## Kiddushin Daf 49a

###### Kiddushin 49a:1
[Kiddushin 49a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:1)

גֵּט פָּשׁוּט, עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ. מְקוּשָּׁר, עֵדָיו מֵאֲחוֹרָיו. פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתְבוּ עֵדָיו מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, וּמְקוּשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתְבוּ עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ – שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִים. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מְקוּשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתְבוּ עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁיָּכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פָּשׁוּט. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In **an ordinary document, its witnesses** are to sign **inside it,** i.e., on the written side of the paper. In a folded and **tied** document, **its witnesses** are to sign **on the back of it.** With regard to **an ordinary** document **whose witnesses wrote** their signatures **on the back of it, or a tied** document **whose witnesses wrote** their signatures **inside of it, both of these** are **not valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: A tied** document **whose witnesses wrote** their signatures **inside of it** is **valid, because one can transform it into an ordinary** document by untying it. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything** is **in accordance with regional custom.** If an ordinary document is generally used and one wrote a bound one, or vice versa, the document is invalid.


###### Kiddushin 49a:2
[Kiddushin 49a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:2)

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: וְתַנָּא קַמָּא לֵית לֵיהּ מִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה? וְאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּאַתְרָא דִּנְהִיגִי בְּפָשׁוּט וַעֲבַד לֵיהּ מְקוּשָּׁר, אִי נָמֵי: בְּאַתְרָא דִּנְהִיגִי בִּמְקוּשָּׁר וַעֲבַד לֵיהּ פָּשׁוּט – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּוַדַּאי קְפִידָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we discussed it: And does the first *tanna* not accept** that one should follow the **regional custom?** It is not reasonable that he should take issue with such a basic concept. **And Rav Ashi says** that they have a dispute in a case where one instructed a scribe to write a document for him: If they are **in a place where the custom is** to write **an ordinary** document, **and he made a tied one for him; alternatively,** if they are **in a place where the custom is** to write **a tied** document, **and he made an ordinary** one **for him;** in both of these cases, **everyone agrees that** he was **certainly particular** in his instructions to the agent that he should follow the regional custom, and if the latter deviated from the custom the document is invalid.


###### Kiddushin 49a:3
[Kiddushin 49a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:3)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי, בְּאַתְרָא דִּנְהִיגִי בֵּין בְּפָשׁוּט בֵּין בִּמְקוּשָּׁר, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עֲבֵיד לִי פָּשׁוּט״, וַאֲזַל וַעֲבַד לֵיהּ מְקוּשָּׁר. מָר סָבַר: קְפֵידָא, וּמָר סָבַר: מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם הוּא לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The situation **in which they disagree** is where they are **in a place where the custom is** to use **either an ordinary** document **or a tied** one, **and** the one requesting the document **said to** the scribe: **Make an ordinary** document **for me, and** the scribe **went and made a tied** document **for him.** In such a case, one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that the one requesting the document was **particular** about wanting an ordinary document, and since the scribe wrote a tied document, it is considered to have been written without his consent. **And** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that the one requesting the document was merely **indicating** his **position to** the scribe, stating that if the scribe wanted to save himself the trouble of writing a tied document there would no objection.


###### Kiddushin 49a:4
[Kiddushin 49a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:4)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – דִּתְנַן: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״, וְקִבֵּל לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר – פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַכְשִׁיר. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: מַרְאָה מָקוֹם הִיא לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar** also holds that when one instructs an agent in such a manner he is merely indicating his position to him, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 65a): If there was **a woman who said** to her agent: **Receive my bill of divorce for me** from my husband **in such and such a place, and he received her bill of divorce for her elsewhere, it is invalid. And Rabbi Elazar deems it valid. Apparently, he holds** that **she is** merely **indicating a place to him** where he can receive the bill of divorce, but she does not insist that he accept it in that particular spot.


###### Kiddushin 49a:5
[Kiddushin 49a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:5)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁבַח מָמוֹן, אֲבָל בְּשֶׁבַח יוּחֲסִין, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מַאי טַעְמָא – ״מְסָאנָא דְּרַב מִכַּרְעַאי לָא בָּעֵינָא״. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אִם הִטְעָהּ לִשְׁבַח יוּחֲסִים אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Ulla says:** The **dispute** in the mishna between the first *tanna* and Rabbi Shimon is only where he misled her **with enhanced monetary** value, i.e., he gave her something worth more than the item he had stipulated. **But** where he misled her **with enhanced lineage,** so that she was under the impression that his genealogy was less impressive than it in fact is, **everyone agrees** that **she is not betrothed. What is the reason** for this? A woman says: **I do not desire a shoe that is larger than my foot.** She does not wish to marry a man whose social standing is far greater than her own. **This is also taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 2:6): **Rabbi Shimon concedes** that **if he misled her with enhanced lineage, she is not betrothed.**


###### Kiddushin 49a:6
[Kiddushin 49a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:6)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא. דְּקָתָנֵי: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי כֹּהֵן״ וְנִמְצָא לֵוִי, ״לֵוִי״ וְנִמְצָא כֹּהֵן, נָתִין וְנִמְצָא מַמְזֵר, ״מַמְזֵר״ וְנִמְצָא נָתִין. וְלָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi says:** The wording of **the mishna is also precise, as** the following mishna (49b) **teaches:** If one betroths a woman and states that the betrothal is: **On the condition that I am a priest, and he was found** to be **a Levite;** or: On the condition that I am **a Levite, and he was found** to be **a priest;** or: On the condition that I am **a Gibeonite,** a people prohibited by rabbinic law from marrying into the congregation, i.e., from marrying a Jew of fit lineage, **and he was found** to be **a *mamzer*,** who is prohibited by Torah law from marrying into the congregation; or: On the condition that I am **a *mamzer*, and he was found** to be **a Gibeonite,** in all of these cases she is not betrothed. **And Rabbi Shimon does not disagree** with these rulings. This indicates that if one misled a woman with regard to his lineage, Rabbi Shimon concedes that she is not betrothed.


###### Kiddushin 49a:7
[Kiddushin 49a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:7)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא דְּקָתָנֵי: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בַּת אוֹ שִׁפְחָה מְגוּדֶּלֶת״ וְאֵין לוֹ, עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ, דִּשְׁבַח מָמוֹן הוּא, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא פְּלִיג?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this** inference: **But** what about **that** which **is taught** in the same mishna: If one betroths a woman and states that the betrothal is: **On the condition that I have a grown daughter or maidservant, and he does not have** one; or if one betroths a woman **on the condition that he does not have** a grown daughter or maidservant **and he does have** one, the latter of **which is** an issue of **enhanced monetary** value, as the difference between one who has a maidservant and one who does not impacts how hard the woman will have to work in the home; in these cases will you **also** say **that** Rabbi Shimon **does not disagree** simply because the mishna does not mention his opinion in that case?


###### Kiddushin 49a:8
[Kiddushin 49a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:8)

אֶלָּא פְּלִיג בְּרֵישָׁא וְהוּא הַדִּין לְסֵיפָא. הָכָא נָמֵי פְּלִיג בְּרֵישָׁא וְהוּא הַדִּין לְסֵיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that **he disagrees in the first clause** of the mishna with regard to enhanced monetary value, **and the same is true with regard to the latter clause,** i.e., he also disagrees in that clause, and it was not necessary to state his dispute another time. **Here too,** with regard to lineage, **he disagrees in the first clause, and the same is true with regard to the latter clause.**


###### Kiddushin 49a:9
[Kiddushin 49a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:9)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דִּשְׁבַח מָמוֹן, פְּלִיג בְּרֵישָׁא וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּסֵיפָא. הָכָא, דִּשְׁבַח יוּחֲסִים הוּא, אִם אִיתָא דִּפְלִיג, נִתְנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** where **both this** case **and that** case involve an inaccuracy **of enhanced monetary** value, it is possible that **he disagreed in the first clause and the same is true in the last clause,** and the mishna did not need to restate his opinion. But **here,** where it **is** a case **of enhanced lineage,** which is a different issue, **if it is so that** Rabbi Shimon **disagrees, let him teach** that explicitly. The fact that no dispute is recorded in the case of enhanced lineage is proof that he concedes in that case.


###### Kiddushin 49a:10
[Kiddushin 49a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:10)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָכָא נָמֵי שְׁבַח יוּחֲסִים, מִי סָבְרַתְּ מַאי מְגוּדֶּלֶת – גְּדוֹלָה מַמָּשׁ? מַאי מְגוּדֶּלֶת – גַּדֶּלֶת, דְּאָמְרָה הִיא: לָא נִיחָא לִי דְּשָׁקְלָה מִילֵּי מִינַּאי וְאָזְלָא נָדְיָא קַמֵּי שִׁיבָבוֹתַיי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** instead: **Here too,** the issue of a daughter or maidservant involves **enhanced lineage,** not enhanced monetary value. His statement should be understood differently. **Do you maintain** that **what** is the meaning of his statement that he has **a grown** daughter or maidservant; that she is **actually grown** up, so that she can be of help to his wife? That is not the meaning of his statement. Rather, **what** is the meaning of: **Grown?** That she **grows** and plaits hair, i.e., he has a daughter or maidservant who is a hairdresser. Why might the potential bride view this as a drawback? **Because she** can **say:** It is **not satisfactory for me** to live in the house with a hairdresser, **as she will take words** she hears **from me and will go pass** them **before my neighbors,** meaning she will gossip about me to others. This concern is more akin to a matter of lineage than a matter of monetary value.


###### Kiddushin 49a:11
[Kiddushin 49a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי קַרְיָינָא״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁקָּרָא שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּסוּקִים בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיִּקְרָא וִיתַרְגֵּם. יְתַרְגֵּם מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ?! וְהָתַנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַמְתַרְגֵּם פָּסוּק כְּצוּרָתוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה בַּדַּאי. וְהַמּוֹסִיף עָלָיו – הֲרֵי זֶה מְחָרֵף וּמְגַדֵּף. אֶלָּא מַאי תַּרְגּוּם – תַּרְגּוּם דִּידַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me **on the condition that I am literate** with regard to the Torah, **once he has read three verses in the synagogue she is betrothed. Rabbi Yehuda says** that she is not betrothed **until he reads and translates** the verses. The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that **one translates** according to **his own understanding? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Megilla* 3:21) that **Rabbi Yehuda says: One who translates a verse literally is a liar,** since he distorts the meaning of the text, **and** conversely, **one who adds** his own translation **is** tantamount to one who **curses and blasphemes** God? **Rather,** to **which translation** is Rabbi Yehuda referring? He is referring to **our** accepted **translation.**


###### Kiddushin 49a:12
[Kiddushin 49a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:12)

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דַּאֲמַר לַהּ: ״קַרְיָינָא״, אֲבָל אָמַר לַהּ: ״קָרָא אֲנָא״ – עַד דְּקָרֵי אוֹרָיְיתָא נְבִיאֵי וּכְתוּבֵי בְּדִיּוּקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And this statement applies** only **if he said to her: I am literate, but** if **he said to her: I am a reader,** this indicates that he is an expert in the reading of the Torah, and she is not betrothed **unless** he knows how **to read the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings with precision.**


###### Kiddushin 49a:13
[Kiddushin 49a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:13)

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה״, חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: הֲלָכוֹת, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses a similar case: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me **on the condition that I study [*shoneh*], Ḥizkiyya says** it means that he studies ***halakhot*, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says** it means that he studies **Torah,** i.e., the written Torah.


###### Kiddushin 49a:14
[Kiddushin 49a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/49a:14)

מֵיתִיבִי: אֵיזוֹ הִיא מִשְׁנָה? רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הֲלָכוֹת, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִדְרָשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rabbi Yoḥanan from a *baraita*: **What is** the meaning of: **Mishna? Rabbi Meir says *halakhot*, Rabbi Yehuda says homiletics.** Neither of them, however, says that it refers to the written Torah.