meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Talmud/Bavli/Seder Nashim/Kiddushin/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Kiddushin
  קידושין
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Kiddushin
  
  
  
  Daf 1a
  
  
  
  Daf 1b
  
  
  
  Daf 2a
  
  A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two ways.  [She is] acquired through money, a document and relations.   Through money: Beit Shammai say [this means] a dinar or the equivalent of a dinar. And Beit Hillel say a pruta or an equivalent of a pruta.  How much is a pruta? One eight of an Italian issar. 
  She acquires herself through a bill of divorce or if her husband dies.  A Yevamah is acquired through relations and acquires herself through halitzah or the death of the Yavam. 
  GEMARAH: A woman is acquired What is the difference here that it is written "a woman is acquired" and [the later mishna which states] "the man sanctifies"? Because the Tanna wanted to write "money", and money we have learned by analogy of the verb TAKE לקח - from the field of Ephron.
  It is written here (Deut. 22:13) "when a man takes a woman" and it is written there (Gen. 23:13) "I gave the money of the field, take it from me".
  And taking is called acquisition as it is written "the field which Abraham bought"
  
  Daf 2b
  
  Also "fields will be bought with money" (Jer. 32:44), the Tanna wrote "the woman is acquired".
  Q: The Tanna should have written there (2:1) "the man acquires"? A: first he used biblical language and then rabbinical language. What is the meaning of the rabbinical language? - he makes her forbidden for the whole world, like property of the Temple.
  Q: The Tanna should have written here (1:1) "the man acquires"? A: He wanted to write at the end "she acquires herself", he wrote in the beginning also a reference to herself.
  Q: He should have written "the man acquires and makes the [woman]acquire herself"? A: Since in the case of the husband's death it is not him, but rather God who makes the wife acquire herself.
  Or if you wish you could say If it was written "[the man] acquires" I would have thought that it means even against her will, therefore the Tanna wrote "the woman is acquired" - with her consent only
  and what is the reason it(the mishna) teaches three(in the feminine)? Let it teach three (in the masculine)! Because they wanted to teach the word derech (way) and derech is a feminine word, as is written (in the torah): "and you shall inform them the way(derech) they shall go upon (literally "they shall go on her"). (Exodus 18:20).
  But what of that which was learnt (in a baraisa): (The mishna says:) "In seven(masucline) ways(derachim), the zav is examined" (Mishna Zavim, chapter 2). Let is teach seven (in the feminine)! (The mishna uses the masculine here) because they want to teach derech and derech is a masculine word, as is written (in the torah): In one way they will go out to you, and in seven (masculine) ways (derachim) they will flee before you. (Devarim 28: 7). (End of beraisa). If so, there is a difficulty between one verse (in torah) and the other, and there is a difficulty also between one mishna and the other.
  Between one verse and the other, there is no difficulty. (For) here ( in the verse that was previously used to prove that derech is feminine), where torah is being referred to [and torah is a feminine word, as it says (in tanach): "the teaching (torah) of Hash-m is perfect, restoring the soul" (Tehillim 19:8).], (the word derech) is written as a feminine word. (However,) there (in the verse used in the beraisa to prove that derech is masculine), where war is being referred to [because it is the way of men to make war and not the way of women to make war], (derech is) written as a masculine word. 
  (Between) one mishna and the other (there is) no difficulty. Here (in the mishna) that is referring to a woman, is is reasonable that it teaches for her in the feminine language. (Whilst) there (in Zavim) it is referring to a man, [as it is the way of man to examine (himself in this case) and is not the way of women to examine (themselves in this case) as a woman is also made tamei(impure) through an accident] it teaches in the masculine.
  What is the reason that it (the mishna) teaches three (in the feminine) ...
  
  Daf 3a
  
  
  
  Daf 3b
  
  
   
   
   (The mishna said that the woman can be acquired) With money From where do we know this? and also we learnt (in Ketubot 46b)... The father has authority over his daughter with regard to kiddushin (effected) with money, with a document, or with intercourse. From where do we know that one can acquire with money, and (that if money is used to effect kiddushin) that the money is the father's?
  
  Daf 4a
  
  
      
    "and she will go out for free"; These are the days of Bogerut. "no money"; these are the days of Na'arut.
   
   
    
    
  . 
    
  
  (we return to) the body (of the text): "'And she will go out'; these are the days of bogerut. 'no money'; these are the days of na'arut. The Torah should of only written (regarding) na'arut. Then, (the mention of) bogerut becomes unnecessary.
  Said Raba This comes and elucidates that, just like in the case of toshav and sachir.
  For it was taught in a beraita:
  
  Daf 4b
  
  
     
   
   And just as a Jewish maidservant, that is not acquired with intercourse, is acquired with money: With regard to one who IS acquired with intercourse (a wife), is it not logical that she could be acquired with money? 
  Let the yevama prove otherwise! For she can be acquired with intercourse and cannot be acquired with money.
  
  Daf 5a
  
  
  
  Daf 5b
  
  
  
  Daf 6a
  
  
  
  Daf 6b
  
  
  
  Daf 7a
  
  
  
  Daf 7b
  
  
  
  Daf 8a
  
  
  
  Daf 8b
  
  
  
  Daf 9a
  
  
  
  Daf 9b
  
  
  
  Daf 10a
  
  
  
  Daf 10b
  
  
  
  Daf 11a
  
  
  
  Daf 11b
  
  Now, is this a universal rule? But what of a claim, concerning which it is written: “If a man gives to his neighbor money or utensils to keep” yet we learned: “The oath taken before judges [is imposed] for a [minimum] claim of two silver [ma'ahs] and an admission of a perutah”?  
  There it is similar to “utensils”: just as “utensils” implies [at least] two, so must “money” refer to two [coins],  and just as “money” is something of value,  so “utensils” are something of value.
  But [what about second] tithe, [in regard to which] it is written, “And bind up the money in your hand,” (Deuteronomy 14:25).  Yet we taught: “If one changes a sela of second tithe [copper] coins . . .”?  “The money” came to include [even lesser amounts].
  But what of dedicated property, concerning which it is written, “Then he shall give the money, and it shall be assured to him” (Leviticus 27:19) and yet Shmuel said: If dedicated property worth a maneh is redeemed with the equivalent of a perutah, it is redeemed? There too, we deduce the meaning of “money” from tithes.  
  But what of a woman's kiddushin, concerning which it is written: “When a man takes a wife, and marries her” and we derive the meaning of “taking” from the “taking” mentioned with regard to the field of Ephron, yet we learned: Bet Hillel rules: with a perutah or the value a perutah. Shall we say [then] that R. Assi ruled in accordance with Bet Shammai?
  Rather if stated, it was stated thus: Rav Judah said in the name of R. Assi: Whenever a fixed sum of money is mentioned in the Torah, Tyrian coinage is meant; whereas in rabbinic law, it refers to provincial currency.
  Then what does he teach us? We have already learned it: The five sela's [for redeeming] a firstborn, the thirty [for accidentally killing] a slave, the fifty [shekel penalty for killing] a rapist and a seducer, and the hundred [shekel penalty for] a slanderer, all these are [reckoned] in the holy shekel according to the Tyrian maneh!
  It was necessary for him [to say], “whereas in rabbinic law, it refers to provincial currency” which we did not learn.  For we learned: If one boxes his neighbor's ears, he must pay him a sela. That you should not say, what is a sela? Four zuz, but rather what is a sela? Half a zuz, for it happens that people call half a zuz an istira.
  R. Shimon b. Lakish said: Beth Shammai's reason is in accordance with Hizkiyah. For Hizkiyah said: The verse says, “Then he shall let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8), this teaches that she deducts from her redemption [money] and goes out [free]. 
  Now, if you say that he [the master] gave her a dinar, it makes sense, she can continue deducting until a perutah.  But if you say that he gave her a perutah: what can be deducted from a perutah? But perhaps this is what the Torah said: if he gave her a dinar, she can go on deducting until a perutah; [but] if he gave her a perutah, she does not deduct at all?
  
  
  Daf 12a
  
  You cannot think so, [for] it is similar to designation: just as designation, even though he [the master] can designate her or not, in a case where he cannot designate her, the sale is invalid; so too here, where he cannot deduct, the sale is invalid. 
  And a woman's kiddushin, according to Beth Shammai, is deduced from a Hebrew female slave: just as a Hebrew female slave cannot be acquired for a perutah, so a woman cannot be betrothed for a perutah.
  Then say half a dinar, or two perutahs? Since it excluded a perutah, they established it at a dinar. 
  Rava said: This is Beth Shammai's reason: that the daughters of Israel should not be treated like ownerless property.
  And Bet Hillel says: by a perutah. R. Yosef thought to rule: A perutah, no matter its size. Abaye said to him: But was it not taught about this: And how much is a perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar.
  And should you say: That was only in the time of Moses, but now it is as generally considered by people, but when R. Dimi came, he said: R. Simai estimated in his time: how much is the perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And when Rabin came, he said: R. Dostai, R. Yannai and R. Oshiah estimated: how much is a perutah? A sixth of an Italian issar!
  R. Yosef said back to him: If so, when we taught, Go out and estimate: how many perutahs are there in two sela's? More than two thousand. Seeing that there are not even two thousand, can he [the Tanna] call it more than two thousand? A certain old man said to him: I taught it, close to two thousand. But even so, it is only one-thousand-five-hundred-thirty-six! Since it go beyond half [a thousand], it is called close on two thousand. 
  When R. Dimi came, he said: R. Simai estimated in his time: how much is the perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And when Rabin came, he said: R. Dostai, R. Yannai and R. Oshiah estimated: how much is a perutah? A sixth of an Italian issar. Abaye said to R. Dimi: Shall we say that you and Rabin disagree in accordance with the dispute of the following Tannaim?
  For it was taught: The perutah which the Sages mentioned is an eighth of an Italian issar. [Thus:] one dinar =six silver ma'ahs; one ma'ah =two pundion, one pundion = two issars, one issar = two musmis, one musmis = two kuntrunk, one kuntrunk =two perutahs. Hence the perutah is an eighth of an Italian issar. 
  R. Shimon b. Gamaliel said: three hadrisin = one ma'ah, two hantzin = one hadris, two shamnin = one hanetz, two perutahs = one shamin: hence a perutah equals one sixth of an Italian issar. Shall we say that you agree with the first Tanna, whilst Rabin holds with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?
  He replied: Both Rabin and I agree with the first tanna, yet there is no difficulty: here the issar bears its full value; there, it had depreciated. Here the issar bears its full value, twenty-four going to the zuz; there it had depreciated, thirty-two going to the zuz.
  Shmuel said: If a man betrothed a woman with a date, even if a kor stood at a dinar, she is betrothed, for we are concerned that it may be worth a perutah in Medea. 
  But have we not learned: Bet Hillel say: by a perutah or the worth of a perutah. There is no difficulty: the one refers to certain kiddushin; the other to doubtful kiddushin. 
  A certain man betrothed [a woman] with a bundle of rags. R. Shimi b. Hiyya sat before Rav and examined it: if worth a perutah, she is [betrothed], if not, she is not.  And if it is not worth a perutah, she is not [betrothed]? But didn’t Shmuel say: “We are concerned…”! There is no difficulty: the one refers to certain kiddushin; the other to doubtful kiddushin.
  A certain man betrothed [a woman] with a black marble stone. R. Hisda was sitting and appraising it: if worth a perutah, she is [betrothed]; if not, she is not. Now, if not worth a perutah, she is not betrothed? But didn’t Shmuel say: “We are concerned..” R. Hisda did not agree with Shmuel.
  His mother said to him: But on the day he betrothed her it was worth a perutah! He said to her: It is not within your power to prohibit her to the latter one.
  
  Daf 12b
  
  
  
  Daf 13a
  
  
  
  Daf 13b
  
  
  
  Daf 14a
  
  
  
  Daf 14b
  
  
  
  
  ...cas ou le maitre rejette une ama et de ce fait doit l'indemniser en lui rendant sa liberte, dans ce cas, il y a bien un cas de כסף...
  
  Daf 15a
  
  
  
  Daf 15b
  
  
  
  Daf 16a
  
  
  
  Daf 16b
  
  
  
  Daf 17a
  
  
  
  Daf 17b
  
  
  The Rabbanan taught:
  
  Daf 18a
  
  
  
  Daf 18b
  
  
  
  Daf 19a
  
  
  
  Daf 19b
  
  
  
  Daf 20a
  
  
  
  Daf 20b
  
  
  
  Daf 21a
  
  
  
  Daf 21b
  
  
  
  Daf 22a
  
  
  
  Daf 22b
  
     
    
   
     "The ear that heard My voice on Mount Sinai at the time that I said (Leviticus 25:55) 'For unto Me the children of Israel are servants' - and not servants of servants, while this person went and got a master for himself, shall be pierced."
  
  Daf 23a
  
  
  
  Daf 23b
  
  
  
  Daf 24a
  
  
  
  Daf 24b
  
  
  
  Daf 25a
  
  
  
  Daf 25b
  
  This is like a tannaitic dispute: “And that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut [you shall not offer unto the Lord]” (Leviticus 22:24) all these refer to the testicles, the words of  R. Judah.
  To the testicles and not to the penis!  Rather all these refer even to the testicles, the words of R. Judah. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: They all refer to the penis. R. Yose said: “Bruised and crushed” refer even to the testicles, whereas “broken or cut” refer only to the penis but not to the testicles.
  Large animals are acquired by being handed over and small animals by lifting, the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar. The sages say: small animals are acquired by being led.
  GEMARA. Rav taught in Kimhunia: Large cattle are acquired by meshikhah. Shmuel found Rav’s students. He said to them: Did Rav rule that large cattle are acquired by meshikah? But didn’t we teach: “By mesirah,” and Rav too said by mesirah!  Did he then retract that statement. He ruled in accordance with this Tanna, as it was taught: But the Sages say, Both [large cattle and small] are acquired by meshikah. R. Shimon said: Both by lifting.
  R. Joseph raised a difficulty: If so, to R. Shimon, how could one acquire an elephant? Abaye said to him: By symbolic exchange. Alternatively, he rents its place.
  R. Zera said: He [the purchaser] brings four utensils and places them under its feet. Learn from this that when the purchaser's utensils are in the seller’s domain [and the object being sold is placed in them] the purchaser acquires them. What are we dealing with here? In an alley.    
  
  
  Daf 26a
  
  
  
  Daf 26b
  
  
  
  Daf 27a
  
  
  
  Daf 27b
  
  
  
  Daf 28a
  
  
  
  Daf 28b
  
  
  
  Daf 29a
  
    
  
   
    
  
   
  
   What is meant by "All the commandments of the son are upon the father..."? Maybe [it means] that women are exempt from all the commandments that a son is obligated to fulfill for his father? [But there is a contradictory] Baraita: "[When the verse says] 'a man' (Leviticus 19:3), only a man [is explicitly commanded]. From where do we derive [the obligation of] women [as well]? When the verse states 'a man [is commanded to] fear (plural) his mother and father' (ibid.) [the plural form of 'fear' implies] two [distinct individuals that are obligated]". -?!-
  Says Rav Yehudah "This is what was meant [by the Mishnah when it says "All the commandments of the son are upon the father..."]: All the commandments that are incumbent upon a parent to do for his son, men [i.e. the fathers] are obligated to fulfill while women [i.e. the mothers] are exempt".
  A Baraita states: "A father is obligated to circumcise, redeem, teach Torah to, find a wife for, and teach a trade to his son". There are those that say "[there is] even [an obligation to show his son] how to swim". Rabbi Yehuda Says "all that does not teach his son craft [or trade] teaches him to steal" To steal, do you think? [will really be a result of not teaching your son to trade]? Rather, or as if he taught him how to steal. 
  To circumcise, how do you know? As it is written "and he circumcised his son" and where the father did not circumcise him, the court is obligated to circumcise him. As it is written, "Circumcise for yourselves - all the males." Where the court did not circumcise 
  She, How do you know that She is not obligated? As it is written (Bereishit, 21:4): As God commanded him, him and not her.
  We find: immediately, for generations how do we know? It was taught in the academy of Rabbi Yishmoael Anywhere that it says "G-d commanded" It is with passion, immediately, and for generations. 
  Passion, as it is written,"and he commanded Joshua - And be strong and be courageous [referring to circumcision]." Immediately, and for generations, as it is written, "from the day which G-d commanded, and further your generations" 
  "pidyon haben"... from where do we know this? As it is written (Shemot, 13:2) you will redeem all your firstborn children .........
  how do we know a women isn't obligated in "pidyon haben".....  "your sons" and not "your daughters"
  
  the sages teach  Rabbi Yehuda says
  
  Daf 29b
  
  Anyone that does not have any money, other than 5 selahs, must use them for himself over his son.  what is the reasoning ,because mitzvah that deals with your body becomes first
   rabbi yehuda holds
   
  ...we learn in a brisa either to give your son a pidyon haben or go up to jeruselm . give you son a pidyon haben and then go up to jeruslem    
   
    
   
    The Beraisa taught: to teach him  Torah. From where do we know this?
  That it says in the Pasuk: That you should teach your sons.
  If someone was not taught by his father, he should teach himself, as the Pasuk says: and you should learn. How do I know the mother is not obligated to teach Torah?... Since the word “you shall teach” can also be written “you shall learn”: those who are required to learn Torah are required to teach Torah; those who are not required to learn are not required to teach.
  How do I know that she doesn't have an obligation to teach Torah to herself? Since the word “you shall teach” can also be written “you shall learn”: those whom others are required to teach are required to teach themselves; those whom others are not required to teach are not required to teach themselves. A woman does not have to learn Torah because no one has to teach her. And where do we know this? Because it says in the Pasuk your sons, and not your daughters. The Rabbanan taught: If he can learn OR his son, he comes before his son. Rabbi Yehuda says:
  If your son is an interested person, smart, and has a good memory, then your son comes before you. There was a certain demon in Abaye's rabbinic seminary. When they would enter as a pair, even in the daytime, they'd be damaged. He said to them: No one should provide lodging to him. Maybe a miracle will happen.
  He went in and slept in that rabbinic seminary. It appeared to him as a serpet with seven heads. Each time he bowed down, one of its heads fell off.  Rav Acha said to those gathered there the day after: Had there not been a miracle here, I would have been in great danger.
   In a case where he can learn Torah or find a wife, he should learn Torah first and after find a wife And if it's impossible for him without a wife, he should find a wife and after he should learn Torah Rav Yehuda said, "Shmuel said the rule is that you should find a wife and after learn Torah."
  R' Yochanan said, "How can he have the obligation of a wife and learn Torah?" There is no argument This one is referring to us and this one is referring to them.
  
  Daf 30a
  
     
    one [of them] says  
        
   
    
    
   
        
   
  One should always divide his time into thirds. One third for scripture, one third for Mishnah, and one third for Talmud.  
  Therefor the earlier ones were called Soferim because they would count (soferim) all the letters in the Torah, for they would say: The 'vav' of "belly" is the halfway point of the letters of a Torah scroll; "investigated thoroughly" is the halfway point of words; "and he shaved" is the halfway point of verses
  
  Daf 30b
  
  
  
  Daf 31a
  
   It is well known by all that a son fears his father more than his mother because his father teaches him Torah.  Therefore Hashem wrote "fear one's mother" prior to "fear one's father."
      
     
   Asked son, of a widow one Rav Elezar    
     Say to him
  From between lashes (eye lashes), recognizable if you are a son of a widow, you pour water in a bucket for them and let them crow like chickens.    
     
  They came before Rav Ulla [And asked] How much is one required to honor a father and mother? i.e. Are there any limits? and he said to them: Go out and see what one non-Jew in Ashkelon did; his name is Dama ben Nesina. One time the sages sought something worth 600,000 [dinar]. The key was placed under his father's head and Dama ben Nesina would not disturb his father to get the key.
  Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel  They asked Rabbi Eliezer  How much is one required to honor a father and mother? Rabbi Eliezer said to them "Go out and see what one non-Jew in Ashkelon did; his name is Dama ben Nesina." The Sages wanted to purchase a stone for the ephod breastplate worth 600,00 [dinar]. Rav Kahana taught it was worth 800,000 [dinar].  The key was placed under his father's head and Dama ben Nesina would not disturb his father to get the key.
  The following year, Hashem gave a reward [to Dama ben Nesina] and a red heifer was born in his flock. The rabbis went to him [to purchase it]. He said to them, "I know that were I to ask from you any amount of money in the world, you would pay me; however, all I am requesting is the money that I lost as a result of honoring my father."
  
  Daf 31b
  
  brings to the next world
  Rabbi Abahu said 
  
  Daf 32a
  
  They asked R. Eliezer: To what extent do we take the honoring of father and mother?  He responded: Imagine the parent takes a wallet and throws it into the sea right in front of you.  You may not humiliate him
  
  Daf 32b
  
    
     
   
         
      
    
    
  Our rabbis taught On the verse "you must rise before the elderly" You might think even before the sinful elderly, to teach us the verse continues and says "zaken" and zaken only means a wise person as is written, gather for me seventy men from the Israelite elders. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says, Zaken only means one who has squired wisdom as it states, God has acquired me the beginning of his ways.
  You might think you must rise before him him from a distance, to teach us the verse continues and states "and you shall honor" - we don't require rising unless it will bring honor....
  You might think you must honor him with money, to teach us the verse continues and states "you shall rise" - just as rising does not cost so to honor should not cost You might think that you must rise even in the washroom or bathhouse, to teach us the verse states, and you shall honor, - we only require rising when it will bring honor.
  Youmight think that you may shut your eyes as though you don't see him, the verse teaches and states "and you shall fear your god" any matter that is left to the heart is addressed by " You shall fear your god"...
  ...rabbi shimon Ben eliezer says , from where do we know that the elderly must not burden others? The verse teaches "and you shall fear..."... ...Isis Ben yehuda says "before the elder you shall rise" implies all elderly...(end of braita)...
  ...isn't rabbi yosi the same as the first opinion?  ...the difference between them would be realized in the case of a young scholar. ...the first opinion thinks ...a young scholar does not get honored, while rabbi yosi thinks that  ...even if he a young scholar he should be honored.
  ...what is rabbi yosi haglili's reasoning? ...he would say to you ...if you agree with the first opinion then the Torah should have written, "before the elderly zaken shall you rise and. Honor." Rather the Torah separates them to tell you ...that this one is not that one and that one is not this one, this tells you that even a young scholar. 
  And the first opinion thinks that the verse separates them to place "zaken" and "you shall fear God " next to each other. And what is the reasoning of the first opinion? If you agree with rabbi yosi haglili's then the Torah should have written
  
  Daf 33a
  
  "You shall rise and honor the elderly and you shall rise and honor the "zaken" since it didn't write this way we learn that they are the same persona. ...
  ...the master said (in the braita) You might think that you should honor him with money, so the verse teaches and states "you shall rise" just as rising doesn't cost so too honoring should not cost.... And does rising I cure no cost?... Didn't we learn that even one who is in middle of (polishing diamonds ?) must rise before him nonetheless and be idle from his work (including a loss of income)?...
  Rather ... We juxtapose rising with honor, just as honor doesn't cause idleness similarly rising should not cause idleness.... And we also juxtapose honor to to rising, in that just as rising doesn't cost so to honor shouldn't cost.... From this expose they taught ... "It is not fitting for artisans to stand for Torah scholars while they are doing their work".
  Is it really not? But we are taught: "All the artisans of Jerusalem would stand before them and greet them, 'Our brothers from so-and-so, come in peace!'" Rabi Yochanan said, "Before them [the artisans] stand, but not before Torah scholars."
  Rabi Yosi bar Avin said, "Come and see how precious a mitzvah is at its proper time, because [the artisans] stand before them, but not before Torah scholars." Perhaps there is different because if so [if you would not greet them], you would cause them to stumble [sin] in the future [because they will be discouraged from coming]!
  
  Daf 33b
  
  
  
  Daf 34a
  
  and tefillin.
  And what are positive commandments that are not time dependent? Mezuza, building a fence, returning a lost object and sending away the mother bird.
  Is this a general rule? But there are [the commandments of] eating Matza [on Pesach], happiness [on holidays] and assembling which are positive commandments that are not time dependent, yet women are obligated [in these]. Furthermore, there are [the commandments of] learning Torah, having children and redeeming the [firstborn] son that are not time dependent, yet women are exempt?
  Rabbi Yochanon answers: We do not learn [conclusions about specific cases] based on general rules, even when the general rule specifies an exception.
  For we learned in a Mishna: "We can make an eiruv or a shituf out of any food except water and salt." [Is that really true that only water and salt are invalid for an eiruv and a shituf] and nothing else? But mushrooms and triffles are also [invalid. Yet the mishna said any food is acceptable except salt and water!] Rather [we must conclude that] we do not learn [conclusions about specific cases] based on general rules, even when the general rule specifies an exception.
  "and positive commandments that are time dependent, women are exempt." From where do we know this? We derive it from Tefillin. Just like by Tefillin women are exempt, so to by all time dependant positive commandments women are exempt. And Tefillin is derived from [the commandment of] learning Torah. Just like by [the commandment of] learning Torah women are exempt, so too by Tefillin women are exempt.
  [Instead of deriving whether women are obligated in Tefillin by connecting the law of Tefillin to the previous verse, the commandment to learn Torah,] let us connect Tefillin to the [subsequent verse, which contains the] commandment of Mezuzah? Tefillin is connected (i.e adjacent) to the commandment of learning Torah in both the first and second paragraphs [of Shema]. but Tefillin is not connected (i.e. adjacent) to the commandment of Mezuzah in the second paragraph [of Shema. Therefore we derive whether  or not women are obligated in Tefillin from the commandment of learning Torah rather than the commandment of Mezuzah.]
  And let us connect the commandment of Mezuzah to the commandment to learn Torah [which immediately precedes Mezuzah in the second paragraph of Shema and conclude that just as women are no obligated to learn Torah they are also not obligated to have Mezuzot]? Don't consider that, as it's written (right after the commandment of Mezuzah (Deut 11:20) "And you shall write them [i.e. these words which were mentioned in the previous verse] on the doorposts of your house and of your gates." The next verse states:) (Duet 11:21) "So that your days are increased..." [Evidently, the commandment of Mezuzah increases life.] Do men need life but not women!? [That would be ridicoulous. This teaches us that women are obligated in Mezuzah and therefore no connection should be made between Mezuzah and studying Torah.
  But there is the commandment of Succah which is a time dependent commandment as it's written (Lev. 23:42) "You shall dwell in Succoth for 7 days..." The reason [women are exempt] is because the Merciful One wrote [in the continuation of that verse (Lev. 23:42) "all that are] home-born (Ha'ezrach) [in Yisrael shall dwell in Succoth..." The word Ha'ezrach is masculine] to exclude women [from the commandment of Succah]. But had it not been for this [exclusion based on the word Ha'ezrach] women would be obligated [in Succah!? Even without the word Ha'ezrach women should be exempt from Succah because it's a time dependent positive commandment?
  Abaye answers: It's necessary [for the Torah to explicitly exclude women from the commandment of Succah.] [Because otherwise] I might have thought [that] since it's written (Lev. 23:42) "You shall dwell in Succoth..." that you must "dwell" [in Succoth] just as you live [at home]. Just like living [at home] is husband and wife together, so too [dwelling in a] Succah is husband and wife together. [And therefore I would have concluded that despite the fact that in general women are exempt from time dependent positive commandments, Succah is an exception. Therefore it was necessary for the Torah to explicitly exclude women from the commandment of Succah.
  And Rava answers:
  
  Daf 34b
  
   
  What about the Mitzvah to appear in the Beit HaMikdash? Surely that is a Positive, time-bound Mitzvah. The Torah states "your men", showing that women are patur, but if it didn't, would they really be Chayiv?!?!
  We should learn from the word Ri'iyeh by Hakel that women are also Chayiv here.
  Instead of deriving from tefillin that women are patur, we should derive from the mitzvah that one should be happy during holidays that women should be chayiv Abaye says A women is not Chayiv in Simchas Yom Tov, only her husband
  How would you explain that a widow is not included in the simcha, she doesn't have a husband. We're trying to say that if you have a Widow in your neighborhood, you must take care of her.
  So why can't we learn from Hakel? Because there are two places that we learn women are Chayiv, and if it's in two places we learn that those two places are the exception to the rule, not the rule. What about the two places that women are patur from, tefillin and appearing at the Beit HaMikdash?
    
  
  If so, Matza and Hakel are necessary to teach me that women are Chayiv. So why do we need both?  
    Therefore, it's considered a two-place-exception din, and therefore we do not learn from here.
  This only works if you hold that the two-place-exception works, but what if you don't?
  Furthermore How do we know women are Chayiv in positive, non-time-bound Mitzvoth? Because women are chayiv in respecting and fearing their parents. Just like women are chayiv in respecting and fearing their parents, so too they are Chayiv in all non-time-bound positive Mitzvoth.
  
  Daf 35a
  
  And about Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka who says, Pru Urvu also applies to women, how does he answer? Because learning Torah and Pidyon HaBen are two non-time-bound mizvoth that women are not obligated in, therefore we do not learn from them because of the two-place-exception, and therefore women are chayiv in the former type.
  But according to his pshat, Pru Urvu and Fearing Your Parents, which women are obligated in, can form the two-place-exception (And therefore women would not be Chayiv in non-time-bound positive commandments)! We could not have learned one from the other, so it would not form the two-place-exception. This is because had the Torah only said honoring your parents, I would have thought that...... That when the Torah said "they shall have children AND conquer", I would have thought that since only men conquer, only men have the obligation to do Pru Urvu
  And if it had only written Pru Urvu and not learning Torah.. ...I would have thought that only men are obligated in fearing his parents, because only men can honor their parents, and since a woman must honor her husband more than her parents, and therefore cannot be obligated in fearing her parents - therefore, we need both.
  This idea that you cannot learn from Talmud Torah and Pidyon HaBen because it's a two-place-exception, what do you say about the people who do say the two-place-exception doesn't work? Rava Says: The Paponei know of the reason for this, so who is it? Rav Acha Bar Yaakov.
  The pasuk says: "And so that a sign will be in your hand, and a memorial before your eyes, and the letters will be in your mouth.." This equates the entire Torah to tefillin. Just like Tefillin is a positive time-bound commandment and are not obligated, so too women are not obligated in any positive time-bound commandment, and from there we can infer that they are obligated in positive non-time-bound commandments. This is only good if you hold Tefillin is a time-bound positive commandment. But what if you don't?
  Who is the one that says Tefillin are a non-time-bound positive commandment? Rabbi Meir holds this way.  
  And Rabbi Yehuda says  
  And all mitzvos that are negative commandments, how do we know women are chayiv in these? Rabbi Yehuda says, and so was said in the Beit Midrash of Rabbi Shmuel The Pasuk Says: If a man or woman does a sin.. This is to teach us that both men and women are equal in punishments.
  Rebbi Elazar taught in a Beraisa: The Pasuk says: That you will put before them... This is to teach us men and women are equal in the halachot for business. The Dvei Chazakah taught in a Beraisa: The Pasuk says: If someone's ox gores a man or a woman .. We see from here that killing men and women are the same.
  We need all these three things to teach us Women are chayiv in negative commandments. If it only taught the first one, I could say the Torah was just being kind and merciful by allowing her to atone for her sins, but the second din, A man who is involved in business, but not a woman,
  Had it only taught about business, I would have thought that this is so she can do business but about killing a man or woman..
  
  Daf 35b
  
  But I could have said that this only applies to men. And had it only taught about Kofer, I would have thought this was because someone was killed, but otherwise punishments do not apply to a woman. Therefore, we need all three of these to teach us women are chayiv in lavim.
  Besides for Baal Takif (Isur of cutting Peyot) and Bal Taschis (Shaving your beard with a razor). It's understandable why a woman is not obligated in the isur of becoming tamei to a corpse, because the pasuk says "Speak to the Kohanim, the sons of Aharon!" Therefore, we darhsen the sons and not the daughters 
  The Pasuk puts those two psukim together - therefore, we assume anyone who doesn't have the isur of cutting off their peyot don't have the isur of shaving their beard, and since women do not have the isur of shaving off their beard, they do not have the isur of shaving off the peyot
  How do we know women aren't obligated in the isur of using a razor on their beard? You could just assume that it's uncommon for women to have beards.  
  
     Doesn't it mean that this isur applies to them?
  Abaye says 
  And if you think the bnei Aharon were going on all five of those lavim, then we should be able to figure it out from a Kal V'Chomer! I would say
  
  Daf 36a
  
  
  
  Daf 36b
  
  
  
  Daf 37a
  
  
  
  Daf 37b
  
  
  
  Daf 38a
  
  
   
    
       
  Another bereita: Moshe died on the seventh of Adar and he was born on the seventh of Adar. From where [do we know] that he died on the seventh of Adar? As it is stated (Deuteronomy 34:5), "And Moshe, the servant of the Lord died there"; and it is written (ibid., verse 8), "And the Children of Israel wept for Moshe in the Plains of Moav thirty days"; and it is written (Joshua 1:1), "And it was after the death of Moshe, the servant of God;" and it is written (ibid., verse 2), "'Moshe, my servant has died, and now get up, cross'";
  and it is written, "'Go through the midst of the camp and command the people, saying "Prepare provisions for yourselves, since in another three days, you will cross the Jordan"'"; and it is written (Joshua 4:19), "And the people ascended from the Jordan on the tenth of the first month." Take away from [this time] thirty three days retroactively - behold, you have learned that Moshe died on the seventh of Adar!
  And from where [do we know] that Moshe was born on the seventh of Adar? As it is stated (Deuteronomy 31:2), "And he said to them, 'I am a hundred and twenty year today, I cannot still go out and come in.'" Since there is nothing to learn from saying, "today," what is there to learn from saying "today?" It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and fills the number of the years of the righteous ones from day to day and from month to month, as it is stated (Exodus 23:26), "'and I will fill the number of your days.'"
  
  Daf 38b
  
  
  
  Daf 39a
  
  
  
  Daf 39b
  
   
  Our Mishnah: Anyone who does one mitzvah, it is good for them, and their days will be lengthened, and they inherit the land. ... And anyone who does not do one mitzvah, it is not good for them, and their days will not be lengthened, and they will not inherit the land.
  Gemara. They raised a contradiction [from a mishnah]: "These are the things that a person eats their fruits in this world but the principal remains for them in the world to come. These are they:  Honouring parents, acts of lovingkindness, welcoming guests, making peace between people. And the study of Torah is equal to them all." (Mishnah Peah 1:1)
  Rav Yehudah said: This is what [the mishnah] meant to say: ... Anyone who does one additional mitzvah over their innocence, it is good for them and they are similar to one who upholds the entire Torah. But this implies that [they would get all these] with any one?! Rav Shemaya said: That is to say, if they were equal, it counterbalances.
  [Baraita:] "And anyone who does one additional mitzvah over his innocence, it is good for them." They raised a contradiction [from a baraita]:  "Anyone whose innocence outnumbers their sins, it is bad for them, and they are similar to one who burns the entire Torah and not one single letter remains from it.  And anyone whose sins outnumber their innocence, it is good for them, and they are similar to someone who upheld the entire Torah not missing a single letter from it!"
  Abaye said:  Our mishnah makes for them a good day [in this world] and a bad day [in the world to come]. Rava said:  Who is this? It is Rabbi Ya'akov, who said that there is no reward for a mitzvah in this world.
  As it is taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Ya'akov says:  There is no mitzvah written in the Torah that you are given its reward with it without depending on the resurrection of the dead.  About honouring parents, it is written, "In order that your days will be lengthened, and in order that it would be good for you" (Deuteronomy 5:15). About sending away the mother bird, it is written, "In order that it will be good for you and your days will be lengthened" (Deuteronomy 22:7).
  For when his father says to him,  "Go up to the attic and bring me chicks!" And he goes up to the attic, sends away the mother [bird], and takes the children, but on his return, he falls and dies. Where is the goodness of this one's days? Where are the lengthening of this one's days? Rather, "In order that it be good for you"—in the world which is all good; "And in order that your days will be lengthened"—in the world which is all long.
  Perhaps this has never happened? Rabbi Ya'akov saw it happen. But perhaps he was thinking about a sin? God does not act upon bad thoughts.
  But perhaps he was thinking about idolatry, and it is written, "So that you abandon the house of Israel in your minds" (Ezekiel 14:5)? He also [could have done this], and this is what [Rabbi Ya'akov] said:  If you should think there is reward for a mitzvah in this world, why didn't the mitzvot protect him, such that he wouldn't have [bad] thoughts?
  But didn't Rabbi Elazar say: Agents of a mitzvah are not damaged? There, in their going, is different.
  But didn't Rabbi Elazar say:  Agents of a mitzvah are not damaged—neither in their going nor in their returning? It was a rickety ladder that is susceptible to damaging, and in any case which is susceptible to damaging we don't rely on a miracle. As it is written, "Shmuel said: How will I go? If Shaul hears he will kill me!" (1 Samuel 16:2).
  
  Daf 40a
  
  
  
  Daf 40b
  
  "A person should see himself as if half of him is guilty and half of him is meritorious: if he does one commandment, happy is he - since he has determined himself to be judged as meritorious; if he does one sin, woe is to him - since he has determined himself to be judged as guilty. As it is stated (Ecclesiastes 9:18), 'one sinner will destroy much good' - on account of one sin, he destroys much good from himself."
  Rabbi Elazar beRebbe Shimon says, Because the world is judged according to its greater part and the individual is judged according to his greater part, if he does one commandment, happy is he - since he has determined himself and the whole world to be judged as meritorious; if he does one sin, woe is to him - since he has determined himself and the whole world to be judged as guilty. As it is stated (Ecclesiastes 9:18), 'one sinner, etc.' - on account of a single sin that this one did, he destroyed much good from himself and from the whole world."
  Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says, "Even if he is perfectly righteous all of his days but rebelled at the end, he destroyed all of the earlier ones, as it is stated (Ezekiel 33:12), 'the righteousness of a righteous one will not save him on the day of his rebellion;' And even if he is a complete evildoer all of his days but repents at the end, his wickedness is no longer mentioned, as it is stated (Ezekiel 33:12), 'the evil of an evildoer will not make him stumble on the day that he repents from his evil.'" 
  And should he not be like someone who is half sins and half commandments? Said Resh Lakish,  "[It is speaking] about one who regrets the earlier [commandments]."
  Mishnah: Anyone who is [involved in] Scripture, the Oral Law, and proper social behavior will not easily [come to] sin, as it is stated, "And the three-ply cord is not quickly severed" (Ecclesiastes 4:12). Anyone who is not [involved in] Scripture, and not in the Oral Law, and not in proper social behavior is not part of civilization.
  Gemara: Said Rabbi Elazar beRebbe Tsadok,  "To what are righteous ones compared to in this world? To a tree that stands completely in a pure place and its branches lean into an impure place. If its branches are cut, it stands completely in a pure place.  So [too] the Holy One, blessed be He, brings afflictions to the righteous ones in this world in order that they inherit the world to come, as it is stated (Job 8:7), 'And your beginning will be slight but your end will be that you expand greatly.' 
  To what are evildoers similar in this world? To a tree that stands completely in an impure place and its branches lean into a pure place. If its branches are cut, it stands completely in a impure place.  So [too] the Holy One, blessed be He, bestows goodness to the evildoers in this world in order to drive them away and to expel them to the lowest level, as it is stated (Proverbs 14:12), 'There is a path that is straight in font of a person but its end are the paths of death.'" 
  And once Rabbi Tarfon and the Elders were reclining in the attic of the House of Nitzah in Lod [and] this question was asked in front of them: Is study greater or action greater? Rabbi Tarfon answered and said, "Action is greater." Rabbi Akiva answered and said, "Study is greater." They all answered and said, "Study is greater, since study bring about action."
  It was taught [in a bereita], "Rabbi Yose says, 'Study is greater since it preceded [the practice of the commandment of] challah by forty years, tithes (terumot and maaserot) by fifty four, the sabbatical years by sixty one and the jubilee years by one hundred and three.'" 
  One hundred and three? They were a hundred and four. He held that the jubilee year releases at its beginning [and so the count does not include the jubilee year itself].
  "And in the same way as study precedes action, so [too] does its judgment precede that of action" - which is like that [statement] of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said,  "The beginning of a man's judgement (<i>din</i>) is only about words of Torah, as it is stated (Proverbs 17:14),  'The release of water is the beginning of contention (<i>madon</i>)."
  "And in the same way as its judgement precedes  that of action, so [too] does its reward precede that of action, as it is stated, (Psalms 105:44), 'And He gave them the lands of the nations; and the labor of the peoples did they possess, so that they will guard my statutes and keep my laws.'"
  Anyone who is not [involved in] Scripture, and not in the Oral Law: Said Rabbi Yochanan, "And he is disqualified from [giving] testimony." The rabbis learned, "One who eats in the marketplace, behold he is similar to a dog, and there are those that say, 'he is disqualified from [giving] testimony.'" Said Rav Idi Bar Avin, "The law is like those that say."
  Bar Kapara expounded, "An angry one
  
  Daf 41a
  
  
  
  Daf 41b
  
  
  
  Daf 42a
  
  
  
  Daf 42b
  
  
  
  Daf 43a
  
  
  
  Daf 43b
  
  
  
  Daf 44a
  
  
  
  Daf 44b
  
  
  
  Daf 45a
  
  
  
  Daf 45b
  
  
  
  Daf 46a
  
  
  
  Daf 46b
  
  
  
  Daf 47a
  
  
  
  Daf 47b
  
  
  
  Daf 48a
  
  
  
  Daf 48b
  
  
  
  Daf 49a
  
  
  
  Daf 49b
  
   
     
   
  "[Marry me] On the condition that I am righteous". Even if he is entirely wicked, she is married; for perhaps he had thoughts of repentance in mind. "[Marry me] On the condition that I am wicked". Even if he is entirely righteous, she is married; for perhaps he had thoughts of Idol Worship in mind.
  
  Daf 50a
  
  
  
  Daf 50b
  
  
  
  Daf 51a
  
  
  
  Daf 51b
  
  
  
  Daf 52a
  
  
  
  Daf 52b
  
  
  
  Daf 53a
  
  
  
  Daf 53b
  
  
  
  Daf 54a
  
  
  
  Daf 54b
  
  
  
  Daf 55a
  
  
  
  Daf 55b
  
  
  
  Daf 56a
  
  
  
  Daf 56b
  
  
  
  Daf 57a
  
  
  
  Daf 57b
  
  
  
  Daf 58a
  
  
  
  Daf 58b
  
  
  
  Daf 59a
  
  
  
  Daf 59b
  
  
  
  Daf 60a
  
  
  
  Daf 60b
  
  
  
  Daf 61a
  
  
  
  Daf 61b
  
  
  
  Daf 62a
  
  
  
  Daf 62b
  
  
  
  Daf 63a
  
  
  
  Daf 63b
  
  
  
  Daf 64a
  
  
  
  Daf 64b
  
  
  
  Daf 65a
  
  
  
  Daf 65b
  
  
  
  Daf 66a
  
  
  
  Daf 66b
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: The verse (Numbers 25, 12) says, “And therefore say, behold I give to him my covenant of peace—shalom.” When he is shalem (whole/complete) and not when he is chaser (missing something/diminished). But hey, the Torah  wrote “shalom”! Said Rav Nachman: The “vav” of shalom is (written) broken.
  
  Daf 67a
  
  
  
  Daf 67b
  
  
  
  Daf 68a
  
  
  
  Daf 68b
  
  
  
  Daf 69a
  
  
  
  Daf 69b
  
  
  
  Daf 70a
  
  
  
  Daf 70b
  
  
  
  Daf 71a
  
  
      
       
    
     
     
      
      
       
        
    
  The Sages taught At first The Name (of God) consisting of twelve letters would be passed on to everyone, when the amount of violators increased they would only pass on the name to the humblest of the cohanim. The Humble cohanim would swallow the name in the presence of their brother cohanim.
  
  Daf 71b
  
  
  
  Daf 72a
  
  
  
  Daf 72b
  
  
  
  Daf 73a
  
  
  
  Daf 73b
  
  
  
  Daf 74a
  
  
  
  Daf 74b
  
  
  
  Daf 75a
  
  
  
  Daf 75b
  
  
  
  Daf 76a
  
  
  
  Daf 76b
  
  
  
  Daf 77a
  
  
  
  Daf 77b
  
  
  
  Daf 78a
  
  
  
  Daf 78b
  
  
  
  Daf 79a
  
  
  
  Daf 79b
  
  
  
  Daf 80a
  
  
  
  Daf 80b
  
  
  
  Daf 81a
  
  
       
          
  Rav said: A person gets D'Rabanan whipped if he does Yichud, but if a married woman has yichud with a man we do not make her asur to her husband. Rav Ashi says: 
  Mar Zutra would give Malkus to a married woman, but also announce she didn't sleep with the person she did Yichud with. Rav Nachman said to Rav Ashi: Why don't you do like Mar Zutra? He said back to Rav Nachman: Someone may hear of one but not the other.
  Rav Said: Someone who has a a bad reputation you can give Malkus to, because we learn from the pasuk in Shmuel that it is Asur to do things that give you a bad reputation:  
  Rava said: If the woman's husband is in town, she does not have to worry about Yichud. Rav Yosef said: If the door is open to a public place you do not have to worry about Yichud. Rav Bibi once visited Rav Yosef, Once Rav Yosef ate he said to the servants: Remove the ladder from under Bibi. But didn't Rava say: If her husband is in town we do not have to worry? Rav Bibi was different because he and her wife were best friends, and they were intimate.
  Rav Kahana said: If men are in an outer room and women are in an inner room (and the only way to get out is through the outer room), then we do not have to worry about Yichud. But if they are in opposite situations, we learn the opposite.
  In a Beraisa we taught the opposite.... Abaye says: Once Rav Cahana says this, and the Beraisa said the opposite, we should be strict by both cases.
  Abaye would set up clay pottery between men and women like a mechitza, Rava would set up canes. Avin said: 
   
           
  Rabi Meir would scoff at sinners. One day, the Satan appeared to him as a woman on the opposite side of the river. There was no boats [to cross the river], so he tied a rope to the river bank and [began to] cross. As he approached the halfway point, the Satan left him alone, saying: If it were not [for the fact] that they are decreeing in heaven, "be careful with Rabi Meir and his Torah, I would have made you worth two Maot (a value of money)".
  Rabi Akiva would scoff at sinners. One day, the Satan appeared to him as a woman at the top of a palm tree. He held on to the palm tree and began climbing. As he approached halfway up the palm tree, [the Satan] left him alone, saying: If not [for the fact] that they are decreeing in heaven, "be careful with Rabi Akiva and his Torah, I would have made you worth two Maot (a value of money)".
  
  Daf 81b
  
   Every time Rabbi Chiya bar Abba fell upon his face (in the Tachanun prayer) he used to say, ‘The Merciful save me from the Yetzer Ha'Rah. One day his wife overheard him. ‘Let me see,’ she reflected, ‘it is so many years that he has separated from me: why then should he say that?’ One day, while he was studying in his garden, she adorned herself with a scarf and strolled in front of him.  ‘Who are you?’ he asked. ‘I am Cheruta, and have returned today,’ she replied. He desired her. Said she to him, ‘Bring me that pomegranate from the uppermost branch.’ He jumped up, went, and brought it to her. When he re-entered his house, his wife was firing the oven,whereupon he went and sat in it. ‘What is this?’ she asked. He told her what had happened.‘It was I,’ she told him; but he paid no heed to her until she gave him proof. ‘Nevertheless,’ said he, ‘my intention was evil.’ That righteous man fasted all his life, until he died from that very death.