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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 13, 2016 | 讛壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讜

  • 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Kiddushin 63

More opinions are brought who hold that one can acquire聽davar shela ba l’olam – something not is existence at the time. 聽A mishna is brought about one who betroths a woman conditioned upon doing something of monetary value for her. 聽There is a discussion聽in the gemara about whether the mishna is a standard case of conditional betrothal and it is a case where he also gave her an object of monetary value or is the betrothal through聽the value of the work he promised to do. 聽The mishna discusses what happens if one conditions the betrothal on his father’s consent. 聽Cases are brought where the father or the daughter say they are betrothed but don’t remember to whom. 聽What is the difference between the two cases?


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

诇讗 转住讙讬专 注讘讚 讗诇 讗讚谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讞专专讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻讙讜谉 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 诇讻砖讗拽讞讱 讛专讬 注爪诪讱 拽谞讜讬 诇讱 诪注讻砖讬讜

With regard to the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not deliver a slave to his master鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:16), Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse is speaking of one who acquires a slave, not to enslave him but in order to emancipate him. The court may not deliver the slave to this master, as this master has no right to enslave him. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: For example, if the new master wrote to the slave in his bill of manumission: When I will purchase you, you are hereby acquired to yourself from now. In that case the slave acquires himself from that moment, despite the fact that the buyer does not own him. This shows that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that a person can transfer an item that has not yet entered the world, as one can emancipate his slave before acquiring him.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 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 诇讱 讬讘诪讬讱 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

Rabbi Meir also holds that one can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world, as it is taught in a baraita: 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, she is not betrothed. Rabbi Meir disagrees and says: She is betrothed. Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar says: She is not betrothed.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讘讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that in some of these cases, by Torah law she is betrothed. And for what reason did the Sages say she is not betrothed? Due to enmity. Giving betrothal to a married woman that will take effect after her husband dies can engender enmity between the woman and her husband. Giving betrothal to one sister that depends on the death of the other can engender enmity between the sisters. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintain that one can betroth a woman who is currently forbidden to him.

讜谞讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: And let us also count Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi among those who maintain that a person can acquire an entity that has not yet come into the world. The reason it asks is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is merely called Rabbi above. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the same as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi; they are one person.

讜谞讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 注讜砖讛 诇驻讬讱 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛驻专

The Gemara asks: And let us also count Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a mishna (see Nedarim 85a): If a woman stated a vow to her husband: I will not produce anything for you, including the work that she is obligated to do for him according to the terms of her marriage contract, as that is konam, i.e., forbidden like an offering, for me, her husband need not nullify the vow at all. It is automatically void, since she is obligated to perform those tasks.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬驻专 砖诪讗 转注讚讬祝 注诇讬讜 讬转专 诪谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇讜 讛讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专转 讬拽讚砖讜 讬讚讬 诇注讜砖讬讛诐 讜讬讚讬诐 讗讬转谞讛讜 讘注讜诇诐

Rabbi Akiva says: He should nevertheless nullify the vow, as perhaps she will exceed the required amount of work and do more for him than is fitting for him to receive. If she does more than the fixed amount of work that a woman is obligated to perform for her husband, the vow will be valid with respect to the excess to which he is not legally entitled, and he might inadvertently come to benefit from something that is forbidden to him. That excess is an entity that has not yet come into the world. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Wasn鈥檛 it already stated with regard to this ruling that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: This is referring to a woman who says: Let my hands be sanctified to their Maker? She sanctifies her actual hands, and these hands exist in the world; therefore the vow takes effect.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讚讘专 注诇讬讱 诇砖诇讟讜谉 讜讗注砖讛 注诪讱 讻驻讜注诇 讚讘专 注诇讬讛 诇砖诇讟讜谉 讜注砖讛 注诪讛 讻驻讜注诇 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

MISHNA: With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that I will speak in your favor to the authorities, e.g., to help her address some legal matter, or: On the condition that I will act for you as a laborer, if he spoke in her favor to the authorities or acted for her as a laborer, she is betrothed. But if not, she is not betrothed.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛讜讗 砖谞转谉 诇讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讘砖讻专 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘砖讻专 砖讛专讻讘转讬讱 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 砖讛讜砖讘转讬讱 讘拽专讜谉 讗讜 讘住驻讬谞讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

GEMARA: Reish Lakish says: And this halakha applies only if he gave her an item worth one peruta at the time of the betrothal. She is not betrothed via his recommendation to the authorities or via the work itself, as these are merely conditions appended to the betrothal. The Gemara asks: And is she not betrothed by the monetary value of his recommendation or action? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if one says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me by the monetary value you received when I had you ride on a donkey, or: By the monetary value you received when I had you sit on a wagon [karon], or: By the monetary value you received when I had you ride in a boat, she is not betrothed, as she has already done the action and therefore owes him this debt, and one cannot betroth a woman with a loan.

讘砖讻专 砖讗专讻讬讘讱 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 砖讗讜砖讬讘讱 讘拽专讜谉 讗讜 讘住驻讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬讛讘 诇讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讛讗 讘砖讻专 拽讗诪专

But if he says to her: By the monetary value you will receive when I will have you ride on a donkey, or: By the monetary value you will receive when I will have you sit on a wagon, or: By the monetary value you will receive when I will have you ride in a boat, she is betrothed. And if you would say that here too, it is referring to a case where he gave her an item worth one peruta, the baraita says: By the monetary value, which indicates that she is betrothed via this sum.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 砖讘 注诪讬 讘爪讜讜转讗 讜讗拽讚砖 诇讱 砖讞讜拽 诇驻谞讬 专拽讜讚 诇驻谞讬 注砖讛 讻讚讬诪讜住 讛讝讛 砖诪讬谉 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬讛讘 诇讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讛讗 砖诪讬谉 讗讜转讜 拽讗诪专 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita that if a woman says to a man: Sit together with me and I will be betrothed to you, or: Perform entertainment before me, or: Dance before me, or: Perform work for me like this layer [dimus] of a building, the court appraises the monetary value of his action. If the action he performs for her is worth the value of one peruta, she is betrothed, but if not, she is not betrothed. And if you would say that here too, it is referring to a case where he gave her an item worth one peruta, and the betrothal is with that; but the baraita says: The court appraises it. If this were merely a condition, there would be no need for an appraisal. Isn鈥檛 this a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讘专讗 住讘专 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讻讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讘住讜祝 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讻讬专讜转 诪转讞讬诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝

The Gemara answers that Reish Lakish could have said to you: This tanna of the baraita maintains that the obligation to pay a person鈥檚 wage is incurred only at the end of the period for which he was hired. Consequently, she is betrothed via money rather than by a loan. And the tanna of our mishna maintains that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period he was hired to its end. Since the debt accumulates throughout the duration that the service is performed, by the time he has finished the work she owes him the entire sum, and a debt cannot be used for a betrothal.

讜诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗讜拽诪讬讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬砖谞讛 诇砖讻讬专讜转 诪转讞讬诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讜讘讚讬讛讘 诇讛

The Gemara asks: And what forces Reish Lakish to establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period he was hired to its end, and that it is referring to a case where he gave her the value of one peruta? Why does he reject the possibility that the mishna is referring to one who did not give an extra peruta, and instead he betrothed her with the value of the service he performed, in accordance with the opinion that the obligation to pay a person鈥檚 wage is incurred only at the end of the period for which he was hired?

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 谞讬转谞讬 讘砖讻专 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 注诇 诪谞转 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara replies: Rava said that the mishna was difficult for Reish Lakish: Why does the tanna specifically teach: On the condition? Let him teach: By the monetary value, as stated in the baraita. Rather, conclude from it that any statement of: On the condition, is referring to a stipulation, and therefore the mishna must be dealing with a case where he has already given her the value of one peruta. Consequently, the value of his service cannot be the money for the betrothal itself, and instead serves as a later condition.

诪转谞讬壮 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬专爪讛 讗讘讗 专爪讛 讛讗讘 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪转 讛讘谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讛讗讘 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛

MISHNA: With regard to one who betroths a woman and says to her that the betrothal is: On the condition that my father will want this betrothal, if his father wants it, she is betrothed; but if not, she is not betrothed. If the father dies, she is betrothed, despite the fact that he did not reveal his wishes. If the son dies, one instructs the father to say that he does not want the betrothal, so that the betrothal will never have taken effect, thereby enabling her to avoid the requirement of levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬专爪讛 讗讘讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗诪专 讗讘讗 讗讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗诇讗

GEMARA: What is the meaning of: On the condition that my father will want this betrothal? If we say it means they are not married until his father says yes, indicating his agreement, then say the middle clause of the mishna: If the father dies, she is betrothed. But how can she be betrothed? After all, he did not say yes, and the condition was not fulfilled. Rather,

注诇 诪谞转 砖讬砖转讜拽 讗讘讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪转 讛讘谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗转 讛讗讘 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 砖转讬拽 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 讬诪讞讛 讗讘讗

the phrase: On the condition that my father wants this betrothal, means: On the condition that my father will remain silent and will not object when he hears of the betrothal. But if this is the case, say the last clause of the mishna: If the son died, one instructs the father to say that he does not want the betrothal. Why should this matter? After all, he remained silent when he first heard about it. Clearly his mere silence does not constitute agreement. Rather, one must say that the phrase: On the condition that my father wants this betrothal, means that he said to her: On the condition that my father will not object to this betrothal at any point in time.

专讬砖讗 讘讞讚 讟注诪讗 讜诪爪讬注转讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘讞讚 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讞拽讬谞谉 讜诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘转专讬 讟注诪讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讞讚 转谞讗 讜诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 讘转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讘讞讚 讟注诪讗

The Gemara asks: Wouldn鈥檛 this mean that the first clause of the mishna describes one reason, i.e., one set of circumstances, and the middle clause and last clause describe one other reason? Rabbi Yannai said: Yes, this is so. Reish Lakish said: Conclude from his statement that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai one forces a mishna to be explained as following two reasons, and in accordance with the opinion of one tanna, rather than establishing a mishna as following the opinions of two tanna鈥檌m and one reason. In other words, an interpretation that maintains the unified attribution of one mishna is preferable, even if one is thereby forced to say that it addresses different situations.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬专爪讛 讗讘讗 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 讬诪讞讛 讗讘讗 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

Rav Yosef bar Ami said: Actually, the entire mishna is addressing one reason, i.e., one case, and what is the meaning of: On the condition that my father wants the betrothal? It means: On the condition that my father will not object from now and until thirty days have elapsed. His silence for thirty days indicates his acceptance of the betrothal.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讚砖转讬 讗转 讘转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诇诪讬 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 谞讗诪谉 讝讛 讗诪专 讗谞讬 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 讜讝讛 讗诪专 讗谞讬 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 砖谞讬讛诐 谞讜转谞讬诐 讙讟 讜讗诐 专爪讜 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讙讟 讜讗讞讚 讻讜谞住

MISHNA: With regard to a man who said: I betrothed my minor daughter to someone but I do not know to whom I betrothed her, and one man came forward and said: I betrothed her, his claim is deemed credible. If two men stepped forward and this one said: I betrothed her, and that one said: I betrothed her, they must both give her a bill of divorce to render it permitted for her to marry anyone else. And if they so desire, one of them gives her a bill of divorce and the other one may marry her.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讗诪谉 诇讬转谉 讙讟 讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住 谞讗诪谉 诇讬转谉 讙讟 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讞讜讟讗 讜诇讗 诇讜 讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住 讗讬诪讗 讬爪专讜 转讜拽驻讜

GEMARA: Rav says: When the mishna states that the claim of one who says that he betrothed this girl is deemed credible, it means that he is deemed credible to the extent that he may give her a bill of divorce, but he is not deemed credible to marry her. He is deemed credible to give her a bill of divorce, as there is a presumption that a person sins only for his own benefit. No one is suspected of sinning when he does not stand to gain from it. Since he is not allowed to marry her himself, we do not say that he lied without purpose. But he is not deemed credible to marry her, as we say that his inclination might have overcome him, leading him to falsely claim that he is the one who betrothed her.

专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗祝 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讗住讬 讘讗讜诪专转 谞转拽讚砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注转 诇诪讬 谞转拽讚砖转讬 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 砖讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住

Rav Asi disagrees with Rav鈥檚 interpretation of the mishna and says: He is deemed credible even to marry her, as he would not dare to lie directly to the father of the girl he claims to have betrothed. And Rav Asi concedes in the case of a woman who says: I became betrothed but I do not know to whom I became betrothed, and one man came and said: I betrothed her, that he is not deemed credible to marry her. In this situation she might have agreed to collude with him, as the Gemara will explain.

转谞谉 专爪讜 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讙讟 讜讗讞讚 讻讜谞住 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专 讘讛讚讬讛 讗讬专转讜转讬 诪讬专转转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna that if they so desire, one of them gives her a bill of divorce and the other one may marry her. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav, who says that he may not marry her. The Gemara answers: Rav could have said to you: There, in our mishna, it is different, as, since there is another person with him also claiming to have betrothed her, he is afraid to lie.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗住讬 拽讬讚砖转讬 讗转 讘转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诇诪讬 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 讗祝 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住 讻谞住讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 拽讚砖转讬讛 诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诇讗讜住专讛 注诇讬讜

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi: If a man said: I have betrothed my daughter to someone but I do not know to whom I betrothed her, and one person came forward and said: I betrothed her, he is deemed credible even to marry her. If that person married her, and another man came forward and said: It was I who betrothed her, it is not within the second man鈥檚 power to prohibit her to her husband.

讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 谞转拽讚砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注转 诇诪讬 谞转拽讚砖转讬 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 拽讬讚砖转讬 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪讞驻讛 注诇讬讜

The baraita cites another case: With regard to a woman who said: I became betrothed but I do not know to whom I became betrothed, and one man came and said: I betrothed her, he is not deemed credible to marry her. Why not? Because she is protecting him. Perhaps she decided only now that she wants to marry him and is therefore identifying him as the man who betrothed her, although she knows it was someone else. The same suspicions do not arise in the case of a father, who has no inclinations in this regard.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇住拽讜诇 注诇 讬讚讜 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 住讜拽诇讬谉 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 住讜拽诇讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of the mishna, where the father claims to have betrothed his daughter to someone, what is the halakha with regard to stoning based on the father鈥檚 account? Is a father who says: I betrothed my daughter, deemed credible to the extent that she is stoned as an adulteress if she engages in sexual intercourse with someone? Rav says the court does not stone her, and Rav Asi says the court stones her.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 住讜拽诇讬谉 讻讬 讛讬诪谞讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讘 诇讗讬住讜专讗 诇拽讟诇讗 诇讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 住讜拽诇讬谉 诇讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讬讛 讛讬诪谞讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讘 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讜诪讜讚讬谞讗 讘讗讜诪专转 谞转拽讚砖转讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜拽诇讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: Rav said that the court does not stone her, because when the Merciful One deems the father credible when he says he betrothed his daughter, this is referring only to the prohibition against her marrying anyone else. By contrast, with regard to killing her, the Torah did not deem him credible. Rav Asi said: The court stones her, as the Merciful One deems the father credible with regard to all matters, including the death penalty. Rav Asi says: And I concede in the case of a woman who says: I became betrothed, that the court does not stone her on the basis of her own admission.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讚讬讚讬 诪专驻住谉 讗讬讙专讬 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗诐 讘讗 诇讻谞讜住 讻讜谞住 讗诪专转 住讜拽诇讬诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诐 讘讗 诇讻谞讜住 讗讬谉 讻讜谞住 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖住讜拽诇讬谉

And Rav Asi says: These halakhot of mine are roof breakers, i.e., they are difficult and incomprehensible. Rav Asi explains: Now, in a case where a father said: I have betrothed my daughter to someone but I do not know to whom, where if someone came to marry her he is deemed credible and may marry her, which means you say that the court then stones her on the basis of the father鈥檚 testimony if she later commits adultery, is it not logical that the court should stone her in a case where a woman said: I became betrothed but I do not know to whom, thereby prohibiting herself to everyone to the extent that if someone came to marry her he may not marry her?

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗讘 讛讬诪谞讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讚讬讚讛 诇讗 讛讬诪谞讛

But that is not so, i.e., Rav Asi鈥檚 rulings are in fact reasonable: The Merciful One deems credible a father who says that his daughter is betrothed, and therefore she can even be stoned, but the Torah did not deem her, i.e., the woman herself, credible in this regard. She does not receive a special degree of credibility, and although she can declare herself a forbidden item, i.e., she can render herself forbidden to all men, as far as punishment is concerned her claim is treated by a court in accordance with the regular rules of evidence.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谉 住讜拽诇讬谉 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘谞讬 讝讛 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘转讬 讝讜 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 诇拽专讘谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讻讜转 讜诇讗 诇注讜谞砖讬谉

And Rav 岣sda said: Both in this case, when the father says: I betrothed my daughter, and in that case, when she herself says: I became betrothed, the court does not stone her. The Gemara comments: And Rav 岣sda follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rav 岣sda says that if a father declared: This son of mine is nine years and one day old, or: This daughter of mine is three years and one day old, and the son engaged in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him, or the daughter engaged in intercourse with a man forbidden to her, he is deemed credible concerning his children鈥檚 ages with regard to the requirement for the adult to bring an offering if they performed the act unwittingly, but not with regard to their receiving the punishment of lashes and not with regard to other punishments.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘谞讬 讝讛 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘转讬 讝讜 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda that if one said: This son of mine is thirteen years and one day old, or: This daughter of mine is twelve years and one day old,

  • 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 Shlemah 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 63

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 63

诇讗 转住讙讬专 注讘讚 讗诇 讗讚谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讞专专讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻讙讜谉 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 诇讻砖讗拽讞讱 讛专讬 注爪诪讱 拽谞讜讬 诇讱 诪注讻砖讬讜

With regard to the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not deliver a slave to his master鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:16), Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse is speaking of one who acquires a slave, not to enslave him but in order to emancipate him. The court may not deliver the slave to this master, as this master has no right to enslave him. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: For example, if the new master wrote to the slave in his bill of manumission: When I will purchase you, you are hereby acquired to yourself from now. In that case the slave acquires himself from that moment, despite the fact that the buyer does not own him. This shows that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that a person can transfer an item that has not yet entered the world, as one can emancipate his slave before acquiring him.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 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 诇讱 讬讘诪讬讱 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

Rabbi Meir also holds that one can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world, as it is taught in a baraita: 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, she is not betrothed. Rabbi Meir disagrees and says: She is betrothed. Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar says: She is not betrothed.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讘讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that in some of these cases, by Torah law she is betrothed. And for what reason did the Sages say she is not betrothed? Due to enmity. Giving betrothal to a married woman that will take effect after her husband dies can engender enmity between the woman and her husband. Giving betrothal to one sister that depends on the death of the other can engender enmity between the sisters. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintain that one can betroth a woman who is currently forbidden to him.

讜谞讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: And let us also count Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi among those who maintain that a person can acquire an entity that has not yet come into the world. The reason it asks is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is merely called Rabbi above. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the same as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi; they are one person.

讜谞讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 注讜砖讛 诇驻讬讱 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛驻专

The Gemara asks: And let us also count Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a mishna (see Nedarim 85a): If a woman stated a vow to her husband: I will not produce anything for you, including the work that she is obligated to do for him according to the terms of her marriage contract, as that is konam, i.e., forbidden like an offering, for me, her husband need not nullify the vow at all. It is automatically void, since she is obligated to perform those tasks.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬驻专 砖诪讗 转注讚讬祝 注诇讬讜 讬转专 诪谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇讜 讛讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专转 讬拽讚砖讜 讬讚讬 诇注讜砖讬讛诐 讜讬讚讬诐 讗讬转谞讛讜 讘注讜诇诐

Rabbi Akiva says: He should nevertheless nullify the vow, as perhaps she will exceed the required amount of work and do more for him than is fitting for him to receive. If she does more than the fixed amount of work that a woman is obligated to perform for her husband, the vow will be valid with respect to the excess to which he is not legally entitled, and he might inadvertently come to benefit from something that is forbidden to him. That excess is an entity that has not yet come into the world. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Wasn鈥檛 it already stated with regard to this ruling that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: This is referring to a woman who says: Let my hands be sanctified to their Maker? She sanctifies her actual hands, and these hands exist in the world; therefore the vow takes effect.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讚讘专 注诇讬讱 诇砖诇讟讜谉 讜讗注砖讛 注诪讱 讻驻讜注诇 讚讘专 注诇讬讛 诇砖诇讟讜谉 讜注砖讛 注诪讛 讻驻讜注诇 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

MISHNA: With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that I will speak in your favor to the authorities, e.g., to help her address some legal matter, or: On the condition that I will act for you as a laborer, if he spoke in her favor to the authorities or acted for her as a laborer, she is betrothed. But if not, she is not betrothed.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛讜讗 砖谞转谉 诇讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讘砖讻专 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘砖讻专 砖讛专讻讘转讬讱 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 砖讛讜砖讘转讬讱 讘拽专讜谉 讗讜 讘住驻讬谞讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

GEMARA: Reish Lakish says: And this halakha applies only if he gave her an item worth one peruta at the time of the betrothal. She is not betrothed via his recommendation to the authorities or via the work itself, as these are merely conditions appended to the betrothal. The Gemara asks: And is she not betrothed by the monetary value of his recommendation or action? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if one says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me by the monetary value you received when I had you ride on a donkey, or: By the monetary value you received when I had you sit on a wagon [karon], or: By the monetary value you received when I had you ride in a boat, she is not betrothed, as she has already done the action and therefore owes him this debt, and one cannot betroth a woman with a loan.

讘砖讻专 砖讗专讻讬讘讱 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 砖讗讜砖讬讘讱 讘拽专讜谉 讗讜 讘住驻讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬讛讘 诇讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讛讗 讘砖讻专 拽讗诪专

But if he says to her: By the monetary value you will receive when I will have you ride on a donkey, or: By the monetary value you will receive when I will have you sit on a wagon, or: By the monetary value you will receive when I will have you ride in a boat, she is betrothed. And if you would say that here too, it is referring to a case where he gave her an item worth one peruta, the baraita says: By the monetary value, which indicates that she is betrothed via this sum.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 砖讘 注诪讬 讘爪讜讜转讗 讜讗拽讚砖 诇讱 砖讞讜拽 诇驻谞讬 专拽讜讚 诇驻谞讬 注砖讛 讻讚讬诪讜住 讛讝讛 砖诪讬谉 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬讛讘 诇讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讛讗 砖诪讬谉 讗讜转讜 拽讗诪专 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita that if a woman says to a man: Sit together with me and I will be betrothed to you, or: Perform entertainment before me, or: Dance before me, or: Perform work for me like this layer [dimus] of a building, the court appraises the monetary value of his action. If the action he performs for her is worth the value of one peruta, she is betrothed, but if not, she is not betrothed. And if you would say that here too, it is referring to a case where he gave her an item worth one peruta, and the betrothal is with that; but the baraita says: The court appraises it. If this were merely a condition, there would be no need for an appraisal. Isn鈥檛 this a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讘专讗 住讘专 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讻讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讘住讜祝 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讻讬专讜转 诪转讞讬诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝

The Gemara answers that Reish Lakish could have said to you: This tanna of the baraita maintains that the obligation to pay a person鈥檚 wage is incurred only at the end of the period for which he was hired. Consequently, she is betrothed via money rather than by a loan. And the tanna of our mishna maintains that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period he was hired to its end. Since the debt accumulates throughout the duration that the service is performed, by the time he has finished the work she owes him the entire sum, and a debt cannot be used for a betrothal.

讜诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗讜拽诪讬讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬砖谞讛 诇砖讻讬专讜转 诪转讞讬诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讜讘讚讬讛讘 诇讛

The Gemara asks: And what forces Reish Lakish to establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period he was hired to its end, and that it is referring to a case where he gave her the value of one peruta? Why does he reject the possibility that the mishna is referring to one who did not give an extra peruta, and instead he betrothed her with the value of the service he performed, in accordance with the opinion that the obligation to pay a person鈥檚 wage is incurred only at the end of the period for which he was hired?

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 谞讬转谞讬 讘砖讻专 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 注诇 诪谞转 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara replies: Rava said that the mishna was difficult for Reish Lakish: Why does the tanna specifically teach: On the condition? Let him teach: By the monetary value, as stated in the baraita. Rather, conclude from it that any statement of: On the condition, is referring to a stipulation, and therefore the mishna must be dealing with a case where he has already given her the value of one peruta. Consequently, the value of his service cannot be the money for the betrothal itself, and instead serves as a later condition.

诪转谞讬壮 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬专爪讛 讗讘讗 专爪讛 讛讗讘 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪转 讛讘谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讛讗讘 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛

MISHNA: With regard to one who betroths a woman and says to her that the betrothal is: On the condition that my father will want this betrothal, if his father wants it, she is betrothed; but if not, she is not betrothed. If the father dies, she is betrothed, despite the fact that he did not reveal his wishes. If the son dies, one instructs the father to say that he does not want the betrothal, so that the betrothal will never have taken effect, thereby enabling her to avoid the requirement of levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬专爪讛 讗讘讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗诪专 讗讘讗 讗讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗诇讗

GEMARA: What is the meaning of: On the condition that my father will want this betrothal? If we say it means they are not married until his father says yes, indicating his agreement, then say the middle clause of the mishna: If the father dies, she is betrothed. But how can she be betrothed? After all, he did not say yes, and the condition was not fulfilled. Rather,

注诇 诪谞转 砖讬砖转讜拽 讗讘讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪转 讛讘谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗转 讛讗讘 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 砖转讬拽 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 讬诪讞讛 讗讘讗

the phrase: On the condition that my father wants this betrothal, means: On the condition that my father will remain silent and will not object when he hears of the betrothal. But if this is the case, say the last clause of the mishna: If the son died, one instructs the father to say that he does not want the betrothal. Why should this matter? After all, he remained silent when he first heard about it. Clearly his mere silence does not constitute agreement. Rather, one must say that the phrase: On the condition that my father wants this betrothal, means that he said to her: On the condition that my father will not object to this betrothal at any point in time.

专讬砖讗 讘讞讚 讟注诪讗 讜诪爪讬注转讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘讞讚 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讞拽讬谞谉 讜诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘转专讬 讟注诪讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讞讚 转谞讗 讜诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 讘转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讘讞讚 讟注诪讗

The Gemara asks: Wouldn鈥檛 this mean that the first clause of the mishna describes one reason, i.e., one set of circumstances, and the middle clause and last clause describe one other reason? Rabbi Yannai said: Yes, this is so. Reish Lakish said: Conclude from his statement that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai one forces a mishna to be explained as following two reasons, and in accordance with the opinion of one tanna, rather than establishing a mishna as following the opinions of two tanna鈥檌m and one reason. In other words, an interpretation that maintains the unified attribution of one mishna is preferable, even if one is thereby forced to say that it addresses different situations.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬专爪讛 讗讘讗 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 讬诪讞讛 讗讘讗 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

Rav Yosef bar Ami said: Actually, the entire mishna is addressing one reason, i.e., one case, and what is the meaning of: On the condition that my father wants the betrothal? It means: On the condition that my father will not object from now and until thirty days have elapsed. His silence for thirty days indicates his acceptance of the betrothal.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讚砖转讬 讗转 讘转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诇诪讬 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 谞讗诪谉 讝讛 讗诪专 讗谞讬 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 讜讝讛 讗诪专 讗谞讬 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 砖谞讬讛诐 谞讜转谞讬诐 讙讟 讜讗诐 专爪讜 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讙讟 讜讗讞讚 讻讜谞住

MISHNA: With regard to a man who said: I betrothed my minor daughter to someone but I do not know to whom I betrothed her, and one man came forward and said: I betrothed her, his claim is deemed credible. If two men stepped forward and this one said: I betrothed her, and that one said: I betrothed her, they must both give her a bill of divorce to render it permitted for her to marry anyone else. And if they so desire, one of them gives her a bill of divorce and the other one may marry her.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讗诪谉 诇讬转谉 讙讟 讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住 谞讗诪谉 诇讬转谉 讙讟 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讞讜讟讗 讜诇讗 诇讜 讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住 讗讬诪讗 讬爪专讜 转讜拽驻讜

GEMARA: Rav says: When the mishna states that the claim of one who says that he betrothed this girl is deemed credible, it means that he is deemed credible to the extent that he may give her a bill of divorce, but he is not deemed credible to marry her. He is deemed credible to give her a bill of divorce, as there is a presumption that a person sins only for his own benefit. No one is suspected of sinning when he does not stand to gain from it. Since he is not allowed to marry her himself, we do not say that he lied without purpose. But he is not deemed credible to marry her, as we say that his inclination might have overcome him, leading him to falsely claim that he is the one who betrothed her.

专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗祝 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讗住讬 讘讗讜诪专转 谞转拽讚砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注转 诇诪讬 谞转拽讚砖转讬 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 砖讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住

Rav Asi disagrees with Rav鈥檚 interpretation of the mishna and says: He is deemed credible even to marry her, as he would not dare to lie directly to the father of the girl he claims to have betrothed. And Rav Asi concedes in the case of a woman who says: I became betrothed but I do not know to whom I became betrothed, and one man came and said: I betrothed her, that he is not deemed credible to marry her. In this situation she might have agreed to collude with him, as the Gemara will explain.

转谞谉 专爪讜 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讙讟 讜讗讞讚 讻讜谞住 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专 讘讛讚讬讛 讗讬专转讜转讬 诪讬专转转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna that if they so desire, one of them gives her a bill of divorce and the other one may marry her. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav, who says that he may not marry her. The Gemara answers: Rav could have said to you: There, in our mishna, it is different, as, since there is another person with him also claiming to have betrothed her, he is afraid to lie.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗住讬 拽讬讚砖转讬 讗转 讘转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诇诪讬 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 拽讬讚砖转讬讛 讗祝 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住 讻谞住讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 拽讚砖转讬讛 诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诇讗讜住专讛 注诇讬讜

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi: If a man said: I have betrothed my daughter to someone but I do not know to whom I betrothed her, and one person came forward and said: I betrothed her, he is deemed credible even to marry her. If that person married her, and another man came forward and said: It was I who betrothed her, it is not within the second man鈥檚 power to prohibit her to her husband.

讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 谞转拽讚砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注转 诇诪讬 谞转拽讚砖转讬 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 拽讬讚砖转讬 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讻谞讜住 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪讞驻讛 注诇讬讜

The baraita cites another case: With regard to a woman who said: I became betrothed but I do not know to whom I became betrothed, and one man came and said: I betrothed her, he is not deemed credible to marry her. Why not? Because she is protecting him. Perhaps she decided only now that she wants to marry him and is therefore identifying him as the man who betrothed her, although she knows it was someone else. The same suspicions do not arise in the case of a father, who has no inclinations in this regard.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇住拽讜诇 注诇 讬讚讜 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 住讜拽诇讬谉 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 住讜拽诇讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of the mishna, where the father claims to have betrothed his daughter to someone, what is the halakha with regard to stoning based on the father鈥檚 account? Is a father who says: I betrothed my daughter, deemed credible to the extent that she is stoned as an adulteress if she engages in sexual intercourse with someone? Rav says the court does not stone her, and Rav Asi says the court stones her.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 住讜拽诇讬谉 讻讬 讛讬诪谞讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讘 诇讗讬住讜专讗 诇拽讟诇讗 诇讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 住讜拽诇讬谉 诇讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讬讛 讛讬诪谞讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讘 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讜诪讜讚讬谞讗 讘讗讜诪专转 谞转拽讚砖转讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜拽诇讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: Rav said that the court does not stone her, because when the Merciful One deems the father credible when he says he betrothed his daughter, this is referring only to the prohibition against her marrying anyone else. By contrast, with regard to killing her, the Torah did not deem him credible. Rav Asi said: The court stones her, as the Merciful One deems the father credible with regard to all matters, including the death penalty. Rav Asi says: And I concede in the case of a woman who says: I became betrothed, that the court does not stone her on the basis of her own admission.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讚讬讚讬 诪专驻住谉 讗讬讙专讬 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗诐 讘讗 诇讻谞讜住 讻讜谞住 讗诪专转 住讜拽诇讬诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诐 讘讗 诇讻谞讜住 讗讬谉 讻讜谞住 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖住讜拽诇讬谉

And Rav Asi says: These halakhot of mine are roof breakers, i.e., they are difficult and incomprehensible. Rav Asi explains: Now, in a case where a father said: I have betrothed my daughter to someone but I do not know to whom, where if someone came to marry her he is deemed credible and may marry her, which means you say that the court then stones her on the basis of the father鈥檚 testimony if she later commits adultery, is it not logical that the court should stone her in a case where a woman said: I became betrothed but I do not know to whom, thereby prohibiting herself to everyone to the extent that if someone came to marry her he may not marry her?

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗讘 讛讬诪谞讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讚讬讚讛 诇讗 讛讬诪谞讛

But that is not so, i.e., Rav Asi鈥檚 rulings are in fact reasonable: The Merciful One deems credible a father who says that his daughter is betrothed, and therefore she can even be stoned, but the Torah did not deem her, i.e., the woman herself, credible in this regard. She does not receive a special degree of credibility, and although she can declare herself a forbidden item, i.e., she can render herself forbidden to all men, as far as punishment is concerned her claim is treated by a court in accordance with the regular rules of evidence.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谉 住讜拽诇讬谉 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘谞讬 讝讛 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘转讬 讝讜 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 诇拽专讘谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讻讜转 讜诇讗 诇注讜谞砖讬谉

And Rav 岣sda said: Both in this case, when the father says: I betrothed my daughter, and in that case, when she herself says: I became betrothed, the court does not stone her. The Gemara comments: And Rav 岣sda follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rav 岣sda says that if a father declared: This son of mine is nine years and one day old, or: This daughter of mine is three years and one day old, and the son engaged in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him, or the daughter engaged in intercourse with a man forbidden to her, he is deemed credible concerning his children鈥檚 ages with regard to the requirement for the adult to bring an offering if they performed the act unwittingly, but not with regard to their receiving the punishment of lashes and not with regard to other punishments.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘谞讬 讝讛 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘转讬 讝讜 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda that if one said: This son of mine is thirteen years and one day old, or: This daughter of mine is twelve years and one day old,

Scroll To Top