json/Mishnah/Seder Nashim/Mishnah Kiddushin/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Kiddushin",
    "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
    "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
    "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
    "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה קידושין",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Nashim"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "\tA woman is acquired in three ways [Because a woman is betrothed only with her consent, it is taught: \"A woman is betrothed\" rather than: \"A man betroths.\" And since in the beginning it is taught: \"A woman is acquired,\" at the end it is taught: \"A yevamah is acquired,\" even though a yevamah is acquired by the yavam either with or without her consent.], and she acquires herself in two ways. She is acquired by money [This is derived (by identity) \"taking\"-\"taking\" from the field of Efron, it being written here (Deuteronomy 24:1): \"If a man take a woman,\" and there (Genesis 23:3): \"I have given the money for the field; take it from me.\"], by writ, [as when he writes to her on paper or on a shard, though it not be worth a p'rutah: \"Your daughter is betrothed (mekudesheth) to me,\" \"Your daughter is engaged (me'ureseth) to me,\" \"Your daughter shall be to me as a wife,\" and gives it to her in the presence of witnesses. This is derived from (Deuteronomy 24:2): \"And she shall go out … and she shall be.\" Just as going out is with a writ, viz. (Ibid. 1): \"And he shall write to her a writ of divorce,\" so \"being\" is with a writ.], and by cohabitation [cohabiting with her in the presence of witnesses for the purpose of betrothal, viz. (Ibid.): \"If a man take a woman and cohabit with her, etc.\" And though there is no betrothal in the Torah more explicit than that of cohabitation, the sages stated that if one betroths by cohabitation he is to receive \"stripes of rebellion,\" so that the children of Israel not be promiscuous.] By money: Beth Shammai say: With a dinar or with the worth of a dinar. Beth Hillel say: With a p'rutah [a half \"barley-corn\" of silver] or with the worth of a p'rutah. And how much is a p'rutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar.] And she acquires herself with a get and with the death of her husband. A yevamah is acquired [by the yavam, to be his wife in every regard,] by cohabitation. [But money and writ do not avail her by Torah law. The sages, however, ordained that ma'amar (word of mouth) avails to forbid her to the other brothers, but not to exempt her from chalitzah and not to (permit him to) become unclean for her], and she acquires herself with chalitzah and with the death of the yavam.",
            "\tA Hebrew bondsman is acquired by money, [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:1): \"from the money of his acquisition,\" whence it is derived that he is acquired with money.], and by writ, [it being written in respect to a Hebrew handmaid (Exodus 210): \"If another he take for himself.\" Scripture likens her to \"another\" (a married woman in general). Just as another may be acquired (as a wife) by a writ, so a handmaid may be acquired by a writ. And a Hebrew bondsman is derived from (what is stated in respect to) a Hebrew handmaid, viz. (Deuteronomy 15:12): \"the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman,\" the man being likened to the woman.] And he acquires himself with years [At the end of six years he goes out free; and even if shemitah (the seventh year) fell out in the midst of his six years, he serves (in the shemitah), it being written (Exodus 21:2): \"Six years shall he serve, and on the seventh, etc.\" — Sometimes he serves on the seventh (i.e., the shemitah year)], and with the Jubilee (yovel) [If yovel falls out in the midst of his six years, it releases him], and with monetary deduction, [it being written in respect to a Hebrew handmaid (Exodus 21:8): \"Then he shall redeem her.\" And a Hebrew bondsman is likened to a Hebrew handmaid. If his master acquired him for six manah, and he is destined to leave at the end of six years, it is found that he acquired each year of service for a manah, so that when he comes to redeem himself, his master deducts from his redemption money the amount for the years he already has served.] The Hebrew handmaid, in addition [to all these] acquires herself with [pubertal] signs, [this being derived from (Exodus 21:11): \"Then she shall go out free.\" Scripture added a \"going out\" to this one (the handmaid). She goes out with signs.] A \"bored\" bondsman is acquired by boring (of the ear), and he acquires himself with yovel and with the death of the master, [it being written (Exodus 21:6): \"And he shall serve him forever\" — \"him,\" and not his son. But if one is sold and the master dies in the midst of six years, he serves the son, it being written (Ibid. 2): \"Six years shall he serve\" — whether him or his son. And it is only the son that he serves all six years if the master dies, but not the daughter, the brother, or other heirs, it being written (Deuteronomy 15:12): \"And he shall serve you six years\" — \"you,\" and not the heirs. And a Hebrew handmaid acquires herself with the death of the master as does a bored bondsman, it being written in respect to the latter (Ibid. 17): \"And also to your handmaid shall you do thus.\"]",
            " \tA Canaanite bondsman is acquired by money, writ, and chazakah (proprietary act), [it being written (Leviticus 25:46): \"And you shall hold them (Canaanite bondsmen) as an inheritance for your sons after you to inherit as a holding.\" (Canaanite) bondsmen are hereby likened to land. Just as land is acquired by money, writ, and chazakah, so a Canaanite bondsman is acquired by money, writ, and chazakah. The chazakah of (i.e., of acquiring) the bondsman: e.g., the bondsman's untying his master's shoe, or putting it on, or carrying his things after him to the bathhouse, undressing him, washing him, anointing him, massaging him, clothing him, carrying him, or being carried by him — (by all of these) the master acquires the bondsman.] And he acquires himself by money through others, [i.e., which others give to his master on condition that he be freed. But he himself may not accept it from them, even on condition that his master have no rights in it, (this tanna) holding that a bondsman can in no way acquire anything independent of his master.], and by a writ (of manumission) through himself (i.e., which he himself accepts), [this tanna holding it to be a liability for the bondsman to leave his master for freedom. For if his master were a Cohein, he thereby becomes disqualified from eating terumah; and if he were the bondsman of an Israelite, a bondswoman becomes forbidden to him. For this reason he does not gain his freedom with a writ received (on his behalf) by others, but only (with one received) by himself. For since it is a liability for him, \"A liability is imposed upon one only in his presence.\" But (acquiring his freedom by) money through others is different. For the receiving of the money by his master, in itself causes him to be freed, and it is not the others who cause the liability, but the master's receiving of the money. The master in this instance does not become his messenger, but takes the money for himself, the bondsman gaining his freedom as a natural consequence. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: By money, through himself [They hold that a bondsman can acquire something independent of his master, for which reason he can acquire himself with money, even through himself; and, it goes without saying, through others.], and by a writ, through others. [For they hold it to be an asset for the bondsman to leave his master for freedom, and \"One may benefit a man, even not in his presence.\" The halachah is in accordance with the sages. And a Canaanite bondsman acquires himself if his master blinds his eye, or knocks out his tooth, or cuts off one of his twenty-four limb prominences: fingertips, toes, ear tips, nose tip, membrum tip, and breast tips in a woman. The reason these are not mentioned in the Mishnah along with the other means by which a bondsman acquires himself is that one who gains his release by (the cutting off of) organ prominences requires a writ of manumission from his master, so that he, essentially, \"acquires himself with a writ.\"], on condition that the money be (the money) of others. [For a bondsman possesses nothing. For even what he finds and what he receives as a gift belongs to his master. And if he wishes to redeem himself, the money must come from others, who give it to him on condition that the master have no rights in it.]",
            "\tA large animal is acquired by \"handing over\" (mesirah) [The owner hands it over to the buyer by rein or by its hair], and a small animal is acquired by lifting. [and not by pulling.] These are the words of R. Meir and R. Eliezer. The sages say: A small animal is acquired by pulling. [And even though it can be lifted, still it is acquired by pulling, because it always \"clutches\" at the ground with its claws. The halachah: Both a large animal and a small one are acquired by pulling, and, it goes without saying, by lifting. Pulling effects acquisition in a simta, a corner in a public domain, and in a shared domain. Mesirah effects acquisition in a public domain and in an unshared domain. Lifting effects acquisition in all domains. All animals which are customarily acquired by lifting are not acquired otherwise. What is acquired by mesirah is not acquired by pulling. Likewise, what is acquired by pulling is not acquired by mesirah.]",
            "\tBound property [(nechasim sheyesh lahem achrayuth) [i.e., land. One who lends another money depending upon it (for repayment) in that it is always present and intact. \"achrayuth\" denotes \"chozer\" (\"following after\"), i.e., the creditor \"follows after\" it and seizes it from the buyer when the debtor has nothing else] — (Bound property) is acquired by money, [viz. (Jeremiah 32:44): \"They shall buy fields for money.\" This, where it is not the custom to write a deed; but where it is the custom, he does not acquire it until he writes a deed.], by writ, [writing on paper or on a shard: \"My field is given to you,\" \"My field is acquired by you,\" and giving it (the deed) to the buyer. And it is only when the land is given as a gift that it is acquired by a deed; but when it is sold, it is not acquired until the money is given (unless it is sold because of its poor condition, in which instance it is acquired by writ alone.) And whence is it derived that land is acquired by writ? From (Jeremiah 32:44): \"And they shall write it in a deed and seal it.\"], and by chazakah, [such as by digging a little in the land, or fencing, or breaching somewhat in the presence of the seller. If not in his presence, he must say to him: \"Go chazek (perform an act of chazakah) and acquire it.\" And whence is it derived that land is acquired by chazakah? From (Deuteronomy 11:31): \"And you shall inherit it, and you shall dwell in it.\" How will you inherit it? By dwelling in it.] And unbound property is acquired only by meshichah (\"drawing forth\"), [it being written (Leviticus 25:14): \"or acquire from the hand of your fellow.\" What may be transferred from hand to hand is acquired only by such transference.] Unbound property is acquired together with bound property, (which is acquired by) money, writ, or chazakah. [If he sold movable objects together with the land, when the buyer acquires the land by one of these three means of acquisition, those objects are acquired with it. This, on condition that the seller say to the buyer: \"Acquire these together with the land.\" This is derived from (II Chronicles 21:3): \"And their father gave them many gifts (consisting) of silver, and gold, and precious things together with fortified cities.\"] And unbound property links bound property to be subject to an oath. [Even though land is not subject to an oath — where movable objects and land are claimed, and he is obliged to swear vis-à-vis the first, the oath thereon links the land for a gilgul shevuah [a \"rolled-on\" oath]. Gilgul shevuah is derived from what is written in respect to sotah (a woman suspected of adultery), viz. (Numbers 5:22): \"And the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen'\" — Amen (to the oath: \"I have not become unclean\") relative to this man (the suspected adulterer); Amen, relative to any other man; Amen, that I did not go astray when I was betrothed; Amen, that I did not go astray when I was married, awaiting yibum, or taken in yibum.]",
            "\tEverything which is made money for something else [The gemara explains: Everything which is assessed as money for something else; everything which, if it is to be given as money for something else, must be assessed — that is, all chattel (metaltelin), aside from currency] — once the one appropriates it, the other is responsible for its exchange. [That is, once one of them pulls it (as an act of acquisition), the other is responsible for its exchange if it were lost or died, wherever it (what was thereby acquired) may be, even though he (the buyer) did not pull it. For by the seller's pulling the scarf or a (different) object, the purchased object is acquired by the buyer wherever it may be, even though the object whereby it is acquired is not worth a p'rutah, so long as it not be a coin or fruits, these not effecting such acquisition. And all things are acquired by (such) exchange (chalifin) — metaltelin, bondsmen, and land — with the exception of currency, which is not acquired by chalifin, one's mind-set being on the figure (impressed) in the currency and not on the substance itself; and the figure is susceptible of effacement. Therefore, if one took currency without weight or count and said: \"This is chalifin for that field, or bondsman, or object,\" once the other (the seller) pulls it, he (the buyer) is responsible for its exchange. For the fact that it was not weighed or counted makes it manifest that there was no mind-set on the (imprinted) figure. And no means avails for the acquisition of currency which is not immediately at hand except agav, (acquisition of the currency) together with land.] How so? If an ox were exchanged for an ass, or an ass for an ox, once the first appropriates (either animal), the other is responsible for its exchange. The domain of the Temple (acquires with) money, and the domain of the laity, with chazakah. [If the Temple treasurer gives money for a beast, even (if the beast were) \"in the end of the world,\" he acquires it; but the laity acquire only with chazakah, i.e., pulling. And if a lay person gave money for something, so long as he did not pull it, he does not acquire it, and the seller must return the money if he (the buyer) backs out, and he (the one who backs out) comes under (an imprecation, viz.:) \"He who punished (…will punish him who does not keep his word.\") But if the buyer pulled the object, even if he did not yet pay the stipulated amount, neither can back out. And if he neither gave the money nor pulled the object, but only reached an agreement with the seller to buy at a certain price — even if he said: \"You are my witnesses,\" there is nothing (binding) in this, and he does not even come under an imprecation (if he backs out)]. One's \"saying\" to the Temple is like one's \"giving\" to the laity. [If one says: \"This ox is a burnt-offering; this house is consecrated\" — even if it were \"in the end of the world,\" the Temple acquires it. But with the laity, there is no acquisition until he (the buyer) pulls the animal or performs an act of chazakah in the house.]",
            "\tAll the mitzvoth of the son upon the father [i.e., all the mitzvoth binding upon the father to perform for his son, six in number: to circumcise him, to redeem him (if he is a first-born), to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade, to find him a wife, to teach him to swim] — men are obligated [The father is obligated in these mitzvoth for his son] and women are exempt. [The mother is exempt.] And all the mitzvoth of the father upon his son [i.e., all the mitzvoth binding upon the son to perform for his father — fear and honor — fear: not sitting in his place, not contradicting him; honor: giving him food and drink, clothing him, covering him, leading him in and out] — both men and women [i.e., sons and daughters] are obligated. And all positive time-caused mitzvoth [i.e., brought about by time, e.g., shofar, succah, lulav, tzitzith] — men are obligated, and women, exempt. And all positive non-time-caused mitzvoth [e.g., mezuzah, (the building of) a railing, (returning) a lost object, sending away the mother-bird ] — both men and women are obligated. [These two generalizations are non-categorical, viz.: \"We do not learn (the halachah) from generalizations, even where 'except' is stated.\" For matzoh on Pesach night, and rejoicing on festivals, and the convocation (\"hakhel\") on Succoth are all positive time-caused mitzvoth, and yet women are obligated. And Torah study, and procreation, and redemption of the first-born are positive non-time-caused mitzvoth, and yet women are exempt.] And all negative mitzvoth, whether time-caused or non-time caused, both men and women are obligated, except for \"rounding off,\" and \"destroying,\" and becoming unclean for the dead. [This last generalization is a categorical one, being derived from (Numbers 5:6): \"A man or a woman, if they do of all the sins of man.\" Scripture hereby likened a man to a woman in respect to all the punishments of the Torah. (\"except for 'rounding off' and 'destroying'\":) viz. (Leviticus 19:27): \"Do not round off the corners of your head, and do not destroy the corners of your beard.\" All who are subject to (the interdict of) destroying (the beard) are subject to rounding off; and all who are not subject to destroying are not subject to rounding off. And women, since they are not subject to destroying are not subject to rounding off. And whence do we derive that they are not subject to destroying? For it is written: \"the corners of your beard,\" and not: \"the corners of your beards\" — your beard, and not the beard of your wife. (\"and becoming unclean for the dead\":) viz. (Ibid. 21:1): \"Speak to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron … For a dead body he shall not become unclean\" — the sons of Aaron, and not the daughters of Aaron.]",
            "\tThe placing of the hands (upon the offering), and the liftings, and the presentations, and the fistfuls, and the smokings, and the pinchings, and the sprinklings, and the receivings obtain with men, but not with women [If she is the daughter of a Cohein, she does not place her hands, or lift, or present a meal-offering on the southwest corner (of the altar) as prescribed. And she does not take the fistful or smoke (the offering), and she does not pinch a bird (to slaughter it), and she does not receive the blood in the sprinkling bowl, and she does not sprinkle the blood], except for the meal-offering of a sotah and a Naziritess, which they lift [themselves, their meal-offerings requiring lifting by the owners].",
            "\tEvery mitzvah which is a function of the land obtains only in the land, and every mitzvah which is not a function of the land obtains both in the land and outside it. [Any mitzvah which is binding on one's body is called \"not a function of the land\"; and any mitzvah which is binding on the land is called \"a function of the land\"] except arlah (interdicted fruit of the first three years) [which obtains (even) outside the land — a halachah to Moses on Sinai] and kilayim (forbidden graftings). [And the admixtures of the vineyard (k'lai hakerem) are rabbinically interdicted outside Eretz Yisrael, and admixtures of seed (k'lai z'raim) are permitted to be sown outside Eretz Yisrael]. R. Eliezer says: Also chadash (new grain, before Pesach) [is Torah-interdicted outside the land, even though it is binding on the land, it being written (Leviticus 23:14): \"in all of your dwellings\" — wherever you dwell (even outside Eretz Yisrael)].",
            "\tWhoever does one mitzvah [above and beyond his merits, so that his merits are more than his transgressions] is benefited, and his days are lengthened [in the world to come], and he inherits the land [\"the land of life\"]. And whoever does not do one mitzvah [If his transgressions are more than his merits, and he does not do one mitzvah to make himself half innocent-half guilty, but his transgressions remain more], he is not benefited, his days are not lengthened, and he does not inherit the land. Whoever devotes himself to Scripture, Mishnah, and proper conduct (derech eretz) will not quickly sin, viz. (Koheleth 4:12): \"And whoever does not devote himself to Scripture, Mishnah, and derech eretz, [i.e., one who does not deal honestly with others] is \"beyond the pale\" [i.e., he does not contribute to the advancement of the world, his seat is a \"seat of scoffers,\" and he is unfit to testify.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tA man betroths by himself and by his messenger. [First, by himself; then, by his messenger, his own doing it being preferred to his messenger's. For when he himself performs the mitzvah his reward is greater. We derive that a man's messenger is like himself from (Exodus 12:6): \"And the entire assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it.\" Now do all of Israel slaughter it? From here it is derived that one's messenger is like himself.] A man betroths his daughter when she is a maiden (na'arah) [and, it goes without saying, when she is a minor (k'tanah). \"Na'arah\" is stated to teach proper conduct: that one is forbidden to betroth his daughter when she is a minor, until she is grown enough to say: \"I desire (to wed) that man.\"] If one says to a woman: \"Be betrothed to me for this date; be betrothed to me for this\" — if one of them is worth a p'rutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. [For since he said: \"Be betrothed; be betrothed,\" each (date) is (designated) for betrothal in itself. (If he said: \"Be betrothed to me) for this and for this and for this\" — if there is the worth of a p'rutah among all, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. ] If she ate them one by one, she is not betrothed, unless one of them were worth a p'rutah. [This \"one of them\" must be the last one. For if he said: \"Be betrothed to me for this and for this and for this,\" and she ate them one by one, each one that she ate is a loan to her, and when she comes to the last, whereby the betrothal is consummated, if it is worth a p'rutah, she is betrothed with a loan and a p'rutah. And the ruling is that if one betroths with a loan and a p'rutah, the woman is intent upon the p'rutah, and she is betrothed. But if the last were not worth a p'rutah, even though the first were worth a p'rutah, at the consummation of the betrothal he betroths with a loan, and if one betroths with a loan, she is not betrothed.]",
            "\t(If he said:) \"Be betrothed to me for this cup of wine,\" and it were found to be of honey; of honey, and it were found to be of wine; with this dinar of silver, and it were found to be of gold; of gold, and it were found to be of silver; on condition that I am wealthy, and he were found to be poor; that I am poor, and he were found to be wealthy — she is not betrothed. [For some (women) prefer the one; and others, the other]. R. Shimon says: If he deceived her to her advantage, she is betrothed. [R. Shimon differs only in respect to monetary advantage; but with \"pedigree advantage,\" such as: a Levite, and he were found to be a Cohein, he concedes that even if he deceived her (or she deceived him) to her advantage, she is not betrothed. For his higher pedigree is not necessarily desirable to her, in that it might prompt him to vanity. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
            "\t(If he said: \"Be betrothed to me) on condition that I am a Cohein,\" and he were found to be a Levite; that I am a Levite, and he were found to be a Cohein; that I am a Nathin, and he were found to be a mamzer; that I am a mamzer, and he were found to be a Nathin; that I am a city-dweller, and he were found to be a village-dweller; that I am a village-dweller, and he were found to be a city-dweller; on condition that my house is near the bathhouse, and it were found to be far; that it is far, and it were found to be near; on condition that I have an \"enlarging\" daughter or bondswoman [i.e., one who plaits women's hair. Another interpretation: one who is very talkative, as in (Ezekiel 35:13): \"And you have 'enlarged' upon Me with your mouths\"], and he not have one; on condition that I not have one, and he have one; on condition that I have no sons, and he have; that I have, and he not have — in all of these instances, even if she said: \"In my heart I intended to be betrothed to him in any event,\" she is not betrothed. [For \"things of the heart are not things\"]. And the same applies if she deceived him.",
            "\tIf one said to his messenger: \"Go and betroth this and this woman for me in this and this place,\" and he went and betrothed her in a different place, she is not betrothed. (If he said to him:) \"She is in this and this place,\" and he betrothed her in a different place, she is betrothed. [For he was merely pointing out the place and not making it a condition (of the betrothal).]",
            "\tIf one betrothed a woman on condition that she had no (outstanding) vows upon her, and she were found to have vows upon her, she is not betrothed. If he wed her without qualification, and she were found to have vows upon her, she goes out without a kethubah [for he can claim: \"I do not want a vowing wife.\" But she does require a get because of doubt. For since he made no conditions (in his betrothal) it is possible that he acquiesced in a vowing woman, too.] (If he betrothed her) on condition that she had no blemishes, and she were found to have blemishes, she is not betrothed. If he wed her without qualification, and she were found to have blemishes, she goes out without a kethubah. All blemishes which are disqualifying in Cohanim [See Kethuvoth 75a] are disqualifying in women.",
            "\tIf one betrothed two women with the worth of a p'rutah or one woman with less than the worth of a p'rutah, even if he sent sivlonoth afterwards [\"sivlonoth\" are gifts customarily sent by the groom to his betrothed], she is not betrothed. [We do not say that he knew that the betrothal had not been consummated and that his intent was to consummate it with these sivlonoth], but [we say that] he sent it because of (what he thought to be bona fide) original betrothal. The same applies to a minor who betrothed [and sent sivlonoth when he came of age].",
            "\tIf one betrothed a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister at the same time, they are not betrothed, [it being written (Leviticus 18:18): \"And a woman together with her sister you shall not take to be rivals.\" If they become rivals to each other there is no \"taking\" even in one of them. The same applies to all of the other arayoth (illicit relations) punishable by kareth, in whom betrothal does not \"take.\"] And it happened with five women, two of them sisters, that a man picked a basket of figs, which was theirs, and which was of shevi'ith, and said: \"All of you are betrothed to me with this basket,\" and one of them accepted for all, and the sages ruled: \"The sisters are not betrothed. [This Mishnah apprises us that if one betroths a woman with gezel (stolen property), even if it were hers, she is not betrothed. And we do not say that since she accepted it, she pardoned him — for it is stated: \"which was theirs, and which was of shevi'ith,\" the implication being that since it was of shevi'ith, the fruit being ownerless (hefker), for that reason the women are betrothed, only the sisters not being betrothed. But if it were not of shevi'ith, since it was theirs, betrothal would not \"take\" in one of them. And it is only with gezel before the abnegation (ye'ush) of the owner that we say it is not betrothal. But if one betroths with gezel after ye'ush, the betrothal is valid. And we are also apprised that if one betroths a woman with the fruit of shevi'ith, she is betrothed, and we do not say that it is not his money to have rights in. But once he appropriates it, it is his money in every respect. And we are also apprised that one woman can become a messenger for another, even where she thereby becomes her rival. And even though (it is ruled that) in all testimony where one woman is permitted to testify for another, a rival is not permitted to testify for her — as far as being a messenger is concerned, once she has done what she was deputed to do, it is done. For here, with these betrothals, they become rivals through the one who accepted, and we learned: \"The sisters are not betrothed\" — but the strangers (i.e., non-kin) are betrothed. The Mishnah is understood by the gemara, in accordance with the halachah, thus: If one betrothed a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her sister, both at the same time, they are not betrothed. But (if he betrothed) one of woman and daughter, or one of woman and sister — as when he said to both: \"One of you is betrothed to me,\" not specifying which one, and one of them accepted the betrothal for (herself and) her friend, or both at the same time, they are betrothed, and both require a get. And if he said: \"The one of you who may be cohabited with is betrothed to me,\" they are not betrothed. For each one may be \"the sister of his wife,\" so that neither may be cohabited with. And it also happened with five women, two of them sisters, that a man took a basket of figs and said: \"Those of you who may be cohabited with are betrothed to me,\" and the sages ruled: \"The sisters are not betrothed\" — but the strangers, who may be cohabited with, are betrothed. But if he had said: \"All of you are betrothed to me,\" none of them would be betrothed. For just as the sisters could not be betrothed, so the others.]",
            "\tIf one (a Cohein) betroths a woman with his portion [of what he divides with his fellow Cohanim], whether holy of holies or lower order offerings, she is not betrothed. [For Cohanim appropriate from \"the table on High,\" and Scripture states (Numbers 18:9): \"This shall be to you from the holy of holies, from the fire\" — Just as fire is used for consumption, so these gifts are to be used only for consumption.] (If one betroths a woman) with ma'aser sheni, whether unwittingly or wittingly, she is not betrothed, [it being written in that regard (Leviticus 27:30): \"It is the L-rd's\" — it must remain so.] These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: Unwittingly, he does not betroth her; wittingly, he does betroth her [with ma'aser sheni, since it becomes profane (as opposed to consecrated) by redemption; and he made it mundane by this betrothal. And R. Meir holds that this is not the mode of redemption.] And with hekdesh [Temple maintenance property], wittingly, he betroths [For, knowing that it is hekdesh, and wittingly using it for a mundane purpose, its sanctity is profaned]; and, unwittingly, he does not betroth. [For, not knowing that it is hekdesh, and not desiring that hekdesh be profaned through him, it is not profaned, and she is not betrothed.] These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says [the opposite]: Unwittingly, he betroths; wittingly, he does not betroth. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Meir in respect to ma'aser, and in accordance with R. Yehudah in respect to hekdesh.]",
            "\tIf one betroths a woman with arlah, k'lai hakerem, a stoned ox, eglah arufah (the heifer of the broken neck), the birds of a leper, the hair of a Nazirite, the first-born of an ass, meat in milk, and chullin (a non-consecrated animal) slaughtered in the azarah (the Temple court) — she is not betrothed. [For it is forbidden to derive benefit from all of these: arlah (Leviticus 19:23): \"It shall not be eaten\" — Both eating and the derivation of benefit are implied as forbidden. k'lai hakerem (Deuteronomy 22:9): \"lest it be rejected\" (pen tikdash) — \"pen tukad esh\" (\"lest it be consigned to the flames\"). a stoned ox (Exodus 21:28): \"and its flesh shall not be eaten\"). eglah arufah, \"atonement\" being stated in that regard, as it is stated of consecrated offerings, (from which benefit may not be derived), viz. (Deuteronomy 21:8): \"And let them be granted atonement for the blood.\" the bird of a leper — As it was taught: \"machshir\" (\"it predisposes\") and \"mechaper\" (\"it atones\") were stated in respect to (what is done) within (the sanctuary) — the guilt-offering of the leper, which predisposes him for the eating of offerings, and his sin-offering, which atones, both being processed within — and \"machshir\" and \"machaper\" were stated in respect to (what is done) outside: \"machshir\" — the birds of the leper, which predispose him for entrance to the camp\"; \"mechaper\" — the eglah arufah, in respect to which it is written: \"And let them be granted atonement for the blood.\" And both are processed outside the Temple court. Just as with the \"machshir\" and \"machaper\" stated inside — the guilt-offering and the sin-offering of the leper — the machshir is equivalent to the mechaper, both being consecrated offerings, from which derivation of benefit is forbidden, so with the \"machshir\" and \"mechaper\" stated outside — the birds of the leper and the eglah arufah — the machshir is made equivalent to the mechaper, derivation of benefit to be forbidden. And from when is it permitted to derive benefit from the bird of the leper? From the time of slaughtering. And it is the slaughtered bird alone from which derivation of benefit is forbidden. (It is forbidden to derive benefit from) the hair of a Nazirite (Numbers 6:5): \"He shall be holy; he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head\" — the growth of the hair of his head shall be holy. the first born of an ass (Numbers 13:13): \"then you shall break its neck\"; and it is stated in respect to the eglah arufah (Deuteronomy 21:4): \"And they shall break the neck.\" Just as it is forbidden to derive benefit from an eglah arufah, so is it forbidden to derive benefit from the first-born of an ass. meat in milk: It is written three times: \"Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk\" — once, to interdict eating; once, to interdict the derivation of benefit; and once to interdict cooking. chullin slaughtered in the azarah (Deuteronomy 12:21): \"When there is distant from you the place … you shall slaughter\" — At a distance from the place (i.e., the Temple), you slaughter; but you do not slaughter in proximity to the place. I might think that he may not eat it, but that he might throw it to the dogs (i.e., derive benefit from it); it is, therefore, written (Exodus 22:30): \"To the dog shall you throw it\" — \"it\" (treifah) shall you throw to the dog; but you may not throw to the dog chullin that was slaughtered in the azarah.] If he sold them and betrothed her with their monies, she is betrothed. [For there is no (interdicted) thing that renders its monies as itself except idolatry and shevi'ith. idolatry (Deuteronomy 7:26): \"lest you become rejected as it\" — all that you cause to become of it (i.e., all that you take in exchange for it) are \"as it.\" shevi'ith (Leviticus 25:12): \"Holy shall it be\" — it attaches itself to its monies as hekdesh (consecrated objects) — so that idolatry and shevi'ith are \"two verses coming as one\" (i.e., for the same teaching) and \"We do not learn (the general principle) from two verses coming as one.\"]",
            "\tIf one betroths a woman with terumoth [terumah gedolah and terumath ma'aser], or with ma'aseroth [ma'aser rishon and ma'aser ani], or with (priestly) gifts [shoulder, cheeks, and maw], or with the waters of the [ashes] of the red heifer [They can be sold to those who are unclean, for (the exertion of) bringing or filling; but it is forbidden to take a fee for sprinkling or kiddush, i.e., placing the ashes in the water.], or with the ashes of the red heifer — she is betrothed. And even an Israelite. [This is what is intended: Even an Israelite to whom terumoth and (priestly) gifts fell from the house of his mother's father, a Cohein, which he (the Israelite) acquired, and which he can sell to Cohanim — if he betrothed a woman with them, she is betrothed. And even if terumah did not fall to him, but tevel, from which terumah had not yet been taken, since the one from whom he inherits it, a Cohein, was to have taken terumah, which would revert to him — this Israelite, too, who inherits it, separates the terumah, which, being his, he can sell to Cohanim. For gifts which were not yet taken are regarded as having been taken.\"]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one said to his friend: \"Go and betroth that woman to me,\" and he went and betrothed her to himself, she is betrothed. [The gemara explains: What is the intent of \"and he went\"? He went with deception. And this explains: \"he said to his friend\" rather than: \"he said to his messenger\" — to apprise us that even though he did not appoint him a messenger ab initio for this, but just told him: \"Betroth that woman to me,\" if he betrothed her to himself, he is spoken of as having gone \"with deception,\" and he is considered a deceiver.] Likewise, if one said to a woman: \"You are betrothed to me after thirty days,\" and another came and betrothed her within the thirty days, she is betrothed to the second. [And he can wed her even within those thirty days]. If she were the daughter of a Cohein (betrothed) to an Israelite [If the one who was betrothed after thirty days were the daughter of a Cohein], she may eat terumah [all those thirty days. For she was not rendered unfit to eat of the terumah of her father's house. And if she were the daughter of an Israelite (betrothed) to a Cohein, she may not eat terumah, not yet being the wife of a Cohein.] (If one said to her: \"You are betrothed to me) from now after thirty days,\" and another came and betrothed her within the thirty days, she is betrothed and not betrothed [and she requires a get from both.] If she were the daughter of an Israelite (betrothed) to a Cohein, or the daughter of a Cohein (betrothed) to an Israelite, she may not eat terumah.",
            "\tIf one said to a woman: \"You are betrothed to me [with this p'rutah] on condition that I give you two hundred zuz, she is betrothed, and he gives it. [And when he gives it, she is betrothed retroactively. For if one says: \"on condition,\" it is as if he says: \"from now.\"] (If he said:) \"from now until thirty days\" — if he gave it to her within thirty days, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. \"On condition that I have two hundred zuz,\" she is betrothed if he has it [i.e., if there are witnesses that he has it. And if it is not known whether he has it, she is betrothed on the possibility (that he does have it), it being possible that he has it and that he desires to do her wrong.] \"On condition that I show you two hundred zuz,\" she is betrothed, and he shows it to her. And if he showed her on the table, [If he were a money-changer, and he showed her on the table money that was not his,] she is not betrothed.",
            "\t(If one said: \"You are betrothed to me\") on condition that I own a beth-kur of soil [i.e., space for the sowing of a kur, thirty sa'ah], she is betrothed and he owns it [i.e., If there are witnesses that he owns it, she is betrothed of a certainty; and if it is not known whether he owns it, she is betrothed on the possibility (that he does own it). And we do not say: With money, which a man might hide, we suspect that he might have it and that he wants to do her wrong, but with land, we do not entertain this suspicion, for if he owned land it would be known.] \"On condition that I have it in that place\" — if he has it in that place, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. \"On condition that I show you a beth-kur of soil,\" she is betrothed and he shows her. And if he showed her [land which is not his] in a field-plot, [even though he may have rented it or received it (in tenancy)], she is not betrothed.",
            "\tR. Meir says: Any condition which is not like the condition of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuven [i.e., a condition and its converse] is not a (valid) condition [and even if the condition is not fulfilled, the commitment stands], viz. (Numbers 32:29-30): \"And Moses said to them: 'If the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuven pass over … And if they do not pass over armed, (then they shall have a holding with you in the land of Canaan'\"). [And if he had not stated the converse, the gift would stand and they would inherit the land of Gilead even if they did not pass over. And though he said: \"If they pass over with you,\" we do not assume that the converse is implied. We are, likewise, apprised hereby that the condition must precede the commitment, it not being written: \"Give it to them if they pass over,\" from which we infer that if he had stated it thus, the condition would not have preempted the preceding commitment. And we are also apprised that the positive must be stated before the negative, it not being written: \"If they do not pass over, do not give them, and if they pass over, give them.\"] R. Chanina b. Gamliel says: It had to be stated, for if it were not, the implication would be that they would not even inherit in the land of Canaan. [R. Chanina differs vis-à-vis the converse, holding that the statement itself implies the converse. As to Moses' stating the converse, this was necessary (in that particular instance). As to the halachah: If one says: \"on condition,\" it is not necessary to state the converse, the positive before the negative, or the commitment before the condition, but the condition stands. And if he does not say: \"on condition,\" he must state all of the above, and if he does not, the condition is void and the commitment stands. And it makes no difference whether it be a condition in the context of monetary law or in the context of divorce and betrothal — all are the same in this regard.]",
            "\tIf one betrothed a woman and said: \"I thought she was the daughter of a Cohein, and she is the daughter of a Levite; the daughter of a Levite, and she is the daughter of a Cohein; poor, and she is rich; rich, and she is poor\" — she is betrothed, for she did not deceive him. If one said to a woman: \"You are betrothed to me after I become a proselyte,\" or: \"after you become a proselyte\"; \"after I gain my freedom (from bondsmanship\" or: \"after you gain your freedom\"; \"after your husband dies\" or: \"after your sister (his wife) dies\"; \"after your yevamah gives you chalitzah\" — she is not betrothed. Likewise, if one says to his friend: \"If your wife gives birth to a girl, she is betrothed to me\" — she is not betrothed. If his friend's wife were pregnant, and her fetus were recognizable, his words stand, and if she gives birth to a girl, she is betrothed. [Rambam writes that he should not live with her until he betroths her a second time. For \"a man cannot bestow something which has not yet entered the world.\" They stated: \"His words stand\" only to impose a stringency upon her, that she be forbidden to wed others.]",
            "\tIf one said to a woman: \"You are betrothed to me on condition that I speak in your behalf to the authorities,\" or: \"on condition that I labor for you as a worker\" [the work of one day. Not that he betroths her with the wage of working. For since it is ruled that (the wage for) hired labor is (reckoned) from the beginning (of the labor) until the end, it is found that when he finishes his labor, his wage is a loan to her, and if one betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed. Rather, he betroths her now with a p'rutah on condition that he labor for her afterwards as a worker.] — if he spoke on her behalf to the authorities, or labored for her as a worker, she is betrothed. If not, she is not betrothed. \"On condition that my father consent\" — if his father consented, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. [The gemara explains (\"that my father consent\") as: \"that my father not protest,\" with a period for such protest being stipulated, as when he says to her: \"on condition that my father not protest within thirty days.\" Therefore, if his father consented, i.e., if thirty days passed without his protesting, she is betrothed. If he did not consent, i.e., if he protested within thirty days, she is not betrothed.] If the father died [within thirty days], she is betrothed, [for we say: \"Who will protest?\"] If the son died [within thirty days], the father is instructed to say that he does not consent, [so that she not fall for yibum.]",
            "\t(If one said:) \"I betrothed my daughter, but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her,\" and someone came and said: \"I betrothed her,\" he is believed [to wed her. For he would not have the audacity to say before the father, who accepted the betrothal, \"It was I,\" if it were not true; he would fear to be refuted.] If one said: \"I betrothed her,\" and another: \"I betrothed her,\" they both give her a get; and if they wish, one gives her a get, and the other weds her.",
            "\t(If one said:) \"I betrothed my daughter,\" (or:) \"I betrothed her and divorced her [i.e., I accepted her get] when she was a minor,\" and she is a minor [now, when he says this about her], he is believed [to disqualify her from (marriage to) the priesthood. For a father is believed in respect to his daughter as long as she is a minor, it being written (Deuteronomy 22:16): \"I gave my daughter to this man\" (lit., \"to (a) man, this\"). \"to (a) man\" forbids her to all men, for we do not know to whom. When he then says: \"this,\" he permits her to him.] (If he said:) \"I betrothed her and divorced her when she was a minor,\" and she is now of age [i.e., If he said this after she came of age, not having said it when she was a minor], he is not believed. (If he said:) \"She was taken captive, and I redeemed her,\" whether she is a minor or of age, he is not believed [to disqualify her from (marriage to) the priesthood. For the Torah granted credence to the father only in respect to marriage, but not in respect to captivity.] If one said before his death: \"I have children\" [and my wife does not require yibum], he is believed. (If he said:) \"I have brothers\" [and my wife requires yibum (his wife, until then, having been assumed not to require it)], he is not believed. If one betrothed his daughter without specifying (which daughter he intended), the bogroth (those at the age of majority) are not included. [For they are not under their father's jurisdiction to be betrothed by him. And even if the bogereth made him a messenger to accept her betrothal, we say that a man does not forsake a mitzvah which is incumbent upon him to perform a mitzvah which is not incumbent upon him. But his minor and maiden daughters all require a get on the possibility (of having been betrothed), for we do not know which one of them he betrothed.]",
            "\tIf one had two sets of daughters from two wives, and he said: \"I betrothed my big daughter, and I do not know whether it was the oldest of the elder or the oldest of the younger, or the youngest of the elder, who is older than the oldest of the younger\" — they are all forbidden, except the youngest of the younger. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi says: They are all permitted, except the eldest of the older. (If he said:) \"I betrothed my little daughter, and I do not know whether it was the youngest of the younger or the youngest of the elder, or the oldest of the younger, who is younger than the youngest of the elder\" — they are all forbidden, except the oldest of the elder. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi says: \"They are all permitted, except the youngest of the younger. [The tanna must apprise us of the difference between R. Meir and R. Yossi (both) in respect to \"I betrothed my big daughter\" and \"I betrothed my little daughter.\" For if we were taught only the former, we might think that it is only in this regard that R. Meir says what he does. For since there is a younger daughter he calls this one \"big,\" for it is prestigious to a man to call his daughter \"big,\" even though she is young, so long as there is another younger than she. But with \"my little daughter,\" perhaps he would concur with R. Yossi that if he could call her \"big,\" he would not call her \"little.\" And if we were taught only the latter (\"I betrothed my little daughter\"), we might think that it is only in this regard that R. Yossi says what he does, but in the other instance (\"I betrothed my big daughter\"), perhaps he would concur with R. Meir. Therefore, we must be apprised of both. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi in both instances.]",
            "\tIf one says to a woman: \"I betrothed you,\" and she says: \"You did not betroth me,\" he is forbidden to (marry) her kin, and she is permitted to marry his kin. If she says: \"You betrothed me,\" and he says: \"I did not betroth you,\" he is permitted to marry her kin, and she is forbidden to marry his kin. [We must be apprised of both \"If he says: \"I betrothed you,\" and: \"If she says: You betrothed me.\" For if we were taught only the former, we might think that it is only right that she not be forbidden to his kin, for he might be lying. For it does not matter to a man if he forbids himself gratuitously to her kin, so that he might lie and say: \"I betrothed you,\" even if he had not done so. But she, who, if she says; \"You betrothed me,\" forbids herself to all men — perhaps if she were not certain, she would not say it — so that he, too, should be forbidden to her kin, even if he gave her a get. We are, therefore, apprised that this is not so.] (If he says:) \"I betrothed you,\" and she says: \"You betrothed only my daughter,\" he is forbidden to the kin of the older (i.e., the mother) and the older is permitted to his kin. He is permitted to the kin of the younger, and the younger is permitted to his kin. [For we might think that since the father is granted credibility by the Torah vis-à-vis his daughter, she is granted credibility by rabbinical ordinance; we are therefore, apprised otherwise.]",
            "\t(If he says:) \"I betrothed your daughter,\" and she says: \"You betrothed only me,\" he is forbidden to the kin of the younger, and the younger is permitted to his kin; he is permitted to the kin of the older and the older is forbidden to his kin. [Since we are apprised of the above instances, we are apprised of this, too, even though it is superfluous. And in all of the instances where she says: \"You betrothed me,\" we ask him to give her a get to permit her (to marry). And if he gave a get of himself, we compel him to give her a kethubah.]",
            "\tWherever there is betrothal and no transgression [i.e., where betrothal \"takes\" and there is no transgression in the marriage], the child follows (the lineage of) the male. [This rule is non-categorical; for in the instance of a proselyte who marries a mamzereth, there is betrothal and no transgression, for the congregation of proselytes is not called a \"congregation\" (of the L-rd) viz. Deuteronomy 23:3 - \"A mamzer may not come into the congregation of the L-rd\", in spite of which the child does not follow the lineage of the male, the child being a mamzer, whether a proselyte married a mamzereth or a mamzer married a proselyte.] Which is that? [i.e., an instance in which the child follows the lineage of the father]? The daughter of a Cohein, a Levite, and an Israelite married to a Cohein, a Levite, and an Israelite, (the child bearing the father's designation). And wherever there is betrothal and transgression, the child follows the blemished one. Which is that? A widow married to a high-priest; a divorcée or a chalutzah married to a regular priest (in which instance the child is a challal, banned to the priesthood), a mamzereth and a Nethinah married to an Israelite; the daughter of an Israelite married to a mamzer or a Nathin. And wherever her betrothal does not \"take\" with him, but it does take with others, the child is a mamzer. Which is that? One who lies with any of the [kareth-interdicted] arayoth of the Torah. [In Yevamoth (49a) This is derived from (Deuteronomy 23:1): \"A man shall not take his father's wife,\" followed by (3): \"A mamzer shall not come into the congregation of the L-rd.\" And it (\"his father's wife\") is understood to be a woman awaiting yibum with his father, i.e., the wife of his father's brother, who is kareth-interdicted to him.] And wherever her betrothal takes neither with him nor with others, the child is as she is. Which is that? The child of a bondswoman and a gentile woman. [In respect to a bondswoman it is written (Exodus 21:4): \"The woman and her children shall belong to her master.\" And, in respect to a gentile woman it is written (Deuteronomy 7:4): \"For he will turn your son away from Me.\" The fact that \"For she will turn\" is not written indicates the meaning to be: Do not give your daughter to his son, for he, your daughter's husband, will turn your son, which your daughter will bear to him, away from Me. But it (\"For he will turn\") does not refer to \"Do not take his daughter for your son,\" for the son of a gentile woman is not called \"your son,\" but \"her son.\"]",
            "\tR. Tarfon says: Mamzerim can cleanse themselves. How so? If a mamzer weds a bondswoman, the child is a bondsman. If he (his father) frees him, the son is a freed-man, (who may marry an Israelite). [Even ab initio a mamzer may marry a bondswoman to cleanse his children.] R. Eliezer says: He (the son) is a mamzer-bondsman. [the halachah is in accordance with R. Tarfon. And R. Tarfon concedes that if a bondsman marries a mamzereth, the child is a mamzer, for a bondsman has no pedigree.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tTen degrees of pedigree went up from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael [Ezra separated all the p'sulin (those of defective pedigree) who were in Bavel, and brought them up with him, so that they not become intermixed with the pedigreed, no beth-din having been left in Bavel (to rule on such matters)]: Cohanim, Levites, Israelites, challalim [Cohanim born of those unfit for the priesthood, such as a widow to a high-priest, or a divorcée, a challalah, and a zonah to a regular priest], freed-men [freed bondsmen], mamzerim, Nethinim [Giveonites, who circumcised themselves in the days of Joshua and were forbidden to enter the congregation], shetukim and asufim [to be explained below]. Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites are permitted to intermarry. Levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freed-men are permitted to intermarry. Proselytes, freed-men, mamzerim, Nethinim, shetukim, and asufim — all are permitted to intermarry. [For the congregation of proselytes is not called a \"congregation,\" and mamzerim were not exhorted against entering the congregation of proselytes. But Levites and Israelites may not marry mamzerim. And shetukim and asufim are possibly mamzerim and are permitted to intermarry with confirmed mamzerim. For we say that it is a confirmed \"congregation\" that he (the mamzer) may not enter, but not a possible one.]",
            "\tWho is a \"shetuki\"? Whoever knows his mother, but not his father. [He calls his father, and his mother \"silences him\" (mashtikah otho)]. (Who is) an \"asufi\"? Whoever is gathered up (ne'esaf) from the marketplace, and knows neither his father nor his mother. Abba Shaul would call a shetuki a \"beduki.\" [We \"examine\" (bodkin) his mother. If his mother says that she cohabited with one who was kasher, the child is kasher. The halachah is in accordance with Abba Shaul.]",
            "\tAll who are forbidden to enter the congregation are permitted to intermarry with each other. [Even though it was already taught that mamzerim, Nethinim, etc. are permitted to intermarry, we are being apprised here that one such as a Moavite or Ammonite proselyte may marry a mamzer, a shetuki, or an asufi. R. Yehudah forbids. [The gemara explains: Even R. Yehudah, who forbids a mamzereth to a proselyte, forbids it only to a proselyte from other gentile nations, who are permitted to enter the congregation (R. Yehudah holding that the congregation of proselytes is called a \"congregation\"), but he concedes that a Moavite or Ammonite proselyte, who is forbidden to enter the congregation, is permitted to marry a mamzereth.] R. Eliezer says: A confirmed one with a confirmed one [such as a mamzer with a Nathin] is permitted. A confirmed one with a doubtful one [a mamzer or a Nathin with a shetuki or an asufi] and a doubtful one with a doubtful one [a male shetuki with a female shetuki, or a male asufi with a female asufi, or an asufi with a shetuki] are forbidden [even though both are doubtful; for one might be kasher and the other, pasul. The halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer.] These are the doubtful ones: shetuki, asufi, and Cuthi. [Cuthites are \"doubtful,\" because they are not versed in the laws of gittin and betrothal. And today they are considered confirmed gentiles in all respects.]",
            "\tIf one (a Cohein) wishes to marry the daughter of a Cohein, he must examine her lineage four mothers back, [two on the father's side, two on the mother's], who are eight; [four on the father's side, four on the mother's], viz.: her mother, her mother's mother, her mother's father's mother, the mother [of her mother's father's mother]; her father's mother, her father's mother's mother, her father's father's mother, the mother [of her father's father's mother]. They are examined for possible p'sul (unfitness)]. [If a Cohein wishes to marry] the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite, one is added [i.e., one mother in each set, viz.: her mother, her mother's mother, her mother's mother's mother — and so with all. The reason the mothers are examined for p'sul and not the fathers, (e.g., her father or her father's father) is that men tend to revile each other with (imprecations of) tainted pedigree in quarreling, so that if there were a p'sul in one of the fathers it would have become known. But women revile each other not with tainted pedigree but with z'nuth (accusations of harlotry), so that if one of them were thus tainted, it would not have become known (in their quarreling). And this requirement of examination is stated only in regard to a family which has come under suspicion, but in the absence of such suspicion, no examination is necessary, for all families are in the status of kashruth. And it is only the man who must conduct this examination when he wishes to marry a woman from a family that has come under suspicion. But the daughter of a Cohein need not examine the (lineage of the) man she wishes to marry, for women who are kasher were not exhorted against marrying men who are pasul — so that the daughter of a Cohein (and, it goes without saying, the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite) may ab initio marry a proselyte or a challal.]",
            "\tOne does not examine from the altar and above [i.e., if he began to examine the mothers and found that her father's father served at the altar, he need not examine her father's father's mother. For since her son served at the altar, of a certainty he was pedigreed]; and not from the (Levite's) podium and above [if he found that he sang upon the podium], and not from the Sanhedrin and above. [Specifically, the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem — even one who adjudicated monetary law alone. For they would appoint only a pedigreed Cohen, Levite, or Israelite to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, viz. (Numbers 11:16): \"And let them stand there with you (Moses)\" — with those who are similar to you in pedigree and wisdom.] And all whose fathers were known to be community officers or charity collectors may wed into the priesthood and need not be examined. [Since they contended with those people from whom they would exact pledges for charity, even on the eve of Sabbath, if their pedigree were tainted, it would be known. R. Yossi says: Also one who was signed as a witness in the sanhedraoth of [the city] Yeshanah [near] Sepphoris. R. Chanina b. Antignos says: Also one who was recorded in the king's list of officers [in the monthly division, to go out to the Davidic wars — such and such family in such and such month. Only the pedigreed would go out to these wars, hoping for Divine assistance in their merit and in the merits of their fathers.]",
            "\tThe daughter of a male challal is unfit for (marriage to) the priesthood forever [i.e., the daughter of his son or the daughter of the son of his son until the end of all the generations. But the daughter of his daughter from an Israelite is kasher to the priesthood. For the daughter of a challalah herself from an Israelite is kasher to the priesthood.] If an Israelite married a challalah, his daughter is kasher to the priesthood. If a challal married the daughter of an Israelite, his daughter is unfit for the priesthood. R. Yehudah says: The daughter of a male proselyte [even from the daughter of an Israelite] is [unfit for the priesthood] like the daughter of a male challal.",
            "\tR. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: If an Israelite married a proselytess, his daughter is kasher to the priesthood, and if a proselyte married the daughter of an Israelite, his daughter is kasher to the priesthood. But if a proselyte married a proselytess, his daughter is unfit for the priesthood, both a proselyte and freed bondsmen, even until ten generations — until his mother be an Israelite. R. Yossi says: Even the daughter of a proselyte who married a proselytess is kasher to the priesthood. [The gemara concludes that if one comes to be advised he is taught as per R. Eliezer b. Yaakov, that a Cohein should not marry the daughter of a proselyte and a proselytess; but if he did marry her, the halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi, and she is not taken from him, and his children from her are kasher.]",
            "\tIf one says: \"This son of mine is a mamzer,\" he is not believed. [For he is kin to him, and thus not believed to testify.] And even if both of them [husband and wife] say about a fetus in her womb that it is a mamzer, they are not believed. [Not only when the father alone testifies that he is a mamzer is he not believed, not being certain, but even when his mother, who is certain, testifies, she is not believed, even not concerning a fetus in her womb, who was never in a status of kashruth.] R. Yehudah says: They are believed. [The rationale of R. Yehudah: It is written (Deuteronomy 21:17): \"But the first-born … shall he (the father) recognize\" — he shall cause him to be recognized by others, whence it is derived that the father is believed to render his son pasul (unfit), and the mother is not believed to do so. And it is only concerning his son that he is believed, but not concerning the son of his son. If his son had sons, he is not permitted to render them pasul. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tIf a man authorized a messenger to betroth his daughter and he (the father himself) went and betrothed her — if his (betrothal) came first, his betrothal stands; and if his messenger's (betrothal) came first, his (the messenger's) betrothal stands. And if it is not known (which preceded), both give a get. And if they wish, one gives a get and the other weds her. Likewise, if a woman authorized her messenger to betroth her, and she went and betrothed herself — if her (betrothal) came first, her betrothal stands; and if her messenger's (betrothal) came first, his betrothal stands. And if it is not known (which preceded), both give her a get. And if they wish, one gives her a get and the other weds her. [The tanna must apprise us of both the father's authorizing a messenger to betroth his daughter, and a woman's authorizing a messenger to betroth herself. For if he apprised us only of the father, we might think that since he knows pedigree, when he found a pedigreed man and betrothed her to him, he (thereby) voided the messenger; but that the woman, not knowing pedigree, though she betrothed herself, did not rely entirely on her betrothal and did not void the messenger, thinking that he might find a man more pedigreed than the one she found. And if we were apprised only of her, we might think that since a woman is particular in choosing a husband, when she betrothed herself she voided the messenger, but that the father, not being that particular about whom his daughter married, did not void the messenger, and betrothed her himself only on the chance that the messenger might not find anyone. We must, therefore, be apprised of both instances.]",
            "\tIf a man and his wife went abroad, and he returned with his wife and her children, and he said that this was the woman who went abroad with him and that these are her children, he need not bring proof [of pedigree] neither for the woman, [for he had already looked into her pedigree when he married her], nor for her children [small children, who \"cling\" to their mother]. If he said: \"She died, and these are her children,\" he brings proof for the children, and he need not bring proof for the woman.",
            "\t(If he said:) \"I married a woman abroad, and this is she, and these are her children,\" he brings proof for the woman, and he need not bring proof for the children. (If he said:) \"She died, and these are her children,\" he must bring proof for the woman and for the children.",
            "\tA man may not be alone with two women [For women are weak-willed, and the two together might succumb to enticement], but one woman may be alone with two men, [for one man would be ashamed in the presence of the other. The halachah: One woman may not be alone with two men, and, it goes without saying, that one man may not be alone with two women, unless the two were rivals (tzaroth) or yevamoth, or a woman and her husband's daughter, or a woman and her mother-in-law (or a woman with a young girl who knows what cohabitation means and does not surrender herself to it), for these hate and fear one another. Likewise, she fears a young girl, lest she see and tell. And stripes are administered for being alone with a single woman and for being alone with arayoth, except with a married woman, stripes not being administered in that instance, so as not to bring her children into disrepute. And it is permitted to be alone with an animal or with (another) male, for Israel are not suspect of homosexuality or zooerasty.] R. Shimon says: A man, too, may be alone with two women when his wife is with him, and he may sleep (alone) with them in an inn, for his wife guards him. A man may be alone with his mother and with his daughter, and he may sleep with them in flesh contact. And if they are grown [the daughter being twelve years and one day old, and the boy, thirteen years and one day], she sleeps in her garment and he sleeps in his. [And if she is ashamed to stand before him naked, even if she is younger, she sleeps in her garment and he in his.]",
            "\tA bachelor should not accustom himself to teaching young children, [for their mothers bring them to him to school ], nor should a woman do so. R. Eliezer says: Also one who does not have a wife. [Even if he is not single, but has a wife who is not with him, he should not accustom himself to teach young children. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer. ]",
            "\tR. Yehudah says: A bachelor should not be a shepherd, and two bachelors should not sleep under one cover; and the sages permit it. [The halachah is in accordance with the sages, Israel not being suspect of homosexuality]. All whose trade is with women, [who have need of him], should not be alone with them, [even with many of them; for being familiar with him, they are likely to come to \"cover up\" for him (whereas with respect to men in general, we learned that one man may not be alone with two women, but he may be alone with three or four.) And Rambam explains that we do not permit him to be alone with women (even) for his subsistence, since his livelihood depends upon them.] R. Meir says: Let one always teach his son a clean, easy trade, and pray to Him who is the source of wealth and possessions. For there is no trade where there is not poverty and wealth. For poverty and wealth proceed not from one's trade but from one's merit. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Did you ever see an animal or a bird with a trade? And yet they are fed without tribulation. Now they were created only to serve me, and I was created to serve my Creator. Does it not follow, then, that I should be fed without tribulation! But (it is otherwise only because) I have sullied my deeds and undermined my sustenance. Abba Guryan of Tzadyan said in the name of Abba Guria: Let one not teach his son to be an ass driver, a camel driver, a potter, a sailor, or a shop-keeper, for they are robbers' trades. [When they are on the road, they take wood and fruit from the vineyards. In addition, they are hired out by men, and they break their agreements. (a shepherd:) He grazes his animals in fields belonging to others. (a shop-keeper): He is \"conversant\" in cheating, in putting wine into water and chaff into grain. But one must teach his son a clean trade.] R. Yehudah says in his name: Most of the ass drivers are wicked. Most of the camel drivers are \"kosher.\" Most of the sailors are \"chassidim.\" The best of the doctors — to Gehinnom! The most \"kosher\" of the slaughterers — the partner of Amalek! R. Nehorai says: I leave (off from teaching) all the trades in the world, and I teach my son only Torah. For one eats of its reward in this world, with the principal left for the world to come. But with all the other trades it is not so. For when one becomes sick, or old, or beset with affliction, and he cannot engage in his trade, he dies of hunger. But with Torah, it is not so. For it protects him from all evil in his youth and gives him expectation and hope in his old age. In his youth — (Isaiah 40:31): \"The hopers in the L-rd shall renew strength.\" In his old age — (Psalms 92:15): \"They shall flourish again in old age.\" And thus do we find with our father Abraham, may peace be upon him, viz. (Genesis 24:1): \"And Abraham was old … and the L-rd blessed Abraham with everything.\" We find that our father Abraham fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given, viz. (Genesis 26:5): \"Because Abraham hearkened to My voice and heeded My charge, My statutes, and My laws.\""
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}