Kiddushin 61b — the Talmud in English

In the land of Canaan" ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Why do I need this!?

For these words are superfluous!?

Rather,

infer from it:

these words,

to

teach us that it came to teach us that

it is a doubled condition [that they came].

They came.

For what is written, “In the land of Canaan,” implies excluding the land of Gilead. We find that we learn from this that without this additional wording in the condition, the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben would have received the land of Gilead as they requested, even if they had not fulfilled the condition; and we do not say: from the affirmative [“if they cross, then you shall give”] you hear the negative [that if they do not cross, you shall not give them].

And from here one can learn: any condition that is not doubled is not a condition.

And Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel

will answer you: Even though from the affirmative you hear the negative, the Torah still needed to say also, “In the land of Canaan.”

For

if the Merciful One had not written

the Torah

“In the land of Canaan,”

I would have thought

we would have erred and said:

“And they shall receive an inheritance among you”

means

in the land of Gilead,

for the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben participated in its conquest,

but the land of Canaan not at all,

they would receive nothing, since they did not assist in conquering it.

It teaches us this: “In the land of Canaan”—that even in the land of Canaan, whose conquest they did not assist, the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben will inherit their portion, in addition to what they will receive as their portion among the other tribes, among the other tribes in the land of Gilead.

And Rabbi Meir

holds: What is written,

“among you,”

everywhere that you have

anything that you have

is implied,

and even in the land of Israel. If so, the words “in the land of Canaan” are superfluous, to teach us to double every condition.

It was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel said: To what is the matter

Moses’ condition

similar!?

To a person who

had three fields, one of which was superior to the other two fields.

And

this person

was

dividing his property among his sons,

and

said: So-and-so, my son, shall inherit such-and-such a field,

and so-and-so, my son

the second

shall inherit such-and-such a field.

And so-and-so, my son

the third

shall give two hundred zuz

to his brothers,

and shall inherit such-and-such a field

which is superior to the other fields.

And if he does not give

this son two hundred zuz to his brothers, he will not be able to receive that entire field, but

he shall inherit together with his brothers,

and they will all receive an equal portion, both in the superior field and

in the other property.

But

who

what

caused him

the third son

to inherit together with his brothers in the other property,

and it was not said: He is excluded from the other property and does not receive his portion, but only in the third field!?

The doubling

of his father, who doubled his words and said, “And if he does not give, he shall inherit together with his brothers in the other property,”

caused him

not to lose.

And likewise with the condition of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben, when Moses said to them: If you cross the Jordan for war [“give two hundred zuz”—in the parable], you will receive the land of Gilead, and if you do not cross, you will not receive it. Who caused them to receive a portion also in the land of Israel, and not only in the land of Gilead? Moses’ doubling, when he said, “And they shall receive an inheritance among you in the land of Canaan,” caused them to do so.

And we raise an objection:

But the parable does not resemble

Rabbi Ḥanina’s in the beraita

to

his words in the

Mishna!?

For

there

in the Mishna

it teaches: It is implied that they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan, which shows

it implies that the of the

doubling

what Moses doubled his condition was useful not only concerning their portion in the land of Israel, but

for

their portion in

the land of Gilead also it is useful, and without the doubling they would not have received even their portion in the land of Gilead.

and without the doubled condition they would not have received even their portion in the land of Gilead.

And

if

here

in the beraita

it teaches: Who caused him to inherit together with his brothers in the other property? His doubling caused him,

which shows

it implies that

it is only for the other property that the doubling is useful,

but concerning the third field—in the parable, the land of Gilead—even without the doubling they would have received their portion!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult

for the Mishna and the beraita to contradict one another!

For

this

the Mishna is

before Rabbi Meir said to him:

“And they shall receive an inheritance”,

that is, Rabbi Ḥanina’s words in the Mishna referred to Rabbi Meir’s words there, that all of Moses’ doubling of his words came only to teach that the condition must be doubled everywhere.

Therefore Rabbi Ḥanina said that without Moses’ doubling his words, we would have said: If the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben do not fulfill the condition, they will receive nothing, neither in the land of Canaan nor in Gilead.

For Rabbi Meir had not yet said to him that his proof is from the fact that the Torah wrote “in the land of Canaan,” and it would have been sufficient to write “and they shall receive an inheritance among you.”

But

this

the beraita is

after Rabbi Meir said to him:

to write, “And if they do not cross,

and they shall receive an inheritance

among you,” why do I need “in the land of Canaan”?

For after Rabbi Meir explained and said: I prove only from the superfluous wording “in the land of Canaan,” Rabbi Ḥanina said only that without these words it is implied that the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben would not receive a portion in the land of Israel—in the parable, “in the other property.”

It follows that the parable in the beraita refers to Rabbi Ḥanina’s answer: If the Merciful One had not written “in the land of Canaan,” I would have thought that “and they shall receive an inheritance among you” means in the land of Gilead, but the land of Canaan not at all.

Now the Gemara brings several passages in the Torah in which there is a doubled condition, raises a difficulty against Rabbi Ḥanina, who holds that even a condition that is not doubled is a complete condition, and resolves them:

a.

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that a condition that is not doubled is not a condition,

this is why it is written,

concerning the punishment of Cain [Genesis 4:7]: “Behold,

if you improve

your deeds,

there is uplift

you will receive reward,

but if you do not improve, sin crouches at the door”

the punishment for the sin is prepared at your door and ready to come.

But according to Rabbi Ḥanina, why do I need

why was it necessary for the verse to double the condition!? Surely, from the affirmative you hear the negative, and it would have been sufficient for it to say, “If you improve, there is uplift,” and it would automatically be understood that if you do not improve—punishment!?

And we answer: It was necessary to say it, because

it might enter your mind: If you improve, reward

reward

; if you do not improve, neither reward nor judgment

punishment.

It teaches us this: “But if you do not improve, sin crouches at the door”—punishment and retribution will come to him if he does not improve his deeds.

It is written in the Torah: “And Abraham said to his servant, the elder of his household, who ruled over all that was his: Please place your hand beneath my thigh, and I will have you swear by the Lord, God of the heavens and God of the earth, that you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanite, among whom I dwell.

For

if you will go to my land and to my birthplace, you shall take a wife for my son, for Isaac; and if the woman does not desire to go after you, you will be cleared of this oath, only do not return my son there.”

Afterward the servant told Laban and Bethuel of his oath to Abraham:

“And my master made me swear, saying: You shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanite, in whose land I dwell. If you will not go to my father’s house and to my family and take a wife for my son,

then you will be clear of my oath when you come to my family; and if they do not give her to you, you will be clear of my oath.” [Genesis 24]

b.

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir,

even though Abraham made him swear: “If you will not go to my father’s house,” an oath will rest upon you, one cannot say: It is implied that if you go to my father’s house, the oath will not rest upon you, even if you take for him a wife from the daughters of Canaan , for from a negative you do not hear the affirmative; if so,

it is

properly understood

that it is written,

But according to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need

“Then you will be clear of my oath

when you come to my family” , for had Abraham not explicitly stated this matter, we would have said that even if he went to his father’s house he would not be clear of the oath if he took for him a wife from the daughters of Canaan.

But according to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need

to double his condition!?

And we answer:

It was necessary

Abraham needed to double his words.

For if not,

it might enter your mind: where

she is agreeable to it, but they are not agreeable to it

if the woman is willing to come but her relatives oppose it, say:

he should bring

her

against their will,

since the woman agrees.

It teaches us this: “And if they do not give her to you [of their own will], you will be clear of my oath.”

And we ask:

But that which is written [above it]: “ And if the woman

does not desire

to go after you, you will be clear of this oath,”

why do I need

it to be written!?

And we explain: This verse too

was necessary

to say.

For

it might enter your mind: where they are agreeable, she

her relatives

but she is not agreeable

the girl herself, say that he

should bring her against her will.

It teaches us this:

If the woman does not wish to come, you are exempt from my oath.

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir, this is what is written

in the portion of Bechukotai [Leviticus 26:3]: “

If you follow My statutes ...

and I shall give your rains in their time,” etc., and it is written [there 15]:

“And if you reject My statutes ...

and I shall make your heavens like iron,” for without the repetition, there would not be a condition here, and the blessing would be fulfilled in any event.

But according to Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel,

who holds: “From the affirmative you hear the negative,”

why do I need

to repeat the matter? After all, from the blessing the curse is heard!? And we answer:

It was necessary

to repeat the condition.

For if Scripture had not returned and said what punishment would come upon them if they rejected the statutes,

it might enter your mind:

Indeed,

“If you follow My statutes”

there will come

blessing,

but

“if you reject My statutes, there will not come

blessing,

and not curse,”

because from the affirmative you hear the negation of the blessing, but you do not hear a curse.

This teaches us

that if “you reject My statutes,” a curse will come, Heaven forbid. ד.

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir, this is what is written

in the rebuke of Isaiah [1:19–20]: “

If you consent and listen,

you shall eat the good of the Land,” and it is also written: “

But if you refuse and rebel,

the sword shall consume you.”

But according to Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel,

who holds: “From the affirmative you hear the negative,”

why do I need

the repetition of the verse?!

And we answer:

It was necessary

to say it!

For

it might enter your mind: “If you consent”—

good

will come,

but if you refuse, neither good nor evil.

This teaches us

that if they refuse to listen to the voice of the Lord, evil will come upon them.