Kiddushin

A proselyte requires three [Israelites].1 What is the reason? Judgment [mishpat] is written in connection therewith, as for a lawsuit:2 who can say that these three will assemble for him?3 R. Abba b. Memel demurred thereto:4 If so, if a man gives a perutah to his [heathen] bondmaid and says to her, ‘Behold, thou art betrothed unto me after I liberate thee,’ is it indeed [valid] kiddushin?5 — How compare! There, she is originally like an animal,6 whereas now [after liberation] she is an independent mind. Then when R. Oshaia said: If he gives his wife a perutah and says to her, ‘Behold, thou art betrothed unto me after I divorce thee,’ she is not betrothed: according to R. Johanan. is she indeed betrothed? — Granted that it rests with him to divorce, is it in his power to betroth her?7 [From this answer, then,] solve R. Oshaia's problem. [Viz.] [What] if one gives two perutoth to a woman: With one he says to her, ‘Be thou betrothed unto me to-day.’ and with the other, ‘Be thou betrothed unto me after I divorce thee’: from this [then] deduce that it is not [valid] kiddushin! — [No.] Perhaps. just as kiddushin can be effective now, it can be effective afterwards. 8 It was taught as R. Johanan: One must not separate from detached [produce] for attached; and if one does separate, his separation is not terumah. How so? If he declares, ‘The detached produce of this furrow be terumah for the attached produce of that one,’ or ‘the attached produce of this furrow be terumah for the detached produce of that one’, his statement is null. But if he declares, ‘when it is cut off,’ and then it is cut off, his declaration is valid. R. Eliezer b. Jacob went further.9 Even if he declares, ‘The detached produce of this furrow be terumah for the attached produce of this one,’ or, ‘the attached produce of this furrow be terumah for the detached produce of this one when it [the attached] is a third grown and cut off,’ and it then grows to a third [of its full maturity] and is cut off, his declaration is valid.10 Rabbah said: R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled thus only of fodder,11 but not of leek-like plants.12 R. Joseph said: [He ruled thus] even of soft plants.13 Where is it implied that this word ‘agam’ connotes leek-like plants? — R. Eleazar answered, because Scripture saith, is it to bow down his head as a rush [ke-agmon]?14 With whom does the following agree? For we learnt: IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR. ‘IF THY WIFE BEARS A FEMALE, LET HER BE BETROTHED UNTO ME.’ SHE IS NOT BETROTHED — whereon R. Hanina said: This was taught only if his wife is not pregnant; but if she is, his declaration is valid, — with whom [does it agree]? — If it is according to Rabbah, it means that her child was discernible; if as R. Joseph, even if her child is not discernible.15 Others state, Rabbah said: R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled thus only of the fodder of a naturally watered field, but not of the fodder of an artificially irrigated field.16 R. Joseph said: Even of the fodder of an artificially irrigated field. With whom does the following agree? For we learnt: IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR. ‘IF THY WIFE BEARS A FEMALE, LET HER BE BETROTHED UNTO ME,’ SHE IS NOT BETROTHED, whereon R. Hanina said: This was taught only if his wife was not pregnant; but if she was, his declaration is valid with whom [does it agree]? — It means that her child was discernible, and agrees with all. 17 Abaye said: R. Eliezer b. Jacob, Rabbi, and R. Meir, all hold that one may transmit the title to an object which has not come into the world.18 R. Eliezer b. Jacob, as stated. Rabbi, for it was taught: E.V. ‘stranger’) as for the homeborn. ‘Mishpat’ really means a judgment in a civil suit, for which three are required. answer given here shews that one encountered real difficulties before he could be converted, and often was denied it altogether. after divorce. But if he gives his wife kiddushin, to take effect after he divorces her, no part of his declaration is valid there and then. tithe it (R.H. 13a), and so it is something as yet non-existent; moreover, it does not rest with him to make it grow. Yet R. Eliezer b. Jacob maintains that his declaration is valid, for one can transmit title of what is yet non-existent. (Here by his declaration he transmits a title to priests.) is sufficient for R. Eliezer b. Jacob's view to operate. which cannot (before they are a third grown). On both views, however, R. Hanina's interpretation implies that one can transmit the title of an object which is as yet non-existent, and hence agrees with R. Eliezer b. Jacob. watered field.