Commentary page

Kiddushin 61b

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Kiddushin 61b

Kiddushin 61b. The full printed text of this folio side — 15 numbered segments, about 327 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לִתְנַאי כָּפוּל הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

Why do I need this extra phrase? Conclude from it that it comes to teach the requirement of a compound condition.

Segment 2

וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמַר: אִי לָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא ״וְנֹאחֲזוּ בְתֹכְכֶם״ – בְּאֶרֶץ גִּלְעָד, אֲבָל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן – כְּלָל לָא. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר? ״בְתֹכְכֶם״ – כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִית לְכוּ מַשְׁמַע.

And Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: If the Merciful One had not written: “In the land of Canaan,” I would say that the requirement: “They shall receive a possession among you” (Numbers 32:30) is referring to the land of Gilead, i.e., this land must be shared with the other tribes. But they would not inherit in the land of Canaan at all. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir respond to this claim? He maintains that the expression: “Among you,” means anywhere that you have taken possession, including the land of Canaan. Therefore, the subsequent phrase “the land of Canaan” is superfluous and serves to teach that the condition must be doubled.

Segment 3

תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה – לְאָדָם שֶׁהָיָה מְחַלֵּק נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו, אָמַר: פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי יִירַשׁ שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית, וּפְלוֹנִי בְּנִי יִירַשׁ שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית, וּפְלוֹנִי בְּנִי יִתֵּן מָאתַיִם זוּז וְיִירַשׁ שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית, וְאִם לֹא יִתֵּן – יִירַשׁ עִם אֶחָיו בִּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים.

It is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel said: Hear a parable: To what is this matter, i.e., the condition of the children of Gad and Reuben, comparable? It is comparable to a person who was dividing up his property among his sons, and said: My son so-and-so shall inherit such and such a field; and my son so-and-so shall inherit such and such a field; and my son so-and-so shall give two hundred dinars and inherit such and such a field, and if he does not give the money he will inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers.

Segment 4

מִי גָּרַם לוֹ לִירַשׁ עִם אֶחָיו בִּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים – כְּפֵילוֹ גָּרַם לוֹ.

What causes the last brother to inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers? The father’s double formulation of the condition causes him to inherit in this manner. It was therefore necessary for the father to state both sides and explain what will happen if the third brother fails to give the money. Had the father not repeated the condition, upon failing to give the two hundred dinars the son would not have received any portion of the property.

Segment 5

וְהָא לָא דָּמְיָא מָשָׁל לְמַתְנִיתִין! הָתָם קָתָנֵי: יֵשׁ בַּמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן לֹא יִנְחָלוּ, אַלְמָא כְּפֵילָה לְאֶרֶץ גִּלְעָד נָמֵי מַהֲנֵי.

The Gemara asks: But the parable is not similar to the mishna, as there the mishna teaches: It might have been thought it meant that if they do not fulfill the condition they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan, and certainly not in the land of Gilead. This apparently indicates that the double formulation is also effective for them to inherit the land of Gilead with the other tribes. Otherwise, the children of Gad and Reuben would not receive any part of the Gilead either.

Segment 6

וְהָכָא קָתָנֵי: מִי גָּרַם לוֹ לִירַשׁ עִם אֶחָיו בִּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים – כְּפֵילוֹ גָּרַם לוֹ, אַלְמָא כְּפֵילָה לִשְׁאָר נְכָסִים הוּא דְּקָמַהֲנֵי!

And yet here the baraita teaches: What causes the last brother to inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers? The father’s double formulation causes him. This apparently indicates that the double formulation is effective for the rest of the property, whereas he would have received that portion of the field linked to the condition in any case. According to this reasoning, the children of Gad and Reuben would have been granted a portion in the land of Gilead even without the double formulation.

Segment 7

לָא קַשְׁיָא. הָא – מִקַּמֵּי דְּנֵימָא לֵיהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר ״וְנֹאחֲזוּ״,

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this case, referring to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel’s ruling in the mishna, was stated before Rabbi Meir said to him that the verse could simply have stated: “They shall receive a possession among you.” At that stage, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel maintained that if the two tribes did not fulfill the condition they would not inherit even in the land of Gilead, as indicated by his use of the term: Even, in the mishna.

Segment 8

הָא – לְבָתַר דְּנֵימָא לֵיהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר ״וְנֹאחֲזוּ״.

Whereas that case, referring to the parable in the baraita , was taught after Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel that when the phrase: “They shall receive a possession,” appears by itself it is referring to the land of Canaan. As stated previously, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel responded by explaining that had the verse not stated: “In the land of Canaan,” one would have said that the requirement: “They shall receive a possession among you” (Numbers 32:30), is referring to the land of Gilead, and they would not inherit in the land of Canaan. In other words, even without the compound condition they would have received a portion in Gilead, which is similar to the parable.

Segment 9

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת, וְאִם לֹא תֵיטִיב לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ״. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אִם תֵּיטִיב – אַגְרָא, אִם לֹא תֵיטִיב – לָא אַגְרָא וְלָא דִּינָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

§ The Gemara proceeds to analyze these two opinions: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who requires a compound condition, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to God’s rebuke of Cain: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door” (Genesis 4:7). However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need both sides of this stipulation to be specified? The Gemara answers: Were it not for the double formulation it might enter your mind to say that the verse means: If you do well shall you not receive a reward? And if you do not do well you will receive neither reward nor punishment. The double formulation of the verse teaches us that if Cain fails to do well he will be actively punished.

Segment 10

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״אָז תִּנָּקֶה מֵאָלָתִי״, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara asks another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to Abraham’s instruction to Eliezer to bring a wife for Isaac: “Then you shall be clear from my oath …if they will not give her to you” (Genesis 24:41). However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need this addition? The positive formulation of the oath already indicates the negative.

Segment 11

אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הֵיכָא דְּנִיחָא לַהּ לְדִידַהּ וְלָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ לְדִידְהוּ מַיְיתֵי בְּעַל כֻּרְחַיְיהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for this to be stated; if Abraham had stated only: “And take a wife for my son” (Genesis 24:38), it might enter your mind to say: In a case where the arrangement is satisfactory for her, but not satisfactory for her family, he should bring her against their wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that Eliezer is not obligated to bring her against her family’s wishes.

Segment 12

״אִם לֹא תֹאבֶה הָאִשָּׁה״ לְמָה לִי? אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הֵיכָא דְּנִיחָא לְהוּ לְדִידְהוּ וְלָא נִיחָא לַהּ לְדִידַהּ – נַיְיתֵי בְּעַל כֻּרְחַהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara inquires about another verse in that chapter: “If the woman is not willing to follow you” (Genesis 24:8). Why do I need this clause? The Gemara answers: It was necessary, since it might enter your mind to say: If it is satisfactory for them but not satisfactory for her, he should bring her against her wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that he should not bring her against her wishes.

Segment 13

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ״, ״וְאִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תִּמְאָסוּ״, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמָה לִי? אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ״ – בְּרָכָה, ״אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תִּמְאָסוּ״ – לֹא בְּרָכָה וְלֹא קְלָלָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks a related question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written: “If you walk in My statutes” (Leviticus 26:3), you will receive blessings; conversely: “And if you shall reject My statutes” (Leviticus 26:15), you will receive curses. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need both of these clauses? The Gemara answers: They are both necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: If you follow My statutes you will receive a blessing, whereas if you reject My statutes you will receive neither a blessing nor a curse. The verse therefore teaches us that the rejection of God’s statutes warrants a curse.

Segment 14

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״אִם תֹּאבוּ וּשְׁמַעְתֶּם וְגוֹ׳״, ״וְאִם תְּמָאֲנוּ וּמְרִיתֶם וְגוֹ׳״, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמָה לִי? אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״אִם תֹּאבוּ״ – טוֹבָה, ״וְאִם תְּמָאֲנוּ״ – לֹא טוֹבָה וְלֹא רָעָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara again inquires: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written: “If you are willing and obedient you shall eat the good of the land” (Isaiah 1:19), whereas: “But if you refuse and rebel you shall be devoured by the sword” (Isaiah 1:20). But according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need the double formulation? The Gemara answers in a similar fashion: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: “If you are willing” you will receive good, i.e., reward, “but if you refuse” you will receive neither good nor bad. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not the case, and one who rebels will receive punishment.

Segment 15

מַאי

In connection with the verse from Isaiah, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase:

Kiddushin 61b

Kiddushin 61b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Penei Yehoshua

Ben Yehoyada

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Original text