Talmud for Kiddushin 3:1

ולא בזכור ולא בבהמה רבי שמואל רבי אבהו ר' לעזר בשם רבי חנינה בן נח שבא על אשתו שלא כדרכה נהרג מה טעם (בראשית ב) ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד ממקום ששניהן עושין בשר אחד ר' יוסי בעא הערייה בזכור מהו הערייה בבהמה מה היא וכל העריות לא מן הנידה למדו זכור מינה בהמה מינה עד כדון בישראל בגוים אמר ר' מנא לא מינה ודבק באשתו ולא באשת חבירו כל שהוא ודכוותה לא בזכור ולא בבהמה אפי' כל שהוא הרי למדנו גוים אין להן קידושין מהו שיהא להם גירושין ר' יודה בן פזי ור' חנין בשם ר' חונה רובה דציפורין או שאין להן גירושין או ששניהן מגרשין זה את זה ר' יוחנן דצפרין ר' אחא ר' חיננא בשם ר' שמואל בר נחמן (מלאכי ב) כי שנא שלח וגו' עד את ה' אלהי ישראל בישראל נתתי גירושין לא נתתי גירושין באומות העולם ר' חנניה בשם ר' פינחס כל הפרשה כתיב יי צבאות וכאן כתיב אלהי ישראל ללמדך שלא ייחד הקב"ה שמו בגירושין אלא בישראל בלבד מילתיה דר' חייה רבה אמרה גוים אין להן גיורשין דתני ר' חייה בן גוי שגירש את אשתו והלכה ונישאת לאחר וגירשה ואחר כך נתגיירו שניהן אין אני קורא עליה לא יוכל בעלה הראשון אשר שלחה לשוב לקחתה ותני כן מעשה בא לפני רבי והכשיר בשטר הדא דתימר בשטר שאינו יפה שוה פרוטה אבל בשטר שהוא יפה שוה פרוטה ככסף הוא תני רבי חייה כן לא סוף דבר בשטר שהיא יפה שוה פרוטה והלא מתקדשת היא האשה בכל דבר שהוא יפה שוה פרוטה אלא אפילו כתבו על החרס או על נייר ונתנו לה ה"ז מקודשת

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime. What has been said about the stars, applies to those which are not generally seen until nightfall; for, no note is taken of those which appear before the day is terminated. Therefore, R. Yosse bar R. Aboon says: It means three stars not counting, R. Jacob from Darom (south) says: One star indicates that it is still day; but two stars certainly show that it is night. Is there any doubt of this? No; the doubt can only exist between the stars visible by day, and the other stars. With regard to this, we are taught that it is still day as long as the sky is red towards the east; SIGN OF [GOD'S] ANGER3 WHY MAKE MENTION OF IT? THEREUPON R. ELIEZER SAID TO HIM: I ALSO DID NOT SAY TO PRAY4 BUT TO MAKE MENTION [IN THE WORD] ‘HE CAUSETH THE WIND TO BLOW AND THE RAIN TO FALL’5 -IN ITS DUE SEASON. HE [R. JOSHUA] REPLIED TO HIM: IF THAT IS SO ONE SHOULD AT ALL TIMES MAKE MENTION OF IT. WE PRAY FOR RAIN ONLY CLOSE TO THE RAINY SEASON. R. JUDAH SAYS: THE LAST TO STEP BEFORE THE ARK6 ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FEAST MAKES MENTION, THE FIRST DOES NOT; ON THE FIRST DAY OF PASSOVER THE FIRST MAKES MENTION, THE LAST DOES NOT. GEMARA. What has the Tanna [in mind] when he teaches WHEN etc.?7 -The Tanna refers to [a Mishnah] elsewhere which teaches: We make mention of the Power of Rain in the [benediction of] the Revival of the Dead,8 and we pray for [rain] in the Benediction of the Years9 and [we insert] the Habdulah10 in [the benediction] ‘Thou favourest man with knowledge’.11 [With that passage in mind] the Tanna now teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain? Would it not have been more appropriate to teach it there, why did he leave it until now? — [Say] rather, because the Tanna had just completed [learning the Tractate] Rosh Hashanah12 where we have learnt: And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water. And, [as there] he taught: ‘And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water,’ therefore there he teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain. But let him teach: When do we [begin] to make mention of Rain: why, the Power of Rain?-R. Johanan said: Because Rain comes down by the Power [of God], as it is said, Who doeth great things und unsearchable, marvellous things without number.13 And it is [further] written, Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields.14 Where [in these verses is this idea] implied? — Rabbah b. Shila replied: It is derived from the analogous use of the word heker in verses treating of Creation. Here it is written, ‘Who doeth great things and unsearchable’. And there it is written, ‘Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, The Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching out.15 And [of Creation] it is [also] written, Who by Thy strength settest fast the mountains, Who art girded about with might.16 Whence do we know that mention of Rain is to be made in the Prayer?17 - It has been taught: To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart.18 What is Service of Heart? You must needs say, Prayer. And the verse following reads, That I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain.19 R. Johanan said: Three keys the Holy One blessed be He has retained in His own hands and not entrusted to the hand of any messenger, namely, the Key of Rain, the Key of Childbirth, and the Key of the Revival of the Dead. The Key of Rain, for It is written, The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season,20 The Key of Childbirth, for it is written, And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

“The Gibeonite.” Rebbi Yose said, they were worried about them only because of the detriment to the families¹⁶Gibeonites are descendants of genuine proselytes; they are only excluded from intermarrying with Jews because they are considered undesirable. The extended discussion of the problem of Gibeonites is in Qiddušin 4:1.. Could you not say, because of the disability of slaves¹⁷Would the fact that the Gibeonites were “wood cutters and water drawers for the congregation” (Jos. 9:21) imply that they had servile status? Since nowhere in the Bible we hear that they were freed, their descendants then would still be slaves and unable to contract marriages.? If that were true, one who cohabits with a Gibeonite would not be subject to a fine¹⁸Mishnah 3:2.; but we have stated: One who cohabits with a Gibeonite is subject to a fine¹⁹Therefore, even in the time of Joshua the Gibeonites were subordinate but not servile..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin

Only if it be with his and her agreement⁸⁸While preliminary marriage essentially is a unilateral act by the groom where the woman only has a right of refusal but no active role, a symphōn is a contract between parties of equal standing.. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion⁸⁹As A. Gulak (loc.cit. Note 69) points out, since the disagreement is about the nature of the contract, not its contents, it is clear that even for the woman the preliminary marriage is conditional and will be void if any of the conditions were not satisfied. The difference in the status of the contract is that in case of preliminary marriage, the woman would have to return the arra and would have no right unilaterally to cancel the marriage., Rebbi Ḥanina⁹⁰As shown subsequently in the paragraph, he really is the later R. Ḥananiah, not the earlier R. Ḥanina. said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar⁹¹In an intercalary year, when the 12th month is reduplicated as “second Adar” to make sure that Passover fall after the spring equinox., Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man⁹²Since R. Ḥaggai reported R. Ze‘ira’s opinion, rather than his own.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah⁹³Mishnah 3:11. R. Ḥaggai on his own shows that the Mishnah supports R. Ze‘ira since it shows that one party can accept the consequences of preliminary marriage without imposing the same consequences on the other party. Since (Note 89) the preliminary marriage even in the woman’s opinion was conditional, the ability of the groom to unilaterally terminate the relationship is not impaired if one rules following R. Ze‘ira. supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn⁹⁴Do the rules of Mishnah 3:11 also apply to symphōn?? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and⁹⁵Reading או as (ה)אוּ, not אוֹ (A. Gulak; cf. also S. Lieberman, ו=או=הוא, Tarbiz 4, 1933, pp. 377–378.) preliminary marriage.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, may a male bastard not marry a female bastard¹³⁹In Mishnah Qiddushin 4:3 (Note 135), R. Jehudah makes a sweeping statement that no two people disqualified from marrying into the congregation may marry one another. The rabbis also will agree that a Moabite or Ammonite cannot marry a Moabite or Ammonite woman, cf. Mishnah 3. R. Jehudah may hold that converts form a congregation of their own and therefore bastards are prohibited from marrying them but are permitted to marry bastards, or he may hold, as is asserted later in the Halakhah, that bastards should not marry any Jew and are prohibited from marrying other bastards.? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Jacob from Gebal stated before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Jehudah stated that a male bastard should not marry a female bastard so that bastards should disappear from the world¹⁴⁰In Mishnah Qiddushin 3:13, R. Tarphon counsels the male bastard to live with a slave girl whose children will be slaves not legally connected with him. If he converts (and therefore frees) his biological children at birth they will be converts, free from the taint of bastardy. The female bastard may marry a convert; since this marriage is legal and untainted, the child will be a convert, not a bastard (Mishnah Qiddushin 3:12).. Similarly, is an Ammonite man forbidden to marry an Ammonite woman? Was that needed for the rabbis? For if Rebbi Jehudah would think that disqualified converts form one of the Eternal’s congregations, then [the Ammonite] could not marry an Ammonite woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation¹⁴¹The text given is the corrector’s. The uncorrected text is inconsistent: שהוא קהל ײ֨ אצלו which probably should be שהיא קהל ײ֨ אצלו “for she belongs to the Eternal’s congregation [forbidden] to him,” cf. Mishnah 3.. He could not marry an Egyptian woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation¹⁴²For R. Jehudah only.. Rebbi Mattania said, one frees a slave girl for him. Similarly, could an Egyptian man not marry an Egyptian woman? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Benjamin, an Egyptian convert, was a student of Rebbi Aqiba. He said, I am an Egyptian convert married to an Egyptian convert. My son is an Egyptian convert; I shall marry him to an Egyptian convert so that my grandson will be qualified to marry into the congregation¹⁴³In the Babli, 78a, Rabba bar bar Ḥana justifies Benjamin against R. Aqiba since Mishnah Qiddushin 3:12 states that in all marriages that are perfectly lawful the status of the child is determined by that of the father alone.. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, my son, it is not so. But you marry him to the daughter of an Egyptian woman convert so that there should be three generations on every side.¹⁴⁴The text (without R. Aqiba’s remark) is in the Babli, Yebamot 76b, 78a; Soṭah 9a. A full text is in Tosephta Qiddushin 5:4. There, the text is up-to-date, following Mishnah Yadaim 4:5: “Rebbi Aqiba told him: Benjamin, you erred in the practice. Since Sanherib came and mixed all peoples {by mass deportations}, neither Ammonites and Moabites {permanently barred} nor Egyptians and Edomites {barred for two generations} are in their places … but everybody may marry one of any family on earth.” But in Tosephta Yadaim 4:18 it is stated that from all peoples only the restrictions on Egyptians are valid since Ezechiel (29:13) certified that the Egyptians returned to their land. In any case, it is clear that R. Aqiba asserts that an Egyptian woman may marry an Egyptian man.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy