Kiddushin

A plain divorce [bears] its witnesses on the inside; a folded one [bears] its witnesses on the outside.1 If the signatures of a plain one are written on the outside, or of a folded one on the inside, both are invalid. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: If the signatures of a folded one are written on the inside it is valid, because it can be converted into a plain one.2 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: It all depends on local custom.3 Now, we pondered thereon: does not the first Tanna agree that local custom [is the determining factor]? To which R. Ashi4 replied: In the place where a plain one is customary and a folded one is made, or in the place where a folded one is customary and a plain one is made, all agree that the objection [is valid]. Where do they differ? Where both are customary, and he [the husband] instructs him [the scribe], ‘Make me a plain one,’ and he goes and makes him a folded one. One Master holds that he particularised; the other, that he indicated a place to him. 5 ‘R. Eleazar’ — for we learnt: If a woman says: ‘Accept a divorce on my behalf at such and such a place,’ and he accepts it elsewhere: R. Eleazar ruled it valid. This shews that he holds that she merely indicated a place to him. ‘Ulla said: The controversy [in the Mishnah] refers to a monetary advantage. But in an advantage of birth,6 all agree that she is not betrothed. What is the reason? ‘I do not want a shoe too large for my foot.’ It was taught likewise. R. Simeon admits that if he deceives her by a superiority of birth she is not betrothed. R. Ashi said: This follows from our Mishnah too. For it states:7 ‘On condition that I am a priest,’ and he is found to be a Levite, or ‘a Levite’, and he is found to be a priest, ‘a Nathin,’8 and he is found to be a mamzer,9 or a mamzer’, and he is found to be a Nathin [she is not betrothed]; and R. Simeon does not disagree. Mar, son of R. Ashi, demurred: If so, when it is stated: ‘on condition that I have a daughter or maidservant [meguddeleth]10 that is grown up’, whereas he has none; or on condition that he has not, and he has, which is a monetary advantage, does he not disagree there either! But [what you must say is that] he differs in the first clause,11 and the same is understood of the second;12 so here too [in respect to superiority] of birth, he differs in the first clause, and the same applies to the last clause. How compare! There, since both refer to a financial advantage, he differs in the first clause and the same is understood of the last. Here, however, that it is superiority of birth, if it is so that he disagrees, it should be taught. Alternatively, here too superior birth [is meant]. Do you think that meguddeleth means literally an adult; meguddeleth means of superior breeding,13 for she [the woman betrothed] can say: ‘It does not please me that she should take up my words and carry them about to the neighbours.’14 Our Rabbis taught: ‘On condition that I am a karyana,’15 once he has read three verses [of the Pentateuch] in the synagogue,16 she is betrothed. R. Judah said: He must be able to read and translate it. Even if he translates it according to his own understanding! But it was taught: R. Judah said: If one translates17 a verse literally, he is a liar; if he adds thereto, he is a blasphemer and a libeller.18 Then what is meant by translation? Our [authorised] translation.19 Now, that is only if he said to her ‘karyana’. But if he says: ‘I am a kara,’20 he must be able to read the Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographa with exactitude.21 [If he says,] ‘On condition that I am learned’ — Hezekiah said: [In] Halachoth.22 R. Johanan ruled: In Torah.23 An objection is raised: What is Mishnah?24 R. Meir said: Halachoth. R. Judah said: Midrash.25 scribe to write a divorce, it is tacitly understood that he wants it written in accordance with local custom; for notes v. B.B. 160a. by the latter, unless it is assumed that Abaye merely made the statement cited above, the Talmud itself elaborating it; v. Kaplan, Redaction of the Talmud, p. 222. otherwise. performed by a number of congregants, each of whom read not less than three verses, and not by a Reader, as to-day. ancient times. ktrah hekt ,t utrhu of which the literal rendering ‘they saw the God of Israel’ conveys a lie, as God cannot be seen, whilst the added words in the rendering ‘they saw the angel of the God of Israel’ involves a blasphemy; for further examples v. Harkavy, A., Teshuboth ha-Geonim, pp. 124ff.] also art. ‘Targum’ in J.E. such as form the Mishnah, but without the exegetical knowledge of their derivation from the Bible, particularly the Pentateuch, v, Glos. s.v. Halachah. manner of derival. — Thus on both views the knowledge of the Torah alone is insufficient.