situation when he will be able to betroth her, but in the case of a convert, the matter is in his power, as he could convert now if he so chooses. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, any action that could potentially be performed is considered as though it has actually been performed. The Gemara responds: In the case of a convert, it is also not in his power to convert whenever he wants, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says:

讙专 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖驻讟 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻讚讬谉 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讝讚拽拽讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 转诇转讗

A convert requires the presence of three Jews for his conversion. What is the reason for this requirement? It is written with regard to a convert: 鈥淵ou shall have one manner of law, for the convert as for the homeborn鈥 (Leviticus 24:22), which indicates that a conversion is considered a judgment that requires three judges. And if he requires three judges, who says that those three will be available to him? Since he cannot convert at a time of his choosing, it is not considered within his power to convert.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛谞讜转谉 驻专讜讟讛 诇砖驻讞转讜 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗砖转讞专专讬讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讘讛诪讛 讛砖转讗 讚注转 讗讞专转

Rabbi Abba bar Memel objects to this: If that is so, and anything that is in one鈥檚 power to perform is not considered lacking in its action, one who gives one peruta to his Canaanite maidservant and says: You are hereby betrothed to me after I emancipate you, so too will you say that it is a betrothal because he has the power to emancipate her? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: How can these cases be compared? There, the Canaanite maidservant initially had the legal status of an animal, i.e., she is not subject to betrothal at all, whereas now she has an independent mind. Once she has been emancipated she has the status of a Jew and is not considered the same person at all. Consequently, the attempted betrothal is certainly considered lacking an action.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 驻专讜讟讛 诇讗砖转讜 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗讙专砖讬讱 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 谞讛讬 讚讘讬讚讜 诇讙专砖讛 讘讬讚讜 诇拽讚砖讛

The Gemara asks: But that which Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to one who gives one peruta to his wife and says to her: You are hereby betrothed to me after I divorce you, she is not betrothed, so too according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan will you say that it is a betrothal because he has the power to divorce her? The Gemara answers: Although he has the power to divorce her, does he have the power to betroth her against her will? It is not in his power to effect the betrothal, as once she has divorced him the matter is no longer exclusively dependent upon him.

转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 砖转讬 驻专讜讟讜转 诇讗砖讛 讘讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讘讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗讙专砖讬讱 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转驻住讬 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讛砖转讗 转驻住讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讞专 讻谉

The Gemara comments: Being that it is not in his power to effect the betrothal, you can use this logic to resolve the dilemma raised by Rav Oshaya: What is the halakha with regard to one who gives two perutot to a woman, and with one he says to her: Be betrothed to me today, and with the other one he says to her: Be betrothed to me after I divorce you? What is her status after he divorces her? That dilemma was left unanswered, and the Gemara suggests that you can resolve from here that it is not a betrothal. The Gemara explains that this case is different, and Rav Oshaya鈥檚 dilemma was actually as follows: Perhaps in that situation, just as the betrothal is effective now, it is also effective afterward. Since she is currently under her own authority and agrees to betroth herself to him, it is possible that she can now consent to a betrothal that will take effect at a later time.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪谉 讛转诇讜砖 注诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 讜讗诐 转专诐 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬谉 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专转 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专转 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讻砖讬转诇砖讜 讜谞转诇砖讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: One may not separate teruma from the detached for the attached, and if he separated teruma, his teruma is not teruma. How so? If he said: The detached produce of this garden bed will be teruma for the attached produce of this garden bed, or: The attached produce of this garden bed will be teruma for the detached produce of this garden bed, he has not said anything of consequence, as the obligation to separate teruma applies only to detached produce. But if he said that the attached produce will be teruma when they will be detached, and they become detached, his statement is valid, as he has the power to detach them.

讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬谉 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专转 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 诪讞讜讘专转 讬讛讬讜 转专讜诪讛 注诇 驻讬专讜转 注专讜讙讛 讝讜 转诇讜砖讬谉 诇讻砖讬讘讬讗讜 砖诇讬砖 讜讬转诇砖讜 讜讛讘讬讗讜 砖诇讬砖 讜谞转诇砖讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

Moreover, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov said that even if one said: The detached produce of this garden bed will be teruma for the attached produce of this garden bed, or: The attached produce of this garden bed will be teruma for the detached produce of this garden bed when they, i.e., the attached produce, will reach one-third of their growth and are detached, although at the time they had yet to ripen which means that the obligations of terumot and tithes do not apply to them, when they will reach one-third of their growth and are detached, his statement is upheld.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 讘砖讞转 讗讘诇 讘讗讙诐 诇讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讙诐 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讗讙诐 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讘讜爪诇谞讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛诇讻祝 讻讗讙诪谉 专讗砖讜

Rabba says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says this ruling only with regard to fodder, produce that has grown stalks even if it is not yet ripe. But he did not refer to produce that is still completely soft [agam]. Rav Yosef says: He even referred to soft produce. In relation to this dispute, the Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this word agam is a term of growth [butzlana]? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Elazar said that this is as the verse states: 鈥淚s it to bow down his head as a bulrush [ke鈥檃gmon]鈥 (Isaiah 58:5), i.e., like a soft, drooping plant.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘专讜 讗诐 讬诇讚讛 讗砖转讱 谞拽讘讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讗讘诇 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘讛 讻砖讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 讗讬 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛

搂 The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in the following baraita: With regard to one who says to another: If your wife gives birth to a female she is betrothed to me, he has not said anything? And Rabbi 岣nina says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the other鈥檚 wife is not pregnant. But if his wife is pregnant his statement is upheld. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? The Gemara answers: The baraita can be explained in accordance with everyone鈥檚 opinion. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, it is referring to a situation where her fetus was already noticeable, just as the stalks of fodder are recognizable. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, the halakha of the baraita applies even if her fetus was not yet noticeable.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 讘砖讞转 讚讘讬 讻讬讘砖讗 讗讘诇 讘砖讞转 讚讘讬 砖拽讬讗 诇讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讞转 讚讘讬 砖拽讬讗

And there are those who say a different version of this dispute. Rabba says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says his ruling only with regard to fodder of a non-irrigated field, which is not watered. But he did not speak about fodder of an irrigated field. Since the produce of this field will not grow on its own if it is not watered, it is not considered as if this produce has entered the world. Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov referred even to fodder of an irrigated field, as this produce too is treated as having entered the world when it reaches the stage of fodder.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗诐 讬诇讚讛 讗砖转讱 谞拽讘讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讗讘诇 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬诐 讻诪讗谉 讻砖讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

The Gemara asks: According to this version of the dispute, in accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in the following baraita: If one says to another: If your wife gives birth to a female she is betrothed to me, he has not said anything? And Rabbi 岣nina says: They taught this only when his wife is not pregnant, but if his wife is pregnant his statement is upheld. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? The baraita must be referring to a case where her fetus was noticeable, and therefore everyone agrees with this ruling. The baraita is in accordance with the opinions of both Rabba and Rav Yosef, as even Rav Yosef agrees that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov was referring only to fodder whose stalks were already noticeable.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗

Abaye says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Meir all hold the following principle: A person can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world. That is, one can perform an act of acquisition for an item that is not yet in existence. The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov is referring to that which we just said, that one can separate teruma even for produce not yet included in this mitzva. Where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi state a similar opinion? As it is taught in a baraita:

Scroll To Top