Kiddushin 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

As it is stated [(

Proverbs 7:4]: !(pamud.bmp "exact page location"))

“Say to wisdom,

‘You are my sister,’ and so on.”

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

Another proof:

And it says [(

there, verse 3)]:

“Bind them

[the words of Torah]

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

That is, the words of Torah should be clear to you, 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 one’s youth,”

that is, a person’s students, who are called his sons, are sharp in matters of Torah like arrows in the hand of a warrior who battles his enemies with them.

And it says [(

Psalms 120:4)]:

“The arrows of a warrior are ‘sharp,’”

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

.

And similarly the verse

says [(

there, 45:6)]:

“Your arrows are ‘sharp’; peoples fall beneath You,”

and here too we learn that arrows allude to sharpness and acuity.

And

in the continuation of the verse cited above, “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the sons of one’s 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.”

The question arises: What is the meaning of

“with enemies in the gate”?

Which enemies is the verse discussing?

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

or

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

become one another’s enemies,

because they challenge one another, and neither accepts the other’s words.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba adds:

“And they do not move from there

after they have finished studying

until they become friends with 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.’”

This may be interpreted homiletically:

Do not read “besufah”

with the letter samekh vocalized with shuruk,

but rather “besofah”

with the letter samekh vocalized with holam. Thus the verse says: “In the book of the wars of the Lord”—a war waged through the book [of Torah]—then “Vahev in its end”; love comes at its end.

The Sages taught

another baraita concerning Torah study:

It is stated [( Deuteronomy 11:18)]:

“And you shall place

these words of Mine upon your heart, and so on.”

The word “vesamtem” may be interpreted homiletically as though it were written, “vesam

sam

tam.”

That is:

Torah is likened

to

a complete elixir of life

that heals every illness, as follows:

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

is

on your wound, eat

anything

that gives you the greatest pleasure,

even honey and sweets, which harm the wound,

and drink

anything

that

gives you the greatest pleasure.

the greatest pleasure.

And bathe both in hot water

and

in cold water, and do not fear

that you might be harmed.

But if you remove it,

the bandage,

then the wound

will

develop growths

[inflammation].

So too,

similarly,

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

so that it would be

an antidote,

a healing elixir.

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

Genesis 4:7)]:

“If you do well, there is uplift,”

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

And if you do not engage in Torah, you will be delivered

into its hand,

as it is stated

in the continuation of the verse cited above: “But if you do not do well,

sin couches at the entrance,”

[the evil inclination crouches at the entrance and lies in wait to cause you to sin].

Moreover, all its dealings

of the evil inclination are

with you,

to cause you to 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 cause you to sin.

And if you wish, you

engage in Torah, and through this you

will rule over it, as it is stated

in the continuation of the verse:

“But you may rule over it.”

And since the Gemara spoke of the desire of the evil inclination, it cites 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 human heart is ‘evil’ from his youth.”

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

tries anew each day to cause him to sin )].

As it is stated [(

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

only evil all day.”

The words “all day” are superfluous, and come to teach that its evil intensifies during every hour of the day.

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 for the Holy One, blessed be He, assisting him, a person would not be

able

to overcome it,

to defeat it,

as it is stated

in the continuation of the verse:

“God will not abandon him into its hand.”

It was taught in the school of

[the house of]

Rabbi Yishmael: My children, if this repulsive one encounters you

[the evil inclination that provokes you],

drag it

after you

to the beit-midrash

to study Torah. Then,

if it is stone, it will be dissolved.

And if it is iron, it will be shattered.

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

And the tanna brings a source for his words: “

If it is iron, it will be shattered,”

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 compared here to fire, fire melts iron until sparks fly from it.

“If it is stone, it will be dissolved,”

as it is stated [( Isaiah 55:1)]:

“Ho, everyone who thirsts, go to the waters,”

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

And since Torah is compared to water, which has the power to wear away stone until it is dissolved,

as it is stated [(

Job 14:19)]:

“Stones are worn away by water,”

that is: water wears away stones.

Until this point, the Gemara elaborated on what we learned, that a father is obligated with regard to his son to teach him Torah. Now the Gemara explains the continuation of the baraita:

We learned in the baraita: A father is obligated with regard to his son

to marry him to a woman.

And we raise a question about it:

From where do we derive this,

from where did we learn this?

And we answer:

As it is written [(

Jeremiah 29:6)]:

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

And we challenge this:

Granted,

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

his son is in his hands

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

But

there is a difficulty: How can the verse command a person to give his daughter to a man? Is

his daughter in his hands?!

After all, it is not the woman’s way to pursue the man!

And we answer:

This is what the verse is saying:

this is what the verse intended to say:

“Give her something, and dress her

and cover her, so that people will pursue her.”

The father is commanded to give his daughter money and clothing, with which to dress and cover herself, so that men will pursue her.

We also learned in the baraita: A person is obligated with regard to his son

to teach him a trade.

And we raise a question about it:

From where do we derive this?

From where did we learn this?

Hezekiah said:

because

the verse says [(

Ecclesiastes 9:9)]:

“See life with the woman whom you love.”

The verse may be explained as follows: “See life”—provide yourself with a trade from which you can live. “

With the woman whom you love”: It is possible to explain that the “woman” mentioned here is an actual wife, and it is possible to explain that the verse is speaking about Torah, which is compared here to a woman.

In any event, the verse equates a trade with “a woman,” as it is stated: “See ‘life’ with ‘the woman.’”

If

we say that the “woman” mentioned here

is literally a woman,

we may learn from the verse:

Just as a person is obligated

with regard to his son

to marry him to a woman [(

as explained above)],

so is he obligated to teach him a trade.

And

if we say that the “woman” mentioned here

is Torah,

we may learn from the verse:

Just as a person is obligated

with regard to his son

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

We also learned in the baraita:

And some 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 necessary for his life!

The ability to swim in a river is a life necessity for a person. Therefore, this is included in the verse cited earlier by the Gemara: “See ‘life’ with the woman whom you love.”

We also learned in the baraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry.

And we object:

“banditry”

—can it enter your mind?

Could it enter your mind that one who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry? Surely, he merely sits idle and does nothing!

Rather,

this is what should be said: “Anyone who does not teach him a trade

‘it is as though’ he teaches him banditry.”

The wording of the beraita indicates that Rabbi Yehuda comes to add an obligation upon a person to teach his son a trade, beyond what the first tanna obligates him to do.

Therefore, the Gemara asks:

What is the difference between them,

what is the difference between them? What did Rabbi Yehuda add beyond the first tanna?

And we answer:

The difference between them is in a case where he taught him business,

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

According to the first tanna, the obligation to teach a trade is derived from “see ‘life’ with a wife,” and one who taught his son to engage in commerce has thereby concerned himself with his livelihood. He has fulfilled his obligation.

But Rabbi Yehuda gave as the reason for the obligation to teach one’s 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, since he still has not prevented his son from engaging in banditry. For engaging in commerce requires that a person first have merchandise with which to conduct business, and there is concern that he may not have anything with which to trade, and may then rob people.

Therefore, according to Rabbi Yehuda, one must teach his son specifically a trade—that is, an occupation through which he can earn a livelihood by working, even if he has no merchandise.

Up to this point, the Gemara explained the words of the beraita that deals with the mitzvot that a father is obligated to perform for his son. This beraita was brought in the Gemara to explain the first clause of our Mishna: “With regard to all 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:

“With regard to all mitzvot of the father incumbent upon the son,

both men and women are obligated.”

And we raised a question about it:

What

what is included in

“all mitzvot of the father incumbent upon the son”?

Seemingly, it could be interpreted as follows: all mitzvot that 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 mitzvot that a father is obligated to perform for his son,

if we say that the Mishna means all mitzvot that a father is obligated to perform for his son, and concerning this it teaches

“women are obligated,”

then a difficulty arises:

But

is it not

taught

in a beraita:

“A father is obligated with regard to his son to circumcise him and redeem him”?

The wording of the beraita indicates that specifically

his father, yes,

indeed, but

his mother, no,

she is not obligated to do so!

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it means:

This is what the tanna intended to say:

All mitzvot of the father incumbent

upon the son to perform for his father,

namely, honoring one’s father and revering him ,

both men and women are obligated.

The following supports this, as the Sages taught:

In light of Rav Yehuda’s explanation of our Mishna, our Mishna supports 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.”

The beraita asks: Since it is stated

“every man,”

it would have been appropriate to say that

I have only

included in this mitzva

a man

but not a woman. If so,

from where

do I know that a woman is also commanded in this mitzva?

The beraita answers: Since the verse addresses “a man,” it would seemingly have been appropriate to say, “Every man shall revere his father and his mother” in the singular form, tira. Why, then, is tira’u, in the plural, stated? Rather,

when it says, “you shall revere” [

in the plural form],

there are two here,

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

The beraita asks again: Since we have said that a woman is also commanded in revering her father and mother,

if so, what is the significance of

why is it stated at the beginning of the verse

“a man,”

which implies a man and not a woman?

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

A man

has

the capacity,

the ability,

within his power to do

whatever his father requests of him. But

a woman [

after she marries],

does not have the capacity,

the ability,

within her power to do

what her father and mother request,

because she is under the authority of others,

for she is bound to her husband, and he can prevent her from doing anything for her father and mother. , The Gemara expands upon the mitzvot of honoring and revering one’s father and mother:

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.”

Since the expression “honor” is stated in both verses, we learn from here that

the verse equated the honor of one’s 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.”

Since the expression “revere” is stated in both verses, we learn that

the verse equated revering one’s father and mother with revering the Omnipresent.

And likewise,

it is stated

[Exodus 21:17]: “

And one who curses his father and 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 one’s father and mother

[in euphemistic language, meaning the cursing of one’s father and mother]

with the “blessing” of the Omnipresent.

But, with regard to

the matter of

striking,

the Torah mentions only one who strikes his father or mother, and

it is certainly impossible

to extend this analogy Above, since striking does not apply Above.

The beraita continues: As for what we said, that the honor and reverence of one’s father and mother are juxtaposed with the honor and reverence of the Omnipresent,

so too it follows,

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 Omnipresent, his father, and his mother. When a person honors his father and mother, the Omnipresent says: I consider it as though I dwelt among them and they honored Me.