Kiddushin 62a — the Talmud in English

And we ask:

What ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the page")

“You shall eat the sword”,

for it implies: You shall be satiated from eating a sword!?

He said

he explained]

Rava: coarse salt [a coarse salt],

,

hard barley bread [a hard barley loaf],

,

and onions.

For

this

is what the master said: a large oven-baked loaf [a large loaf baked in a large oven ]

dry with salt, and onions,

hard

for

the health of the

body, like

as

swords.

And this is what the verse said: “You shall eat the sword,” for their punishment will be to eat foods that are hard for the body, like a sword.

A woman concerning whom her husband warned her, saying to her, “Do not seclude yourself with so-and-so,” and she transgressed his words and secluded herself: her husband brings her up to the Temple, and there the koen gives her water in which the “Scroll of the Sotah” was erased. If the woman had indeed become impure, these waters kill the sotah; and if she is pure, the waters do not harm her, and she is permitted to return to her husband.

Granted, according to Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel, this is [it works out well]

as it is written [Numbers 5:19]: “And the koen shall administer an oath to her, and the koen shall say to the woman,

,

‘If no man has lain with you.’” “

And if you have not gone astray into impurity under your husband, be clean

from these bitter waters that bring a curse.” And it did not repeat it and say: “And if he has lain with you, you shall not be clean,” for from the implication of the blessing you hear the curse.

But according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds: “A double condition” is required, and from a positive statement you do not hear a negative statement, “And if he has lain with you,

be strangled

[be strangled]

should have been written!?

He said [he answered]

Rabbi Tanhum:

The curse is also hinted at in the verse, for

“be clean”

is written defectively [without a yod],

written

and its meaning is like “be strangled.”

And thus the condition is interpreted: “If you have not gone astray—be clean,” in the sense of purity and cleanliness, like the regular reading of this word; and likewise, “be clean [like ‘be strangled’]—but if you have gone astray” [if you have gone astray], for we interpret the condition of the first oath according to its proximity to the wording of the oath of the curse mentioned in the following verses.

And now we raise a difficulty against the words of Rabbi Hanina:

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

Be clean

,” which implies the language of cleanliness and purity, and implies the language of punishment and strangulation, as explained.

For according to Rabbi Meir, the condition must be repeated, and from a positive statement you do not hear a negative statement.

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

to write specifically “be clean,” which also implies “be strangled”? Let the Merciful One write “you shall live,” or another expression whose meaning would be a blessing if she had not become impure!?

And we answer:

It was necessary

to write “be clean,” which implies “be strangled,” because if the verse had not hinted at her punishment,

it might enter your mind to say: ‘If no man has lain

with you’—

be clean; but if he has lain with you, neither be clean nor be strangled

—that is, you will not receive punishment,

but it is merely a prohibition

: she transgressed, but she is not punished.

It teaches us

, if he has lain with you—be strangled.

One who became impure through a corpse is not purified until “the waters of purification” [water in which the ashes of the “red cow” were mixed] are sprinkled upon him on the third day of his impurity and on the seventh day. The matter of these sprinklings is written in the portion of Hukkat several times, and below it will be explained why the verse needed to repeat its words.

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds: “From a positive statement you do not hear a negative statement,”

this is [it works out well]

as it is written [Numbers 19:12]: “

: "

He shall purify himself with it

[with the waters of purification]

on the third day and on the seventh day he shall be clean; and if he does not purify himself

on the third day and on the seventh day, he shall not be clean.”

For according to Rabbi Meir one must repeat and write both sides,

but according to Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel

there is a difficulty:

why do I need

to write “and if he does not purify himself,” since “from a positive statement you hear a negative statement”!? And we answer:

It was necessary

to write, “If he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he shall not be clean,” and the first verse alone would not have sufficed.

For without this verse,

it might enter your mind to say: The mitzva of sprinkling

is ideally

on the third and on the seventh, but wherever he did it on one of them, he did it

—that is, if they sprinkled upon him on one of the two days, either on the third or on the seventh, he is pure.

It teaches us

that both sprinklings, on the third and on the seventh, are indispensable; and if he omitted one of them, he is not purified.

Now the Gemara returns to explain the repetition of the verses, according to everyone.

For after the mitzva of sprinkling on the third and on the seventh was written, and the verse returned to teach that both sprinklings are indispensable, there is therefore a difficulty: “

And the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure on the third day and on the seventh day

” [there, verse 19]

why do I need

it? What did the verse need to repeat and say!?

And we answer:

It was necessary,

for if this verse had not been stated,

it might enter your mind to say:

What is stated: “

third

” comes

to exclude

that they should not sprinkle upon him the first sprinkling on the

second

day of his impurity.

And likewise, what is stated: “

seventh

” comes

to exclude

that they should not sprinkle upon him the second sprinkling on the

sixth

day of his impurity.

Because

if

they advance the sprinklings, he is

reducing the days of

his

purity.

But where he did it [they sprinkled upon him]

on the third and on the eighth, thereby increasing

the days of

the days of

purity,

let us say: It is proper

and he is pure.

It teaches us

that the Torah specifically said the third and the seventh, so that there are four days between one sprinkling and the other, but if they are the third and the eighth, with five days between them, he is not purified, and he must return and receive “the second sprinkling” when four days have passed after they sprinkled upon him on the eighth day.

And we ask: And the additional matter that the verse mentioned above adds and concludes: “

And he shall purify himself on the seventh day

why do I need

” to repeat and write it?

And we answer:

It was necessary

to say it, because otherwise

it might enter your mind to say:

What the verse required two sprinklings for,

that applies to sacred things

, whose law is more stringent,

but for teruma

one may say:

with one

sprinkling

it is also sufficient [one sprinkling suffices].

.

It teaches us

that even for becoming pure for teruma, two sprinklings are required.

Mishna:

One who betroths a woman and says

afterward: “

I thought

at the time of the betrothal

that she was the daughter of a koen

, [a koen’s daughter], and I betrothed her on condition that she was the daughter of a koen,

but she is a Levite woman,

and I do not desire a Levite’s daughter.”

And likewise, if he said: “I thought at the time of the betrothal that she was a

Levite woman,

and I betrothed her on that condition,

but she is the daughter of a koen

, and I do not desire a koen’s daughter.”

And likewise, if he said: “I thought that she was

poor, but she is wealthy.”

Or if he said: “I thought that she was

wealthy, but she is poor.”

In all these cases:

she is betrothed, because she

did

did not mislead

him,

but

he misled himself; and since he did not articulate the condition with his mouth, there is no condition here, for “matters in the heart are not matters.”

a. A gentile or a Canaanite slave who betroths an Israelite woman, and likewise an Israelite who betroths a gentile woman or a Canaanite maidservant: the betrothal does not take effect.

b. Betrothal does not take effect with a married woman, nor with his wife’s sister as long as his wife is alive.

c. The tanna of the Mishna holds: Betrothal does not take effect for a stranger with a yevama who has not undergone halitza from the yavam.

A gentile

who says to a Jewish woman

: “

Behold, you are betrothed to me after I convert.”

Or

a Jew who says to a gentile woman: “Behold, you are betrothed to me

after you convert.”

And likewise, a slave who says to a woman: “Behold, you are betrothed to me

after I am freed

and become a free man.”

Or

a free man who said to a maidservant: “Behold, you are betrothed to me

after you are freed

and become a free woman.”

And likewise, one who says to a married woman: “Behold, you are betrothed to me

after your husband dies

and you become permitted to every man.”

Or

one who said to his wife’s sister: “Behold, you are betrothed to me

after she dies,

my wife, who is

your sister,

and you become permitted to me.”

And likewise, one who says to a yevama: “Behold, you are betrothed to me

after your yavam performs halitza for you

and you become permitted to the public.”

In all these cases:

she is not betrothed,

since it is impossible for the betrothal to take effect now, these betrothals are “a matter that has not yet come into the world,” and they are not betrothals.

And likewise, one who says to his fellow: If your wife gives birth to [if she gives birth to]

a female, behold

your daughter

is betrothed to me

when she is born

is not betrothed,

for it is impossible to betroth a fetus, and it is also impossible to betroth her now on condition that the betrothal take effect when she comes into the world.

Gemara:

a. Produce that is attached to the ground is not liable for terumot and tithes, and it is also impossible to separate it as teruma or tithe for produce detached from the ground.

b. It is impossible to separate terumot and tithes from something exempt for something liable for terumot and tithes, and likewise it is impossible to separate from something liable for what is exempt from terumot and tithes.

We learned there

Terumot, chapter 1, Mishna 5:

One may not separate teruma

separate teruma

from detached produce

which is obligated in terumot and tithes

for attached produce

which is exempt from terumot and tithes,

and if

he separated teruma,

even after the fact,

his teruma is not teruma.

He asked

asked

Rav Asi of Rabbi Yohanan:

when

he said: “

The produce of this garden bed,

which is

detached

and obligated in terumot and tithes,

shall be teruma for the produce of this garden bed

which is now

attached,

and exempt from terumot and tithes, and I wish the separation to take effect when these fruits are detached”—and afterward those fruits were detached, what is the law of this separation?

And likewise, if he said: “

The produce of this garden bed,

which is now

attached

and exempt,

shall be teruma for the produce of this garden bed

which is now

detached,

and obligated in terumot and tithes, and I wish the separation not to take effect upon the attached produce now, but only

when it is detached, and

afterward

it was detached

those fruits,

what

is their law? For one may say: Since now they are not detached and are exempt from terumot and tithes, it is like consecrating something that has not yet come into the world. Or let us say: Since he does not wish the separation to take effect now, but only when the fruits are detached, and since it is in his power to detach the fruits, they are regarded as detached, and he can separate them when they are detached.

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan: He can separate teruma, and even though he must perform an action—detaching the fruits from the ground—it is not like something that has not yet come into the world, because

every

thing

that is in his power

to do

is not considered to be lacking an action [

it is not considered to be lacking an action].

He raised an objection to him

Rav Asi to Rabbi Yohanan:

“If one says to a woman: ‘Behold, you are betrothed to me after I convert

or he said

‘after you convert’,

or

‘after I am freed’

or

‘after you are freed’,

or

‘after your husband dies’,

or

‘after your sister dies’,

or

‘after your levir performs ḥalitza for you’—

she is not betrothed.

And

granted, all of them

all the cases

are not in his power,

for it is not in his power to free himself or the one betrothed to him, and it is impossible for him to kill the woman’s husband or her sister, and he cannot perform ḥalitza for her.

But a convert

is

in his power,

for it is in his power to convert himself; and if it is as you say, that you hold: Everything that is in his power is not considered to be lacking an action, then a male convert and a female convert are not “something that has not yet come into the world,” so why are their betrothals not betrothals!?

And we answer:

A convert, too, is not in his power

to convert himself.

For Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: