Kiddushin 62a (סב.) — the Talmud in English

And we ask:

What

does “You shall eat the sword” mean,

as though it implies: You will be satiated by eating a sword!?

He said [that is, he explained]:

he explained]

Rava: Coarse salt [a coarse variety of salt],

,

hard barley bread [hard barley bread],

,

and onions.

For

this

is what the Master said: Large oven-baked bread [a large loaf baked in a large oven ]

dry with salt, and onions,

hard

for

the health of the

body, just

as

swords.

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

With regard to a woman whose husband warned her, saying to her: “Do not seclude yourself with so-and-so,” and she violated his instruction and secluded herself, her husband brings her to the Temple. There the kohen gives her to drink water into which the “Scroll of the Sotah” has been erased. If the woman did in fact become impure, these waters cause the sotah to die; but if she is pure, the waters do not harm her, and she is permitted to return to her husband.

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

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

,

‘If no man has lain with you.’” “

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

from these bitter, cursing waters.” The verse did not repeat this and say: “And if a man has lain with you, do not be clean,” because from the implication of the blessing you can understand the curse.

But according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that “a repeated condition” is required, and that from a positive statement you cannot infer its negative counterpart, “And if a man has lain with you,

be strangled” [be strangled]

[be strangled]

should have been required!?

Rabbi Tanḥum said [he answered]:

In the verse the curse is also alluded to, because

The curse is also hinted at in the verse, for

“be clean”

is written defectively [without a yod] and

is written

in a form that can be read as “be strangled.”

And this is how the condition is interpreted: “If you have not gone astray — be clean,” using language of purity and cleanliness, as is the regular reading of this word; and likewise: “Be clean [that is, be strangled] — but if you have gone astray” [if you have gone astray], for we interpret the condition of the first oath in light of its proximity to the language of the oath of the curse mentioned in the following verses.

And now we raise a difficulty according to Rabbi Ḥanina:

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir, this is why it is written: “

Be clean

,” which connotes both cleanliness and purity and punishment and strangulation, as explained.

For according to Rabbi Meir, the condition must be repeated, and from a positive statement one cannot infer its negative counterpart.

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

the Torah to write specifically “be clean,” which can also mean “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 can mean “be strangled,” because if the verse had not alluded to her punishment,

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

with you —

be clean; but if a man has lain with you, you shall not be clean and you shall not be strangled,’

meaning that she would not receive a punishment,

but merely a prohibition

: she had committed a prohibited act but would not be punished.

The verse therefore teaches us

that if a man has lain with her, she is to be strangled.

One who became impure through contact with a corpse does not become pure until mei ḥatat are sprinkled upon him [water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer] on the third day of his impurity and on the seventh day. This matter of the sprinklings is written several times in the passage of Ḥukkat, and below it will be explained why the verse had to repeat its statements.

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that “from a positive statement one cannot infer its negative counterpart,”

this works out [it is well understood]

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, and he shall be pure; but if he does not purify himself

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

For according to Rabbi Meir, it is necessary to repeat the condition and write both sides,

but according to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel,

the difficulty is:

Why do I need

the Torah to write “but if he does not purify himself”? Is it not the case that “from a positive statement you can infer its negative counterpart”? 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 pure,” 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 seventh days, but if he performed it on either one of them, he has done what was required,

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

The verse therefore teaches us

that both sprinklings, on the third and on the seventh days, are indispensable, and if one of them is omitted, he does not become pure.

The Gemara now returns to explain the repetition of the verses according to everyone.

For once the mitzva of sprinkling on the third and seventh days has been written, and the verse returned to teach that both sprinklings are indispensable, the following difficulty arises: “

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

” [ibid., verse 19]

why do I need

this? Why did the verse need to repeat and say it!?

And we answer:

It was necessary,

because if this verse had not been stated,

it might enter your mind to say

that what is stated,

“third”

, comes

to exclude

sprinkling the first sprinkling upon him on the

second

day of his impurity.

Likewise, what is stated,

“seventh”

comes

to exclude

sprinkling the second sprinkling upon him on the

sixth

day of his impurity.

Because

if

the sprinklings are performed early, he

thereby reduces the days of

his

purity.

But if, after the fact, [when they sprinkled upon him]

on the third and on the eighth, thereby increasing [adding]

the days of

his

purity,

say: It is perfectly acceptable

and he is pure.

The verse therefore teaches us

that the Torah specifically requires the third and seventh days, with four days between one sprinkling and the other, but if he is sprinkled on the third and eighth days, with five days between them, he does not become pure, and he must return and receive the “second sprinkling” once four days have passed after he was sprinkled on the eighth day.

And we ask: The additional verse mentioned above concludes: “

And he shall purify himself on the seventh day

why do I need

it to be repeated and written?

And we answer:

It was necessary

to state it, because otherwise

it might enter your mind to say

that the requirement of two sprinklings

applies specifically to sacrificial food,

whose status is more stringent,

but with regard to teruma,

one might say:

one

sprinkling

is also sufficient [one sprinkling is enough].

.

The verse therefore teaches us

that even for purification in order to partake of teruma, two sprinklings are required.

Mishna:

If one betrothed a woman and said

afterward: “

I thought

at the time of the betrothal

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

,

but she is the daughter of a Levite,

and I do not want the daughter of a Levite.”

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

Levite,

and I betrothed her on that condition,

but she is the daughter of a kohen,

and I do not want the daughter of a kohen.”

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

poor, but she is rich.”

Or if he said: “I thought that she was

rich, but she is poor.”

In all these cases:

she is betrothed, because she

did

not mislead

him;

but

he misled himself. And since he did not state the condition explicitly, there is no valid condition, because “matters in the heart are not considered matters.”

a. When a gentile or a Canaanite slave betroths a Jewish woman, or when a Jew 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 that betrothal does not take effect when a stranger betroths a yevama who has not undergone ḥalitza from the yavam.

A gentile

who says to a Jewish woman

: “

You are betrothed to me after I convert.”

Or

a Jew who says to a gentile woman: “You are betrothed to me

after you convert.”

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

after I am freed

and become a free man.”

Or

a free man who says to a maidservant: “You are betrothed to me

after you are freed

and become a free woman.”

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

after your husband dies

and you become permitted to everyone.”

Or

one who says to his wife’s sister: “You are betrothed to me

after my wife dies,

who is

your sister,

and you become permitted to me.”

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

after your yavam performs ḥalitza for you

and you become permitted to the outside world.”

In all these cases:

she is not betrothed,

because betrothal cannot take effect now. Therefore, these acts of betrothal concern “something that has not yet come into the world,” and they are not betrothals.

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

a female, then

your daughter

is betrothed to me

” when she is born,

she is not betrothed,

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

Gemara:

a. Produce that is attached to the ground is not subject to terumot and tithes, and it is likewise impossible to designate it as teruma or tithe for produce that has been detached from the ground.

b. It is impossible to separate terumot and tithes from produce exempt from terumot and tithes on behalf of produce that is obligated in them, and likewise it is impossible to separate from produce that is obligated in them on behalf of produce that is exempt from them.

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 did separate it,

even after the fact,

his teruma is not teruma.

Rav Asi asked

asked

Rabbi 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 currently

attached,

and exempt from terumot and tithes, and I wish the separation to take effect when this produce is detached,” and afterward that produce was detached, what is the status of this separation?

And likewise, if he said: “

The produce of this garden bed

which is currently

attached

and exempt

shall be teruma for the produce of this garden bed

which is currently

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

that produce was detached

that produce,

what

is its status? For it may be said: Since it is not currently detached and is exempt from terumot and tithes, this is like consecrating something that has not yet come into the world. Or perhaps it may be said: Since he does not wish the separation to take effect now, but only when the produce is detached, and since it is in his power to detach the produce, it is considered detached, and he can designate it as teruma when it is detached.

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan: He can separate it, and although he must perform an act — detaching the produce from the ground — it is not considered something that has not yet come into the world, because

anything

that

is in his power

to do

is not considered to be lacking an act

it is not considered to be lacking an act.

Rav Asi challenged Rabbi Yohanan

Rav Asi challenged 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 emancipated,”

or

“after you are emancipated,”

or

“after your husband dies,”

or

“after your sister dies,”

or

“after your yavam performs halitza for you”:

she is not betrothed.

And

granted, in all the other cases

all the cases

it is not in his power,

for he does not have the power to emancipate himself or the woman to whom he seeks to betroth himself, and he cannot kill the woman’s husband or her sister, nor can he perform halitza for her.

But a convert

is

in his power,

for he has the power to convert himself. And if it is as you say, that you hold that anything in his power is not considered to be lacking an act, then a male convert and a female convert are not “something that has not yet come into the world.” Why, then, is their betrothal not valid!?

And we answer:

A convert, too, is not in his power

to convert himself.

As Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: