Kiddushin 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

Bar Kappara expounded: An irascible person

gains nothing but irascibility.

That is, he gained nothing, but only brought about the wasting away of his body.

And

as for

a good person, he is made to taste the fruit of his deeds.

And

any person

who is engaged neither in Scripture, nor in Mishna, nor in proper conduct,

[unclear: isolated letter]

should be prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from him!

For if he is not engaged in one of these, he is occupied only with frivolity, and one is obligated to distance oneself from such a person,

as it is stated

at the beginning of the Book of Psalms: “Fortunate is the man who”:

‘and in the seat of scoffers he did not sit.’

And

his seat

of such a person is

a seat of scoffers:

We have completed for you the chapter “The Woman Is Acquired”

Mishna:

The man betroths

the woman

by himself,

meaning: he may betroth her personally,

and

also

through his agent [or by means of an agent].

And likewise

the woman becomes betrothed

through her,

[personally],

and through her agent.

And likewise

the man betroths his daughter when she is a na'ara,

by himself and through his agent.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The man betroths by himself and through his agent:

And we raise an objection: Why did the tanna need to state “by himself and through his agent”? After all,

now that he betroths through his agent, by himself

is it necessary to state

[is that not certainly so]? The tanna should have stated only: “The man betroths through his agent”!

Said

[and answered]

Rav Yosef:

The tanna stated “by himself and through his agent” in order to mention betrothal by himself before betrothal through his agent, and to teach us that

it is a mitzva for him to do it himself rather than through his agent.

The Gemara cites examples of amoraim who were particular about this:

This is like

we find

that Rav Safra—

personally, rather than through members of his household—

would singe the head

[he would singe the head of an animal to remove its hair] in honor of Shabbat, in order to prepare himself to fulfill the mitzva of the Shabbat meal.

And likewise we find with

Rava

that he

would salt shibuta

[salt the fish] in honor of Shabbat, and they did so because “it is a mitzva for him to do it himself rather than through his agent.”

Some say:

In this case,

with regard to betrothal,

there is also a prohibition involved

[there is also a prohibition against betrothing through an agent] when he is able to betroth her himself; and this is the reason the tanna stated “by himself and through his agent,” rather than Rav Yosef’s reason—

And

it is in accordance with what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav! For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

It is forbidden for a man to betroth a woman until he sees her, lest he see something unattractive in her

after she is already betrothed to him,

and she become repulsive to him

and he hate her,

and the Merciful One

indeed

said: “

You shall love your fellow as yourself”;

therefore, he should see her first, before betrothing her, for even if he sees something unattractive in her and consequently does not betroth her, he will not hate her, since she is not betrothed to him.

And when Rav Yosef’s statement:

“It is a mitzva for him to do it himself rather than through his agent,” which implies that it is a mitzva but not a prohibition,

was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause!

For we learned in the latter clause:

The woman becomes betrothed through herself and through her agent,

and here too one can ask:

Now that she becomes betrothed through her agent, is it necessary to state that she can do so herself!?

And concerning this

Rav Yosef said,

that our Mishna teaches us:

It is a mitzva for her—

to assist her husband in fulfilling the mitzva of “Be fruitful and multiply” —

to do it herself rather than through her agent;

and

this is like Rav Safra singeing the head, and Rava salting the shibuta—

But in this case—

with regard to a woman’s betrothal through an agent—

there is no prohibition involved

[there is no prohibition for the woman in becoming betrothed without seeing him], and

it is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish,

and this is why Rav Yosef said that there is only a mitzva and no prohibition,

as Reish Lakish said:

It is a proverb that women say about an unsuccessful husband: “Nevertheless,

it is better to sit as two bodies

[it is better to have two people living together]

than to sit a widow

[rather than sit as a widow without a husband].” Thus, even if she sees something unattractive in him, she will not withdraw her love from him.

We learned in the Mishna:

The man betroths his daughter when she is a na'ara, by himself and through his agent:

And we explain:

When she is a na'ara, yes

—indeed, he may betroth her, whereas

when she is a minor, no

—the father should not betroth her. This does not mean that he is unable to betroth her, since the father certainly has the right to arrange the betrothal of his minor daughter, and he can also betroth her through an agent, all the more so than in the case of a na'ara, since she is more under his authority than a na'ara; rather, it means that he should not do so ab initio—

And

this supports

the tanna’s wording, which mentioned only a na'ara—

Rav’s statement! For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, and some say Rabbi Elazar said it

[there are those who say that Rabbi Elazar was the one who stated it]:

It is forbidden for a man to betroth his daughter when she is a minor, until she grows up and says, “I wish to marry so-and-so.”

Here the Gemara returns to the fundamental law stated explicitly in our Mishna, that the man betroths and the woman becomes betrothed through an agent, and explains:

Agency

in betrothal,

from where do we derive it

[from where is it learned]?

For it was taught in a beraita:

It is written [Deuteronomy 24]: “When a man takes a woman and cohabits with her, and it shall be, if she does not find favor in his eyes, that he writes her a bill of divorce, places it in her hand, and sends her from his house. And she leaves his house, goes, and becomes the wife of another man. And the latter man hates her, writes her a bill of divorce, places it in her hand, and sends her from his house”; this is the passage concerning divorce—

And from the fact that the Torah says “and he sends her,” rather than “and he divorces her from his house,” we learn two laws:

a. The wording

“and he sends”

by itself

teaches that he,

the husband,

appoints an agent

to divorce his wife.

b. The Torah’s wording

“and he sends her”

[with an added final he], is expounded as though it were written “and she sends,” without the final-he pronunciation, implying that the woman sends; and

it teaches that she,

the woman,

appoints an agent

to receive her get from her husband. And from the Torah’s wording

“and he sends and she sends”,

that is, the repetition of the expression “and he sends” stated in the passage,

it teaches that

also

an agent appoints another agent

.

The Gemara continues its explanation:

We have found

—indeed, we have learned agency—

with regard to divorce,

but agency

with regard to betrothal, from where do we derive it?

And if you would say,

perhaps you might say that no special exposition is needed for betrothal, because

it is derived

[this law is learned]

from divorce

through a binyan av [an analogy based on a common principle]: Just as with divorce both parties appoint an agent, so too with betrothal?

This cannot be said, for this derivation can be challenged:

What is true of divorce is that it can be effected against her will

and because of this stringency agency is effective in divorce; can you say the same of betrothal, which cannot be effected against the woman’s will? Perhaps it can be effected only by the betrother himself and not through his agent! And we explain: Agency in betrothal is learned from what

the verse says: “

And she leaves and becomes” [“She leaves his house, goes, and becomes the wife of another man”]. Thus,

the verse,

juxtaposes

the written term

becoming

[betrothal]

with leaving

[divorce], and we learn:

Just as with

a

departure he appoints

[makes]

an agent, so too with

a

becoming he likewise appoints an agent.

The Gemara continues its explanation:

But then, what of that which we learned

that the owner of a grain heap can appoint an agent to separate teruma from his heap, as we learned in tractate Terumot, chapter 4, Mishna 4:

One who says to his agent, “Go and separate teruma”

from my grain heap, but did not specify the amount of teruma he should take—for the Sages established the measure of teruma : one fortieth for a generous eye, one fiftieth for an average eye, and one sixtieth for a stingy eye—the agent

separates according to

the way he recognizes the

mind of the owner

[the owner of the grain heap], whether his eye is generous or stingy.

And if the agent

does

not know

what the

mind of the owner

is, he

separates according to the average measure,

[the measure of an average eye], which is

one fiftieth.