אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר רַב יוֹד: וּבַגּוֹלָה, מַתְרִיעִין עָלֶיהָ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: שָׁנָה שֶׁגְּשָׁמֶיהָ מְרוּבִּין, אַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר שׁוֹלְחִין לְאַנְשֵׁי מַעֲמָד: תְּנוּ עֵינֵיכֶם בַּאֲחֵיכֶם שֶׁבַּגּוֹלָה, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בָּתֵּיהֶם קִבְרֵיהֶם.
Rami bar Rav Yud said: This is true in Eretz Yisrael, but in the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia, they do sound the alarm over excessive rain. The reason is that Babylonia is in a low-lying region, where excessive rain poses a real danger. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: In a year whose rains are abundant, the members of the priestly watch in the Temple would send a message to the members of the non-priestly watch: Cast your eyes on your brothers in the Diaspora and have them in mind when you pray, so that their houses should not collapse from excessive rain and become their graves.
מַאי טַעְמָא כִּי כָּרֵיךְ מָר רִיפְתָּא לָא אֲמַר לַן ״אֵיתוֹ כְּרוּכוּ״? מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא נְפִישָׁא רִיפְתָּא, וְאָמֵינָא: לָא אַחְזֵיק בְּהוּ בְּרַבָּנַן טֵיבוּתָא בְּחִנָּם. מַאי טַעְמָא יְהֵיב מָר לְיָנוֹקָא קַשִּׁישָׁא חֲדָא רִיפְתָּא וּלְזוּטְרָא תְּרֵי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַאי — קָאֵי בְּבֵיתָא, וְהַאי — יָתֵיב בְּבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא.
The Sages were not done with their questions. What is the reason that when the Master ate bread, you did not say to us: Come and eat? He replied: Because there is not enough bread for guests, and I said to myself that I should not gain credit from the Sages for nothing, by offering you food I cannot serve you. They asked: What is the reason that the Master gave the older child one piece of bread and the younger child two? He said to them: This older child stays at home, and if he is hungry he can eat at any time, but this younger child sits and studies in the synagogue, and therefore he is hungrier.
וְתָנָא עֲלַהּ: בִּנְיָן — בִּנְיָן שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה, נְטִיעָה — נְטִיעָה שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה. אֵיזֶהוּ בִּנְיָן שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה? זֶה הַבּוֹנֶה בֵּית חַתְנוּת לִבְנוֹ. אֵיזוֹ הִיא נְטִיעָה שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה? זֶה הַנּוֹטֵעַ אַבְוָרַנְקֵי שֶׁל מְלָכִים.
And it was taught in a baraita about this mishna: When the Sages said that construction must be decreased on public fasts, they were not referring to the construction of homes for people who have nowhere to live, but to joyful construction. Similarly, when they said that planting must be decreased, they were not referring to planting food crops, but to joyful planting. What is meant by joyful construction? This is referring to one who builds a wedding chamber for his son. It was customary to build a special house where the wedding would take place, and at times the couple would also live there. What is meant by joyful planting? This is referring to one who plants trees for shade and pleasure such as one might find in a royal garden [avurneki]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi engaged in joyful planting on Purim, in keeping with the joyous nature of the day.
רַב חִסְדָּא אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב חֲנַנְאֵל דַּהֲוָה כָּתֵב סְפָרִים שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַכְּתָב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְאוּיָה כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ לִיכָּתֵב עַל פִּיךְ, אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אָסוּר לִכְתּוֹב אוֹת אַחַת שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַכְּתָב. מִדְּקָאָמַר: כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ רְאוּיָה שֶׁתִּיכָּתֵב עַל פִּיךְ, מִכְּלָל דִּמְיוּשָּׁרִין הֵן אֶצְלוֹ, וְהָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר כָּתַב? שְׁעַת הַדְּחָק שָׁאנֵי.
It was related that Rav Ḥisda once found Rav Ḥananel writing Torah scrolls, but he was not copying them from a written text, as he knew it all by heart. He said to him: It is fitting for the entire Torah to be written by your mouth, i.e., relying on your memory, but this is what the Sages said: It is prohibited to write even a single letter of the Bible when not copying from a written text. The Gemara asks: Since Rav Ḥisda said to him: The entire Torah is fitting to be written by your mouth, it may be concluded by inference that the words of the Torah were exact in his memory, i.e., that Rav Ḥananel enjoyed total mastery of the text. But didn’t we say that Rabbi Meir wrote a Megilla without copying from a text due to similar proficiency? The Gemara answers: A time of exigent circumstances is different; since there was no other option available, he was permitted to rely on his expertise, but otherwise this must not be done.
וְהָאִידָּנָא, דְּכוּלְּהוּ מְבָרְכִי לְפָנֶיהָ וּלְאַחֲרֶיהָ — הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן: גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם הַנִּכְנָסִין וּמִשּׁוּם הַיּוֹצְאִין.
The Gemara comments: And now that all who read from the Torah recite blessings both before and after reading from the Torah, this is the reason that the Sages instituted this policy: It is a decree due to both those who enter the synagogue in middle of the reading and do not hear the first reader’s initial blessing and due to those who leave the synagogue early and do not hear the final reader’s concluding blessing, lest they come to the erroneous conclusion that one blessing suffices.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר פָּסְקִינַן לֵיהּ? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא קָרָא: צַעַר גָּדוֹל הָיָה לִי אֵצֶל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא הַגָּדוֹל, וְלֹא הִתִּיר לִי לִפְסוֹק אֶלָּא לְתִינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן, הוֹאִיל וּלְהִתְלַמֵּד עֲשׂוּיִין.
The Gemara asks: Does Shmuel say that we may divide a verse into two parts? Didn’t Rabbi Ḥananya Kara, the Bible expert, say: I had great distress with Rabbi Ḥanina the Great; there were many times I had to ask his permission to divide a verse, and he permitted me to divide it only for the benefit of schoolchildren, since they need to be taught in this manner, as it is difficult for children to learn long verses all at once? In other cases, however it is prohibited to divide a verse.
מַתְנִי׳ הַקּוֹרֵא בְּתוֹרָה — לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה פְּסוּקִים, וְלֹא יִקְרָא לִמְתוּרְגְּמָן יוֹתֵר מִפָּסוּק אֶחָד.
MISHNA: One who reads from the Torah in the synagogue should not read fewer than three verses. And when it is being translated, he should not read to the translator more than one verse at a time, so that the translator will not become confused.
וּבַנָּבִיא שְׁלֹשָׁה. הָיוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן שָׁלֹשׁ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת — קוֹרִין אֶחָד אֶחָד.
And with regard to the Prophets, one may read to the translator three verses at a time. With respect to the Torah, an incorrect translation might lead to an error in practice, but this concern does not apply to the Prophets. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, that is to say, if each verse is a paragraph in itself, one must read them to the translator one by one.
The tanna from above who holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any of the tribes agrees with the tanna found in this baraita here. This tanna holds that since Jerusalem belongs to all of the tribes, homeowners cannot rent out their homes for a fee to guests coming to visit Jerusalem. Their homes do not really belong to them. R. Elazar b. Zadok says they may not even rent out beds. Of course, this sounds great—free rooms in Jerusalem. But even the baraita admits that such a halakhah can have deleterious consequences. The householders wishing to recoup the cost of hosting guests would actually seize property belonging to their guests, the hides of the sacrifices offered by their visitors. These are valuable items, probably worth more than the cost of renting out a place.
To the economist in me, this little baraita proves the danger in playing with a free market economy. While we would all love free rooms, we probably realize that forcing people to let out their homes for free, or at least preventing them from renting them out for a fee, will not end up in anyone’s benefit.
Abaye learns a normative lesson from here. A person who is a guest at someone’s home should leave the host with some gifts. This is a good lesson, one my mother tried to teach me and I try to teach my children as well.
To the economist in me, this little baraita proves the danger in playing with a free market economy. While we would all love free rooms, we probably realize that forcing people to let out their homes for free, or at least preventing them from renting them out for a fee, will not end up in anyone’s benefit.
Abaye learns a normative lesson from here. A person who is a guest at someone’s home should leave the host with some gifts. This is a good lesson, one my mother tried to teach me and I try to teach my children as well.
אֶלָּא: הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל מַרְחִיק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וּמַשְׁתִּין לְמָה לִי? אִי הָכִי, קַדֵּשְׁתִּינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ שְׁבִילֵי דִנְהַרְדְּעָא. תְּנִי: יִשְׁהֶה.
But the first clause of the baraita, that one who prayed should distance himself four cubits from where he was standing and only then may he urinate, why should I require this? How could there be such a halakha? If that is so, you have sanctified all the streets of the city of Neharde’a, for people have certainly prayed on every one of its streets. According to this halakha, it should be prohibited to urinate everywhere. The Gemara answers: Emend and teach the baraita as saying not that one should distance himself four cubits, but that one should wait the time it takes to walk four cubits.
וְאֵין נֵיאוֹתִין בָּהֶן. אָמַר רָבָא: חֲכָמִים וְתַלְמִידֵיהֶם מוּתָּרִין, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַאי בֵּי רַבָּנַן — בֵּיתָא דְרַבָּנַן.
§ The baraita taught: And one may not adorn oneself inside them. Rava said: The prohibition applies only to laypeople, but Torah scholars and their disciples are permitted to do so, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of the term: Bei of the Sages, which is used to describe a study hall? It is a shortened form of house [beita] of the Sages. In order to facilitate the constant presence of the Torah scholars in the study hall, it is permitted for them to use the hall as though it were their home.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי טַעְמָא — כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנְסוּ לְמִשְׁמַרְתָּן כְּשֶׁהֵן מְנֻוּוֹלִין, הָכָא נָמֵי: כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנְסוּ לָרֶגֶל כְּשֶׁהֵן מְנֻוּוֹלִין.
And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: What is the reason that the members of the priestly and non-priestly watch are prohibited from cutting their hair and laundering their clothes? It is in order that they not enter their watch when they are untidy. If it were permitted for them to cut their hair and launder their clothes during the week of their watch, they would leave their haircuts and laundry until the middle of that week and begin their service in a disorderly state. Here, too, ordinary people are prohibited from cutting their hair or laundering their clothes on the intermediate days of a Festival, in order that they complete all necessary preparations beforehand and not enter the Festival when they are untidy.
אִי בְּשֶׁתְּכָפוּהוּ אֲבָלָיו, מַאי אִירְיָא כׇּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נָמֵי? דְּתַנְיָא: תְּכָפוּהוּ אֲבָלָיו זֶה אַחַר זֶה, הִכְבִּיד שְׂעָרוֹ — מֵיקֵל בְּתַעַר, וּמְכַבֵּס כְּסוּתוֹ בְּמַיִם.
The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a case where his mourning applied in succession, then why specifically does the baraita discuss all those about whom it was said that they may cut their hair? The allowance should apply even to everyone, not only to those who had been unavoidably prevented from cutting their hair in the preceding period, as it is taught in a baraita: If one’s mourning periods applied in succession, one after the other, and his hair grew long and became heavy, he may lighten it by cutting his hair with a razor, and he may wash his garment in water, so that he does not suffer for such a long time without cutting his hair or washing his clothes.
אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: הַמּוֹצֵא אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ אָבֵל לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וּמְדַבֵּר עִמּוֹ תַּנְחוּמִין, לְמָה הוּא דּוֹמֶה? לְאָדָם שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ וְחָיְתָה, מְצָאוֹ רוֹפֵא וְאָמַר לוֹ: כְּלָךְ אֶצְלִי שֶׁאֲנִי שׁוֹבְרָהּ וַאֲרַפְּאֶנָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּדַע שֶׁסַּמְמָנִין שֶׁלִּי יָפִין!
Rabbi Meir said: One who finds another in mourning after twelve months and speaks to him words of consolation, to what may this situation be likened? To a person who broke his leg and it healed, and afterward a physician found him and said to him: Come to me, for I will break it a second time and then I will heal it, so that you may know how good my medicines are and how well they work. One who consoles his friend after so much time has passed acts in a similar fashion, stirring up an old wound and then trying to heal it. In any event, it appears that one must not extend greetings to a mourner during the entire twelve-month mourning period.
מֵיתִיבִי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — כְּשֶׁאֵין לָהּ בָּנִים, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים — לֹא תֵּצֵא. וְאִם בָּאוּ עֵדֵי טוּמְאָה, אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ לָהּ כַּמָּה בָּנִים — תֵּצֵא.
The Gemara raises an objection from a different baraita that qualifies the previous one: In what case is this statement, that the court removes her from the suspected adulterer, said? It is when she has no children from her first husband. But if she has children from him, she is not required to be divorced from the suspected adulterer. On the contrary, if they were required to divorce, it could strengthen the original rumor and others might suspect that her children are mamzerim. However, if witnesses to her impurity, i.e., her adultery, came and testified that she had relations with this man while she was married, then even if she has several children from the first husband, she is required to be divorced. This implies that a woman without children from her first husband must separate from a man suspected of illicit relations with her on strength of suspicion alone.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר. הֵיכִי לֶיעְבֵּיד? לַינְּחֵהּ גַּבֵּי דִידַהּ — מָחֲקָה לֵיהּ. לַינְּחֵהּ גַּבֵּי דִידֵיהּ — זִמְנִין דְּבַת אֲחוֹתוֹ הִיא וּמְחַפֵּה עֲלַהּ.
If you wish, say a different reason why the Sages did not institute that the date must be included in a deed of betrothal. This is due to the fact that it is not possible to institute this in a manner that will ensure that no problems will result. How would we do this? If we leave the deed of betrothal with her, she will erase the date, and so it would remain impossible to prove the juncture at which her licentious behavior took place. If we leave the deed with him, then there are times when she is his sister’s daughter and he might cover for her by erasing the date himself.
הָיְתָה אַחַת כְּשֵׁרָה וְאַחַת פְּסוּלָה, אִם הָיָה חוֹלֵץ — חוֹלֵץ לַפְּסוּלָה, וְאִם הָיָה מְיַיבֵּם — מְיַיבֵּם לַכְּשֵׁרָה.
If one of these women was fit to marry into the priesthood and one was unfit, then if he performs ḥalitza, he should perform ḥalitza with the unfit woman rather than with the one who is fit for the priesthood, since doing so with the woman who is fit would needlessly disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. But if he consummates the levirate marriage, he may consummate the levirate marriage with the one who is fit.
שֶׁאִם הָיָה הוּא יֶלֶד וְהִיא זְקֵנָה, הוּא זָקֵן וְהִיא יַלְדָּה, אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: מָה לְךָ אֵצֶל יַלְדָּה, מָה לְךָ אֵצֶל זְקֵנָה? כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל שֶׁכְּמוֹתְךָ, וְאַל תָּשִׂים קְטָטָה בְּבֵיתֶךָ.
The baraita explains: Appropriate advice means that if he was a young man and she an elderly woman or if he was an elderly man and she a young woman, they say to him: What do you want with a young woman when you are elderly? Or: What do you want with an elderly woman when you are young? Go after your own kind, i.e., a woman of a similar age, and do not place discord in your household that could be caused by marrying a woman of a significantly different age. From the baraita it is apparent that if consummating the levirate marriage will ultimately lead to contention between the couple, it is preferable to perform ḥalitza. Similarly, in the case of the mishna, marrying four women will likely lead to contention since it is difficult to support so many people, and poverty will lead to strife. Therefore, the yavam should not be allowed to consummate levirate marriages with all of them.
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נָמֵי! עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אַרְבַּע — אִין, טְפֵי — לָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנִמְטְיֵיהּ עוֹנָה בְּחֹדֶשׁ.
The Gemara qualifies the mishna’s case: No, it is necessary to teach that he has permission to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot in the case where it is possible for him to provide for all four women. The Gemara asks: If so, then the same should be true even if there are many more women as well; why does the mishna specifically discuss a case of four women? The Gemara explains: The mishna teaches us good advice; in a case of up to four women, yes, if he can provide for them then it is acceptable to marry all of them. But if there are any more than that, no, he should not, in order that he will be able to meet the conjugal rights of each woman at least once in each month. A Torah scholar is expected to provide conjugal relations once a week. If he marries no more than four women, then that will ensure that each of his wives will receive their conjugal rights at least once a month.
אִיתְּמַר, מִפְּנֵי מָה קָנְסוּ לְוִיִּם בְּמַעֲשֵׂר? פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן וְסָבַיָּא. חַד אָמַר: שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא. וְחַד אָמַר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּסְמְכוּ כֹּהֲנִים עָלָיו בִּימֵי טוּמְאָתָן.
§ It was stated that amora’im disagreed about the following question: For what reason did the Sages penalize the Levites with regard to their tithe, by declaring that it may be given to priests as well? Rabbi Yonatan and the Elders who were with him disagree with regard to this matter. One said it was because they did not ascend, i.e., immigrate to the land of Israel, in the days of Ezra. And one said that it was not a penalty at all, but they gave the first tithe to the priests so that they could rely on it during their days of impurity. Because it is prohibited for priests to consume teruma while in a state of impurity, they would have had nothing to eat if they were dependent exclusively on teruma. It is permitted, however, to eat the tithe while impure.
מִשּׁוּם עִיגּוּנָא אַקִּילוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן.
The Gemara answers: Due to the case of a deserted wife, the Sages were lenient with her. Since it is not always easy to find two witnesses to attest to a husband’s death, the Sages realized that if the testimony of one witness were not accepted, the woman would be likely to remain a deserted wife, unable to remarry. However, to prevent this leniency from causing mistakes and licentiousness, they were very stringent with her in a case where the testimony is found to be erroneous, to ensure that she is very careful not to accept untrustworthy accounts.
אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא תַּקִּינוּ לַהּ רַבָּנַן כְּתוּבָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא קַלָּה בְּעֵינָיו לְהוֹצִיאָהּ — הָא תְּהֵא קַלָּה בְּעֵינָיו לְהוֹצִיאָהּ.
§ The mishna taught that this woman does not have, i.e., she is not entitled to, the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages instituted a marriage contract in general, for an ordinary woman? So that she will not be demeaned in his eyes such that he will easily divorce her. The necessity to find money for her marriage contract will prevent a hasty decision to divorce her. However, in the case of this woman, on the contrary, the Sages actually prefer that she will be demeaned in his eyes such that he will easily divorce her, as the marriage was forbidden and she may not remain with him. Consequently, they eliminated her marriage contract to encourage him to divorce her.
וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת אֵין צְרִיכִין דְּרִישָׁה וַחֲקִירָה — שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעוֹל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לֹוִין.
And for what reason did the Sages say that cases of monetary law do not require inquiry and interrogation of witnesses? So as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers. If the procedures for litigation in cases of monetary law were too rigorous, people would be very hesitant to lend money.
כׇּל הַיּוֹצֵא לְמִלְחֶמֶת בֵּית דָּוִד, גֵּט כְּרִיתוּת כּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת אַחֶיךָ תִּפְקֹד לְשָׁלוֹם וְאֶת עֲרֻבָּתָם תִּקָּח״, מַאי ״וְאֶת עֲרֻבָּתָם תִּקָּח״? תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: דְּבָרִים הַמְעוֹרָבִין בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ.
Anyone who goes to a war waged by the royal house of David writes a conditional bill of divorce to his wife. This was done to prevent a situation in which the wife of the soldier would be unable to remarry because her husband did not return from battle and there were no witnesses with regard to his fate. The conditional bill of divorce accorded the wife the status of a divorcée and freed her to remarry, as it is written: “And to your brothers bring greetings and take their pledge [arubatam]” (I Samuel 17:18). What is the meaning of: And take arubatam? Rav Yosef taught: It is referring to matters that are shared [hame’oravin] between the husband and his wife, i.e., marriage. Since apparently it was customary for men at war to send their wives a conditional divorce, and since Uriah later died, Bathsheba assumed divorced status retroactively from the time that he set out to war. Therefore, she was not forbidden to David.
Section one: This section provides the basic halakhah that will be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter. Assumedly there are two reasons why a widow (which in this context includes a divorcee) receives a smaller ketubah. First of all, she already received a ketubah from her first marriage, and therefore has some money already saved up. Second, and probably more importantly, there was a need to encourage men to marry widows and divorcees. Most men probably preferred first-time marriages. Second marriages were made cheaper, therefore, to prevent older women from remaining husband-less. Needless to say, that people should be married was an important value to the rabbis.
Section two: The Mishnah now begins to discuss exceptional cases, ones which slightly deviate from the typical first marriage or the typical widow or divorcee. If a woman has been betrothed, but then was divorced before marriage or her husband died before the marriage was completed is in one sense a virgin and in one sense not. She is a virgin in that she has never had sexual relations, but she is a widow or divorcee as well. [Note that in Hebrew the word for virgin “betulah” can mean either a woman whose physical signs of virginity are intact or it can mean a young woman who has never been married. The same ambiguity occurs in the Greek word, “parthenon”.] According to our mishnah, such a woman receives a full ketubah, should she remarry.
A “halutzah” is a woman who has been released from levirate marriage, the obligation to marry one’s dead husband’s brother.
Section two: The Mishnah now begins to discuss exceptional cases, ones which slightly deviate from the typical first marriage or the typical widow or divorcee. If a woman has been betrothed, but then was divorced before marriage or her husband died before the marriage was completed is in one sense a virgin and in one sense not. She is a virgin in that she has never had sexual relations, but she is a widow or divorcee as well. [Note that in Hebrew the word for virgin “betulah” can mean either a woman whose physical signs of virginity are intact or it can mean a young woman who has never been married. The same ambiguity occurs in the Greek word, “parthenon”.] According to our mishnah, such a woman receives a full ketubah, should she remarry.
A “halutzah” is a woman who has been released from levirate marriage, the obligation to marry one’s dead husband’s brother.
כִּי קָא נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אֲמַר: אַיְיתוֹ לִי חוּשְׁבְּנַאי דִּצְדָקָה. אַשְׁכַּח דַּהֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ שִׁבְעַת אַלְפֵי דִּינָרֵי סְיָאנְקֵי. אֲמַר: זַוְודַאי קַלִּילֵי וְאוֹרְחָא רַחִיקְתָּא. קָם בַּזְבְּזֵיהּ לְפַלְגֵיהּ מָמוֹנֵיהּ. הֵיכִי עֲבַד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַאי, בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ: הַמְבַזְבֵּז — אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ! הָנֵי מִילֵּי מֵחַיִּים, שֶׁמָּא יֵרֵד מִנְּכָסָיו. אֲבָל לְאַחַר מִיתָה לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
When Mar Ukva was dying, he said: Bring me my charity records. He found that it was written there that he had given seven thousand fine, siankei, i.e., gold, dinars, to charity. He said: My provisions are light, and the way is far. This meager sum is insufficient for me to merit the World-to-Come. He got up and spent half of his remaining money on charity. The Gemara asks: How did he do this? But didn’t Rabbi Ilai say: In Usha they instituted: One who spends money on charity, he should not spend more than one-fifth of his money for this purpose. The Gemara answers: This restriction on giving too much charity applies only while he is alive, because perhaps he will descend from his holdings and become destitute. Therefore, for his own financial security, he should never distribute more than one-fifth. But after death, we have no problem with it. One need not save money in his estate anymore.
אָמַר רַב יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַמּוֹצִיא הוֹצָאוֹת עַל נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ קְטַנָּה — כְּמוֹצִיא עַל נִכְסֵי אַחֵר דָּמֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא — עֲבַדוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא נִיפְסְדִינְהוּ.
§ Rav Yaakov said that Rav Ḥisda said: With regard to one who outlays expenditures for the property of his wife who is a minor girl and was married off by her mother or brothers, he is considered like one who outlays expenditures for the property of someone else. Therefore, if she performed refusal upon reaching maturity, thereby annulling the marriage, he takes the value of the improvement. What is the reason for this? The Sages enacted this ordinance in order that he should not let her property depreciate. If he is not guaranteed reimbursement for his expenses if she refuses him as her husband, he will not attend to the upkeep of her property, causing its value to decline.
מַאי שְׁנָא נוֹדֵר דְּלָא — דִּלְמָא אָתֵי בָּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה? נְדָבָה נָמֵי לָא — דִּלְמָא אָתֵי בָּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה!
The Gemara asks: What is different about one who vows, i.e., one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, which is not proper to do due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block and not bring it promptly, thereby violating the prohibition against delaying? One should also not designate a particular animal as a gift offering due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block with it. Once the animal is consecrated, anyone who unwittingly benefits from it, e.g., by shearing it or working with it, transgresses the prohibition against misusing consecrated property.
מַתְנִי׳ נִדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת — ״אִם אָכַלְתִּי וְאִם שָׁתִיתִי״, וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁאָכַל וְשָׁתָה. ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל וְשֶׁאֲנִי שׁוֹתֶה״, וְשָׁכַח וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה. אָמַר: ״קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי שֶׁגָּנְבָה אֶת כִּיסִי, וְשֶׁהִכְּתָה אֶת בְּנִי״, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא הִכַּתּוּ, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא גָּנְבָה.
MISHNA: What are examples of vows that are unintentional that are dissolved, as taught at the beginning of the chapter? One who vows: This loaf is forbidden to me as if it were an offering [konam] if I ate or if I drank, and then he remembers that he ate or drank. Or, one who vows: This loaf is konam for me if I will eat or if I will drink, and he then forgets and eats or drinks. Also, one who said: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife because she stole my purse or she hit my son, and then it became known that she had not hit him or it became known that she had not stolen.
מַתְנִי׳ נִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין, הִדִּירוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ, וְחָלָה הוּא אוֹ שֶׁחָלָה בְּנוֹ אוֹ שֶׁעִכְּבוֹ נָהָר — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין.
MISHNA: What are examples of vows impeded by circumstances beyond one’s control? If one’s friend took a vow with regard to him that he should eat with him, and he became sick, or his son became sick, or a river that he was unable to cross barred him from coming, these are examples of vows whose fulfillment are impeded by circumstances beyond one’s control. They are not binding and do not require dissolution.
מַתְנִי׳ נוֹדְרִין לֶהָרָגִין וְלֶחָרָמִין וְלַמּוֹכְסִין. שֶׁהִיא תְּרוּמָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ תְּרוּמָה. שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁל בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בַּכֹּל נוֹדְרִין,
MISHNA: One may take a vow to murderers, i.e., people suspected of killing others over monetary matters; or to robbers [ḥaramin]; or to tax collectors who wish to collect tax, that the produce in his possession is teruma although it is not teruma. One may also take a vow to them that the produce in his possession belongs to the house of the king, although it does not belong to the house of the king. One may take a false vow to save himself or his possessions, as a statement of this sort does not have the status of a vow. Beit Shammai say: One may vow in such a case, although he has no intention that his words be true, using every means of taking a vow or making a prohibition in order to mislead those people,
דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ הַנִּיזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בְּעִידִּית? מִפְּנֵי הַגַּזְלָנִים וּמִפְּנֵי הַחַמְסָנִין, כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאמַר אָדָם: לָמָה אֲנִי גּוֹזֵל וְלָמָה אֲנִי חוֹמֵס? לְמָחָר בֵּית דִּין יוֹרְדִין לִנְכָסַי וְנוֹטְלִין שָׂדֶה נָאָה שֶׁלִּי, וְסוֹמְכִים עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם״; לְפִיכָךְ אָמְרוּ: הַנִּיזָּקִין – שָׁמִין לָהֶן בְּעִידִּית.
This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 12:2) that Rabbi Shimon said: For what reason did the Sages say that the court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties? It is due to the robbers and due to those who take that which is not theirs by force [ḥamsanin]. How so? So that a person will say: Why should I rob and why should I take by force? Tomorrow the court will come down to my property and take my finest field in order to compensate the victim for what I have robbed or taken by force. And the Sages rely on what is written in the Torah: “Of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay” (Exodus 22:4). Consequently, they said that the court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties.
מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ בַּעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית? כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶה אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ שָׂדֶה נָאָה וְדִירָה נָאָה, וְיֹאמַר: אֶקְפּוֹץ וְאַלְוֶנּוּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶגְבֶּנּוּ בְּחוֹבִי; לְפִיכָךְ אָמְרוּ: בַּעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית.
The baraita continues: For what reason did the Sages say that a creditor collects his debt from intermediate-quality land? It is so that a person should not see another’s fine field or fine house and say: I will jump in and lend him money so that later I will collect the field or house for my debt, if the borrower does not have enough money to repay the loan. Therefore, the Sages said that a creditor collects his debt only from intermediate-quality land, and he would not receive that fine field that would have prompted him to extend the loan in the first place.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יְהֵא בְּזִיבּוּרִית! אִם כֵּן – אַתָּה נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין.
The Gemara asks: If it is so that the objective is that people not be tempted to lend money for the purpose of acquiring the borrower’s property should he default on the loan, then the halakha governing a creditor should be to collect his debt from inferior-quality land. The Gemara answers: If so, then you would be locking the door before potential borrowers, as no one would be willing to lend them money.
וּמַה טַּעַם אָמְרוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג פָּטוּר – כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ.
And what is the reason that the Sages said that if he committed one of these acts unintentionally he is exempt? This is so that the one who caused the damage will inform the injured party about what happened. If a fine were imposed even in a case where the damage is caused unintentionally, there would be a concern that the guilty party might not report the damage so as to avoid the penalty. In such a situation the injured party will not know what happened, as the damage is not evident, and he will inadvertently use that which has become impure, mixed with teruma, or poured before an idol.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג, וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? הֶיזֵּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיכָּר – לָא שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק. וּמַה טַּעַם אָמְרוּ בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּיב – שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד הוֹלֵךְ וּמְטַמֵּא טׇהֳרוֹתָיו שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר ״פָּטוּר אֲנִי״.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: By Torah law, one who commits one of the offenses listed in the mishna, whether he did so unintentionally or intentionally, is exempt from liability for the damage he caused. What is the reason for this? The reason is that damage that is not evident is not categorized as damage. And what is the reason that the Sages said that if he committed one of these acts intentionally he is liable? This is so that each and every person who has a grievance with his neighbor and wishes to cause him harm should not go and render impure the other person’s pure foods, and say: I am exempt from liability.
וְעַל הַמָּרִישׁ הַגָּזוּל שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ בְּבִירָה, שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אֶת דָּמָיו, מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים;
And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda further testified about a stolen beam that was already built into a large building [bira], that the victim of the robbery receives only the value of the beam but not the beam itself, due to an ordinance instituted for the penitent. By Torah law, a robber is obligated to return any stolen item in his possession, provided that its form has not been altered. If one stole a beam and incorporated it into a building, then by Torah law he would have to destroy the building and return the beam. In order to encourage repentance, the Sages were lenient and allowed a robber to return the value of the beam.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל יְמֵי עָנִי רָעִים״? זֶה בַּעַל תַּלְמוּד. ״וְטוֹב לֵב מִשְׁתֶּה תָמִיד״ – זֶה בַּעַל מִשְׁנָה.
Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “All the days of the poor are terrible; and for the good-hearted it is always a feast” (Proverbs 15:15)? “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to the master of Talmud, who is wearied by the difficulty of his Talmud study. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to the master of Mishna, who recites the mishnayot by rote and is not wearied thereby.
רָבָא אָמַר: אִיפְּכָא. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״מַסִּיעַ אֲבָנִים יֵעָצֵב בָּהֶם, בּוֹקֵעַ עֵצִים יִסָּכֶן בָּם״? ״מַסִּיעַ אֲבָנִים יֵעָצֵב בָּהֶן״ – אֵלּוּ בַּעְלֵי מִשְׁנָה. ״בּוֹקֵעַ עֵצִים יִסָּכֶן בָּם״ – אֵלּוּ בַּעְלֵי תַלְמוּד.
Rava says: The opposite is true. And this is consistent with that which Rav Mesharshiyya says in the name of Rava: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He who quarries stones shall be hurt by them; and he that chops wood shall be warmed thereby” (Ecclesiastes 10:9). “He who quarries stones shall be hurt by them”; these are the masters of Mishna. They exert themselves to memorize the mishnayot, but since one cannot reach practical conclusions from the mishna, they are comparable to one who carries a heavy load without benefiting from it. “He that chops wood shall be warmed thereby”; these are the masters of Talmud, who attain the benefit of their exertions in the form of practical conclusions.