Kiddushin 62aקידושין ס״ב א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Kiddushin 62a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
62aס״ב א

חרב תאכלו אמר רבא מילחא גללניתא נהמא דשערי אקושא ובצלי דאמר מר פת פורני חריבה במלח ובצלים קשים לגוף כחרבות

“You shall be devoured by the sword” (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.

בשלמא לרבי חנינא בן גמליאל היינו דכתיב (במדבר ה, יט) אם לא שכב איש אותך ואם לא שטית טומאה תחת אישך הנקי אלא לרבי מאיר חנקי מיבעי ליה אמר ר' תנחום הנקי כתיב

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, this is the reason that it is written with regard to a sota: “If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone aside to uncleanness, being under your husband, you shall be free [hinnaki]” (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 [ḥinnaki] 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 Tanḥum 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 ḥinnaki.

בשלמא לר' מאיר היינו דכתיב הנקי אלא לרבי חנינא ב"ג למה לי אצטריך סד"א אם לא שכב איש הנקי ואם שכב לא הנקי ולא חנקי אלא איסורא בעלמא קמ"ל

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 Ḥanina 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.

בשלמא לרבי מאיר היינו דכתיב (במדבר יט, יב) הוא יתחטא בו ביום השלישי וביום השביעי יטהר ואם לא יתחטא וגו' אלא לרבי חנינא ב"ג למה לי

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: “He 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” (Numbers 19:11–12). But according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need this double formulation?

אצטריך סד"א מצות הזאה בשלישי ובשביעי והיכא דעבד בחד מינייהו עבד קמ"ל

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.

(במדבר יט, יט) והזה הטהור על הטמא ביום השלישי וביום השביעי למה לי אצטריך סד"א שלישי למעוטי שני שביעי למעוטי ששי דקא ממעט בימי טהרה אבל היכא דעבד בשלישי ובשמיני דקא מפיש בימי טהרה אימא שפיר דמי קמ"ל

The Gemara asks about a later verse in the same chapter: “And the pure shall sprinkle on the impure on the third day and on the seventh day” (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.

(במדבר יט, יט) וחטאו ביום השביעי למה לי אצטריך סד"א הני מילי לקדשים אבל לתרומה בחד נמי סגיא קמ"ל

The Gemara further analyzes this verse: Why do I need the phrase: “And on the seventh day he shall purify him” (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.

מתני׳ המקדש את האשה ואמר כסבור הייתי שהיא כהנת והרי היא לויה לויה והרי היא כהנת עניה והרי היא עשירה עשירה והרי היא עניה הרי זו מקודשת מפני שלא הטעתו

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.

האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי לאחר שאתגייר או לאחר שתתגיירי לאחר שאשתחרר או לאחר שתשתחררי לאחר שימות בעליך או לאחר שתמות אחותיך לאחר שיחלוץ ליך יבמיך אינה מקודשת

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’s sister: After your sister dies, or if he says to a woman awaiting levirate marriage or ḥalitza from a brother-in-law [yavam], who in the opinion of this tanna cannot be betrothed by another man: After your yavam performs ḥalitza 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.

וכן האומר לחבירו אם ילדה אשתך נקבה הרי זו מקודשת לי אינה מקודשת (אם היתה אשת חברו מעוברת והוכר עוברה דבריו קיימין ואם ילדה נקבה מקודשת)

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.

גמ׳ תנן התם אין תורמין מן התלוש על המחובר ואם תרם אין תרומתו תרומה

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.

בעא מיניה רב אסי מר' יוחנן אמר פירות ערוגה זו תלושים יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו מחוברים פירות ערוגה זו מחוברים יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו תלושים לכשיתלשו ונתלשו מהו א"ל כל שבידו לאו כמחוסר מעשה דמי

Rav Asi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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 Yoḥanan said to him: Anything that is in one’s 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.

איתיביה האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי לאחר שאתגייר לאחר שתתגיירי לאחר שאשתחרר לאחר שתשתחררי לאחר שימות בעליך לאחר שתמות אחותיך לאחר שיחלוץ ליך יבמיך אינה מקודשת

Rav Asi raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 ḥalitza for you, in all of these cases she is not betrothed.

בשלמא כולהו לאו בידו אלא גר הוי בידו גר נמי לאו בידו דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן

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 Yoḥanan, 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 Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: