Kiddushin 30b — the Talmud in English

As it is stated [

Proverbs 7:4]:

“Say to wisdom

‘You are my sister,’ etc.”

That is: wisdom is an appellation for Torah, and the verse says that you should be expert in Torah just as you are expert in the fact that your sister is forbidden to you by the prohibition of forbidden relations.

And an additional proof:

And it says [

there, verse 3]:

“Bind

the words of Torah

upon your fingers; write them upon the tablet of your heart.”

That is: the words of Torah should be clear in your hand, as though they were bound upon your fingers and written upon the tablet of your heart.

And it says [

Psalms 127:4]:

“Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the sons of youth,”

the students of a person, who are called his sons, sharp in the words of Torah like arrows in the hand of a warrior, who fights his enemies with them.

And it says [

Psalms 120:4]:

“The sharpened arrow of a warrior,”

and from here it follows that the arrows mentioned in the verse allude to sharpness and sharpening.

And

similarly the verse

says [

there, 45:6]:

“Your arrows are sharpened; peoples fall beneath you,”

and from here too we learn that arrows allude to sharpness and sharpening.

And

in the continuation of the verse brought above, “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the sons of youth,” the verse

says: “Fortunate is the man who has filled his quiver with them,”

that is: fortunate is the teacher of these students, who has filled his vessels with them.

And at the end of the verse it says:

“They shall not be ashamed

these students

when they speak with enemies in the gate.”

And the question is asked: What is

“with enemies in the gate”?

Which enemies is the verse speaking of?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: Even a father and his son

or

a teacher and his student who engage in Torah in one gate

become enemies of one another,

since they challenge one another, and one does not accept the words of the other.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba adds:

And they do not move from there

after they have finished studying

until they become loving toward one another, as it is stated [

Numbers 21:14]: “Therefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord—

‘Vahev in Suphah.’”

And this may be explained by way of exposition:

Do not read “besufah”

when the letter samekh is vocalized with shuruk,

but rather “besofah”

when the letter samekh is vocalized with holam. And thus the verse said: “In the book of the wars of the Lord”—a war through the book [of Torah]—then, “Vahev in its end”; love comes at its end.

The Sages taught

another beraita concerning Torah study:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 11:18]:

“And you shall place

these words of Mine upon your hearts, etc.”

And “vesamtem” may be expounded by way of exposition as though it were written, “ve-

sam

tam.”

That is:

Torah is likened

to

a complete life-giving drug

that heals every illness. And as follows:

This may be compared to a person who struck his son with a great blow and placed a bandage upon his wound. And he said to him: My son, as long as this bandage

is

upon your wound, eat

everything

from which your pleasure

is greater, even honey and sweet things that harm the wound,

and drink

everything

from which

your pleasure

is greater.

And bathe both in hot water

and

in cold water, and do not fear

lest you be harmed.

But if you remove it,

remove the bandage,

then it

the wound

raises growths

plants [inflammation].

So

similarly,

the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: My sons, I created the evil inclination; I created Torah for it

to be its

spice,

a healing drug.

And if you engage in Torah, you are not delivered into its hand, as it is stated [

Genesis 4:7]:

“Is it not, if you improve, to bear,”

if you engage in Torah, which is a good teaching, then “to bear”: you will rise above your inclination.

And if you do not engage in Torah, you are delivered

into its hand,

as it is stated

in the continuation of the verse cited above: “And if you do not improve,

sin crouches at the door” [

the evil inclination crouches at the door and lies in wait for you, to make you sin].

And moreover, all its dealings and negotiations

the evil inclination’s are

with you,

to make you sin,

as it is stated

in the continuation of the verse: “And toward you

is its desire,”

all its desire is directed toward you, to make you sin.

And if you wish, you

engage in Torah, and through this you

rule over it, as it is stated

in the continuation of the verse:

“And you shall rule over it.”

And since the Gemara spoke about the desire of the evil inclination, the Gemara brings several statements concerning this matter:

The Sages taught: The evil inclination is difficult,

to such an extent

that even its Creator called it “

evil.”

As it is stated [

Genesis 8:21]:

“For the inclination of the heart of man is ‘evil’ from his youth.”

Rav Yitzhak said: A person’s inclination renews itself against him every day [

it tries anew each day to make him sin ].

As it is stated [

Genesis 6:5]: “And every inclination of the thoughts of his heart is

only evil all the day.”

The words “all the day” are superfluous, and they came to teach that throughout all the hours of the day its evil grows stronger.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Levi said: A person’s inclination grows stronger against him every day

and seeks

to

kill him. As it is stated [

Psalms 37:32]:

“The wicked watches

the evil inclination

the righteous and seeks to kill him.”

And were it not that the Holy One, blessed be He, helps him, a person cannot

the person

overcome it

to defeat it,

as it is stated

in the continuation of the verse:

“God will not leave him in its hand.”

It was taught in the school of [

the house of]

Rabbi Yishmael: My son, if this repulsive one encounters you [

the evil inclination that provokes you],

draw it

after you

to the beit-midrash

to study Torah. And then,

if it is stone, it melts.

And if it is iron, it shatters.

It melts from the fire of Torah, and sparks fly from it.

And the tannai brings a source for his words: “

If it is iron, it shatters,”

as it is stated [

Jeremiah 23:29]:

“Is not My word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that shatters rock?”

And since the words of Torah are likened here to fire, fire melts the iron until sparks fly from it.

“If it is stone, it melts,”

as it is stated [Isaiah 55:1]:

“Ho, everyone who is thirsty, go to the waters,”

that is: go to Torah, which is likened to water.

And since Torah is likened to water, it has the power to wear down the stone until it melts,

as it is stated [

Job 14:19]:

“Stones are worn down by water,”

that is: the water wore down the stones.

Until here the Gemara expanded its discussion of what we learned—that the father is obligated with regard to his son to teach him Torah—and now the Gemara explains the continuation of the beraita:

We learned in the beraita: The father is obligated with regard to his son

to marry him to a woman.

And we inquire about it:

From where do we know this,

from where did we learn this?

And we answer:

As it is written [

Jeremiah 29:6]:

“Take wives and beget sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to men.”

And we challenge:

Granted,

it is understandable that the verse commands a person to take a wife for his son, for

his son is in his hand

to do so, since it is the man’s way to pursue the woman.

But,

it is difficult: How does the verse command a person to give his daughter to a man? Is

his daughter in his hand?!

Is it not the woman’s way to pursue the man?!

And we answer:

This is what it says,

this is what the verse intended to say:

“Give her something, and clothe her

and cover her, so that people will leap upon her.”

It is a mitzva for the father to give his daughter money, and clothing with which to dress and cover herself, so that men will pursue her.

We further learned in the beraita: A person is obligated with regard to his son

to teach him a craft.

And we inquire about it:

From where do we know?

From where did we learn this?

Hezekiah said:

because

the verse says [

Ecclesiastes 9:9]:

“See life with the woman whom you love.”

And the verse may be explained as follows: “See life”—take care for yourself to have a craft from which you will live.

“With the woman whom you love”: it may be explained that the “woman” mentioned here is an actual woman, and it may be explained that the verse is speaking about Torah, which is likened here to a woman.

In any event, the verse compares a craft to a “woman.” As it is stated: “See ‘life’ with ‘woman.’”

If

we say that the “woman” mentioned here

is an actual woman,

it can be learned from the verse:

Just as a person is obligated

with regard to his son

to marry him to a woman [

as explained above],

so he is obligated to teach him a craft.

And

if we say that the “woman” mentioned here

is Torah,

it can be learned from the verse:

Just as a person is obligated

with regard to his son

to teach him Torah, so he is obligated to teach him a craft.

We further learned in the beraita:

And there are those who say

that a father is obligated with regard to his son

also to teach him to swim in a river.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

It is his means of life!

The ability to swim in a river is a need for a person’s survival. Therefore, this is included in the verse brought above by the Gemara: “See ‘life’ with the woman whom you love.”

We further learned in the beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who does not teach him a craft teaches him banditry.

And we raise an objection: "

banditry"

Can it enter your mind?

Would it enter your mind that a person who does not teach him a trade teaches his son banditry? But he sits and does nothing!

Rather,

this is what one must say: "Anyone who does not teach him a trade

'it is as though' he teaches him banditry."

And from the wording of the beraita it follows that Rabbi Judah came to add and obligate a person to teach his son a trade, more than the tanna kamma obligates him.

Therefore the Gemara asks:

What is the difference between them,

what is the difference between them? What did Rabbi Judah add beyond the tanna kamma?

And we answer:

The difference between them is where he taught him commerce,

there is a practical difference between them in the case of a person who taught his son to engage in trade:

According to the tanna kamma, the obligation to teach a trade is learned from "See 'life' with a wife," and a person who taught his son to engage in commerce has thereby taken care of his livelihood. And he has fulfilled his obligation.

But Rabbi Judah gave as the reason for the obligation to teach his son a trade that he should refrain from engaging in banditry. This teaches us that if he taught him commerce, he has not fulfilled his obligation, for he has still not prevented his son from engaging in banditry; for engaging in commerce requires that a person first have merchandise with which to engage in it, and there is concern lest he not have anything with which to conduct commerce, and he will rob people.

Therefore, according to Rabbi Judah, he must teach his son specifically a trade. That is, a profession by which one can earn a livelihood through work, even if he does not have merchandise in his possession.

Until here, the Gemara explained the words of the beraita that deals with the mitzvot which the father is obligated to perform for his son. And this beraita was brought in the Gemara in order to explain the first clause of our Mishna: "All the mitzvot of the son incumbent upon the father—men are obligated and women are exempt."

Now the Gemara explains the continuation of our Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

"All the mitzvot of the father incumbent upon the son

both men and women are obligated."

And we inquire concerning it:

What

what is included in

"all the mitzvot of the father incumbent upon the son"?

Apparently, it could be interpreted as follows: all the mitzvot which the father is obligated to perform for his son, such as circumcising him and the like , but the Gemara rejects this:

If you say that it means all the mitzvot that a father is obligated to perform for his son,

if it is said that the intention of the Mishna is all the mitzvot which the father is obligated to perform for his son, and concerning this we learned

"women are obligated,"

then a question arises:

But

it

it was taught

in a beraita:

"The father is obligated with regard to his son to circumcise him and to redeem him,"

from the wording of the beraita it follows that specifically

his father, yes,

indeed, but

his mother, no,

is not obligated in this!

And we answer:

Rabbi Judah said: This is what he is saying,

this is what the tanna intended to say:

All the mitzvot of the father incumbent

upon the son to perform for his father,

namely, honoring the father and revering him,

both men and women are obligated.

We have already learned this, for the Sages taught:

in light of what Rav Judah explained concerning our Mishna, there is support from our Mishna for the words of the following beraita.

And so we learned in a beraita: It is stated in the Torah concerning the mitzva of revering one's father and mother [Leviticus 19:3]: "Every man shall revere his father and his mother."

And the beraita asks: Since it is stated

"a man,"

it would have been appropriate to say that

I have only

to include in this mitzva

a man

alone and not a woman; if so,

from where

do I know that a woman too is commanded in this?

The beraita answers: Since the verse speaks of "a man," it would seemingly have been appropriate to say, "A man, his father and his mother shall you revere" [in the singular], and why was "you shall revere" stated in the plural? Rather,

when it says 'you shall revere' [

in the plural]

there are two here,

that is, a man and a woman. From here, a woman too is commanded to revere her father and her mother.

And the beraita returns and asks: Since we have said that a woman too is commanded in revering her father and mother,

if so, what is the teaching of

why was it stated at the beginning of the verse

"a man,"

whose meaning is a man and not a woman?

The beraita answers: Although a woman too is included in the mitzva of revering her father and mother, nevertheless there is a difference between her and a man. For

a man,

there is

sufficient capacity,

the ability,

in his power to do

whatever his father requests. But

a woman [

after she has married her husband]

does not have sufficient capacity,

the ability

in her power to do

what her father and mother request,

because the authority of others is upon her,

for she is bound to her husband, and it is in his power to prevent her from doing for her father and her mother. , And the Gemara expands upon the matter of the mitzva of honoring one's father and mother and revering them:

The Sages taught: It is stated

[Exodus 20:12]:

"Honor your father and your mother," and it is stated

[Proverbs 3:9]:

"Honor the Lord with your wealth."

And since in both verses the expression "honor" is stated, we learn from here that

the verse equated the honor of father and mother with the honor of the Omnipresent.

And likewise,

it is stated

[Leviticus 19:3]:

"Every man shall revere his father and his mother," and it is stated

[Deuteronomy 6:13]:

"You shall revere the Lord your God, and Him you shall serve."

And since in both verses the expression "revere" is stated, we learn that

the verse equated the reverence of father and mother with the reverence of the Omnipresent.

And likewise,

it is stated

[Exodus 21:17]: "And

he who curses his father and his mother shall surely be put to death," and it is stated

[Leviticus 24:15]:

"Any man who curses his God shall bear his sin."

The verse equated the "blessing" of father and mother

[in an expression of saggi nahor, that is, the cursing of father and mother]

with the "blessing" of the Omnipresent.

But, with regard to

the matter of

striking,

the Torah mentioned only one who strikes his father and his mother, and

it is certainly impossible

to compare this upward, for there is no striking with regard to the One Above.

And the beraita continues: What we said, that the honor and reverence of father and mother were juxtaposed with the honor and reverence of the Omnipresent,

and so it is logically established,

it is reasonable to juxtapose them, because

the three of them are partners in him

in his creation.

The Sages taught: There are three partners in a person: the Holy One, blessed is He, his father, and his mother. When a person honors his father and his mother, the Holy One, blessed is He, says: I consider it for them as though I dwelled among them and they honored Me.