Kiddushin 49a — the Talmud in English

The Sages instituted that the priests should divorce with a special bill of divorce whose preparation involves effort, and it is called a “folded bill of divorce”; and all this is the essence of the institution. But once they instituted this, there are two types of bills of divorce even for an Israelite, who may make either a simple bill of divorce or a folded bill of divorce; and even with promissory notes there are two types of documents, a “folded document” and a “simple document,” and he makes whichever of them he wishes.

And how is it made:

He leaves one line blank, and writes on the line after it; then again he leaves one line blank, and writes on the line after it, and so on until three or four lines. Then he folds the first blank line over the written line, and sews it; and again he folds the second blank line over the written line, and sews it. Each and every sewing is called a knot. And the witnesses sign on the outside, on the folds between one knot and the next, and the number of witnesses is the same as the number of knots, and there are no fewer than three knots and witnesses.

A simple bill of divorce: its witnesses

sign

inside it

at the end of the document’s text; and a bill of divorce

folded: its witnesses are behind it

on the folds between one knot and the next.

A bill of divorce

or a promissory note

simple, whose witnesses signed behind it, or a

bill of divorce

folded, whose witnesses signed inside it,

then

both of them are invalid,

since they were not made according to the Sages’ institution.

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says:

A folded bill of divorce whose witnesses signed inside it is valid,

because

he can make it simple,

that is: if he left blank lines in the manner of a folded bill of divorce, and the witnesses signed inside it at the end of the document, it is not thereby invalidated, because he can choose not to sew it; and although it has blank lines, this is of no consequence. But the Sages hold that he cannot make it simple, because there is a difference in the date written in the bill of divorce between a folded bill of divorce and a simple bill of divorce: in a folded bill of divorce they write the year after the date on which the bill of divorce was signed.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

If the husband sent an agent to prepare a bill of divorce for him, the agent should prepare

everything according to the custom of the place,

so that if their custom is to make a folded bill of divorce, he should make it folded; and if their custom is with a simple bill of divorce, he should make it a simple bill of divorce.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: And

is it so that

the first tanna

that is, the first tannaim, namely the first tanna and Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel

does not hold

that the agent should act according to

the custom of the place!?

But surely this is not what he disputes; rather, he disputes another matter!?

And Rav Ashi said:

There is certainly another dispute here between the first tannaim and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, concerning agency; but nevertheless, if the husband sent him to prepare a bill of divorce for him without specification, then:

In a place where they are accustomed to [make] a simple [bill of divorce]

a place where their custom is to make a simple bill of divorce,

and he made for him

the agent a bill of divorce

folded—or alternatively, in a place where they are accustomed to [make] a folded [bill of divorce]

or it is a place where their custom is with a folded bill of divorce,

and he made for him

the agent a bill of divorce

simple,

in these circumstances

everyone

both the first tannaim and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

does not dispute that it is certainly a matter of insistence.

When do they dispute? In a place where they are accustomed both to a simple [bill of divorce] and to a folded [bill of divorce], and

however, the husband

said to him

the agent explicitly:

Make for me

a

simple bill of divorce, and he went

the agent

and made for him a folded one;

and it is in this circumstance that the first tannaim and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel dispute:

one

the first tannaim

holds: It is insistence

that the husband is particular about, and he intended that he make specifically a simple bill of divorce.

And one

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

holds:

The husband is not particular that he make specifically a simple bill of divorce; rather,

he is indicating a preference to him,

meaning that if he wishes, he need not take the trouble to make a folded bill of divorce, but if he wishes to take the trouble and make a folded bill of divorce, he is not particular.

We have thus learned that even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds like Rabbi Shimon, that “he is indicating a preference to him.” And the Gemara continues to explain where we find that Rabbi Elazar also holds so.

Rabbi Elazar,

who holds that “he is indicating a preference to him,” derives it from this,

as we learned:

A woman who said

to her agent: “Go and

receive for me

my

bills of divorce from a certain place,”

and

he went and

received for her

her

bill of divorce from another place,

the bill of divorce is

invalid,

that is: the divorce does not take effect, since he is not her agent to receive a bill of divorce in this place.

And Rabbi Elazar deems it valid; evidently he holds

Rabbi Elazar

that it is indicating a preference to her.

Ulla said:

The dispute

in which the Sages and Rabbi Shimon dispute in our Mishna whether, when he misled her for the better, she is betrothed, applies specifically

to financial betterment,

for example, when he said to her: “On the condition that I am poor,” and he was found to be wealthy—

but

when he misled her

with genealogical betterment,

betterment of status, for example: “On the condition that I am a Levite,” and he was found to be a priest,

according to everyone

even according to Rabbi Shimon

she is not betrothed.

What is the reason?

Because it is not pleasing to her that he should be important, since he will lord it over her, as women are accustomed to express this with a proverb: “

I do not want a shoe larger than my foot

I do not want a shoe larger than my foot.”

It was taught likewise: Rabbi Shimon concedes

who disputed in our Mishna concerning “on the condition that I am poor,” and he was found to be wealthy, that she is betrothed because he misled her for the better—that

if he misled her with genealogical betterment,

betterment of status, for example, when he said to her: “On the condition that I am a Levite,” and he was found to be a priest, she

is not betrothed.

Rav Ashi said: Our Mishna

itself

also precisely indicates

that Rabbi Shimon concedes with genealogical betterment,

as

this

is taught

in the following Mishna:

One who says to a woman: “Become betrothed to me

on the condition that I am a priest,”

and he was found to be a Levite;

or he said to her: “Become betrothed to me on the condition that I am a

Levite,”

and he was found to be a priest;

or he said to her: “Become betrothed to me on the condition that I am a

Natin,”

who is disqualified by rabbinic law from entering the congregation;

and he was found to be a mamzer,

whose disqualification is by Torah law; “or he said to her: Become betrothed to me on the condition that I am a

mamzer,”

and he was found to be a Natin,

who is of better lineage than the mamzer—she is not betrothed.

And

behold,

Rabbi Shimon did not dispute

there, to say that she is betrothed when he misled her for the better; thus, with genealogical betterment, Rabbi Shimon concedes.

Mar bar Rav Ashi challenged this:

Rather—

according to your reasoning, that you infer from the fact that Rabbi Shimon is not mentioned there as disputing in the Mishna, that he indeed concedes—

that which is taught

in that same Mishna: One who says to a woman: “Behold, you are betrothed to me

on the condition that I have a grown daughter or maidservant”

large and fit to serve me,

and he does not have one;

or he betrothed her

on the condition that he does not have

a grown daughter or maidservant,

and he has one,

she is not betrothed—

This is financial betterment

and not genealogical betterment—

so too, he does not dispute

would you indeed say that Rabbi Shimon also did not dispute in this case, in which, when he misled her for the better, she is betrothed!? Since it is financial betterment, he certainly disputes.

Rather,

you must necessarily say that

he disputes,

Rabbi Shimon,

at the beginning

of our Mishna,

and the same law applies to the end

in the following Mishna, although this is not mentioned there.

Here too,

concerning genealogical betterment, one may say that

he disputes,

Rabbi Shimon,

at the beginning, and the same law applies to the end;

and do not infer that Rabbi Shimon concedes with genealogical betterment.

And we raise an objection to the rejection:

Is that so!?

Is the proof comparable to the matter under discussion!?

There,

concerning a grown daughter and maidservant,

both this and that

both what is stated at the beginning, concerning poor and wealthy, and the misleading for the better concerning a daughter and maidservant, are misleading

with financial betterment;

and therefore one may say:

he disputes,

Rabbi Shimon,

at the beginning, and the same law applies to the end,

since it is all one matter, and the arranger of the Mishna did not need to mention that Rabbi Shimon also disputes in this case.

But

here,

concerning a mamzer who was found to be a Natin,

it is genealogical betterment,

and this was not mentioned at the beginning of our Mishna;

if it were so that he disputes, let it teach it

if Rabbi Shimon disputes that when she is misled for the better she is betrothed, the tanna should have mentioned this. And necessarily, our Mishna too precisely indicates that Rabbi Shimon concedes that when she is misled with genealogical betterment, she is not betrothed.

Alternatively,

to resolve Mar bar Rav Ashi’s difficulty from the daughter and maidservant:

Here,

concerning a grown daughter and maidservant,

it is also genealogical betterment,

and Rabbi Shimon indeed concedes in this case. And you can no longer prove that he disputes at the beginning and the same law applies to the end, because:

Do you think that what “

grown”

means is truly large

do you think that the meaning of “grown” is “large”!? It is not so. Rather,

what “

grown”

means is: important

esteemed. And Rabbi Shimon concedes in this case because

she herself said

the woman, when he misled her and brought with him an important daughter or maidservant, who, because of her importance, is likely to speak with her neighbors: “

It is not pleasing to me that she should take words from me and go about before my neighbors

I do not want her to hear what is happening in my house and go tell the matters to my neighbors, and make me an object of ridicule and scorn.”

The Sages taught:

One who says to a woman: “Become betrothed to me

on the condition that I am a reader”

that I read,

once he has read three verses in the synagogue, she is betrothed;

Rabbi Yehuda says: Until he reads

and translates

them.

And we are astonished: Is it so that he should

translate

even

from his own knowledge

a translation of his own!?

But was it not taught: Rabbi Yehuda says:

One who translates a verse according to its form,

who comes to omit the addition of our translation, saying: “I will translate this verse only according to its form,”

he is a liar,

since this is not the translation of the verse!

And one who adds to it,

who comes to say: Since permission was given to add, I too will add wherever I wish,

he is reviling and blaspheming,

disgracing the Omnipresent by altering His words.

And if so, how can he translate from his own knowledge!?

Rather, what does “

translation”

mean—that is, with which translation is this matter said? With

our translation,

which is the translation of Onkelos.

And these matters,

that three verses suffice for him, apply only in a case where

he said to her: “Become betrothed to me on the condition that I am

a reader,”

a reader.”

But if he said to her: “Become betrothed to me on the condition that

I

I read”

I am one who reads, she is not betrothed

until he reads the Torah, Prophets, and Writings precisely,

he must know how to read the entire Torah, Prophets, and Writings with accurate pronunciation.

One who says to a woman: “Become betrothed to me

on the condition that I am a student”

one who knows how to study, the amoraim disputed this:

Hezekiah said:

Until he knows how to study

halakhot,

meaning halakhot given to Moses at Sinai.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Torah.

A challenge was raised

from that which was taught in a beraita:

Which is “

Mishna”?

Rabbi Meir says: Halakhot

given to Moses at Sinai.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Midrash

of the verses, such as Sifra and Sifrei, which are halakhot derived through exposition of the verses.

And if so, this works for Hezekiah, whose words accord with the words of Rabbi Meir; but for Rabbi Yohanan it is difficult, for “student” implies the language of Mishna, and there is no one who says that “Mishna” is the Torah!?