## Kiddushin Daf 62b

###### Kiddushin 62b:1
[Kiddushin 62b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/62b:1)

גֵּר צָרִיךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה. מַאי טַעְמָא: ״מִשְׁפָּט״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ כַּדִּין, מִי יֵימַר דְּמִזְדַּקְּקוּ לֵיהּ הָנֵי תְּלָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A convert requires** the presence of **three** Jews for his conversion. **What is the reason** for this requirement? **It is written with regard to** a convert: “You shall have one manner of **law,** for the convert as for the homeborn” (Leviticus 24:22), which indicates that a conversion is **considered a judgment** that requires three judges. And if he requires three judges, **who says that those three will be available to him?** Since he cannot convert at a time of his choosing, it is not considered within his power to convert.


###### Kiddushin 62b:2
[Kiddushin 62b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/62b:2)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הַנּוֹתֵן פְּרוּטָה לְשִׁפְחָתוֹ, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי לְאַחַר שֶׁאֲשַׁחְרְרִיךְ״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּהָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין? הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – מֵעִיקָּרָא בְּהֵמָה, הַשְׁתָּא – דַּעַת אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba bar Memel objects to this: If that is so,** and anything that is in one’s power to perform is not considered lacking in its action, **one who gives one *peruta* to his** Canaanite **maidservant and says: You are hereby betrothed to me after I emancipate you, so too** will you say **that it is a betrothal** because he has the power to emancipate her? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** the Canaanite maidservant **initially** had the legal status of **an animal,** i.e., she is not subject to betrothal at all, whereas **now** she has **an independent mind.** Once she has been emancipated she has the status of a Jew and is not considered the same person at all. Consequently, the attempted betrothal is certainly considered lacking an action.


###### Kiddushin 62b:3
[Kiddushin 62b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/62b:3)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַנּוֹתֵן פְּרוּטָה לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָמַר לָהּ: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי לְאַחַר שֶׁאֲגָרְשִׁיךְ״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, הָכִי נָמֵי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּהָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין? נְהִי דִּבְיָדוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ, בְּיָדוֹ לְקַדְּשָׁהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But that which Rabbi Oshaya says:** With regard to **one who gives one *peruta* to his wife and says to her: You are hereby betrothed to me after I divorce you, she is not betrothed, so too according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan** will you say **that it is a betrothal** because he has the power to divorce her? The Gemara answers: **Although he has the power to divorce her,** does **he have the power to betroth her** against her will? It is not in his power to effect the betrothal, as once she has divorced him the matter is no longer exclusively dependent upon him.


###### Kiddushin 62b:4
[Kiddushin 62b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/62b:4)

תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּבָעֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַנּוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פְּרוּטוֹת לְאִשָּׁה, בְּאַחַת אָמַר לָהּ: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי הַיּוֹם״, וּבְאַחַת אָמַר לָהּ: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי לְאַחַר שֶׁאֲגָרְשִׁיךְ״, תִּפְשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ דְּלָא הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין! דִּלְמָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתָפְסִי קִידּוּשִׁין הַשְׁתָּא – תָּפְסִי נָמֵי לְאַחַר כֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: Being that it is not in his power to effect the betrothal, you can use this logic to **resolve** the **dilemma raised** by **Rav Oshaya:** What is the *halakha* with regard to **one who gives two *perutot* to a woman,** and **with one he says to her: Be betrothed to me today, and with** the other **one he says to her: Be betrothed to me after I divorce you?** What is her status after he divorces her? That dilemma was left unanswered, and the Gemara suggests that you can **resolve from here that it is not a betrothal.** The Gemara explains that this case is different, and Rav Oshaya’s dilemma was actually as follows: **Perhaps** in that situation, **just as the betrothal is effective now, it is also effective afterward.** Since she is currently under her own authority and agrees to betroth herself to him, it is possible that she can now consent to a betrothal that will take effect at a later time.


###### Kiddushin 62b:5
[Kiddushin 62b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/62b:5)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַתָּלוּשׁ עַל הַמְחוּבָּר, וְאִם תָּרַם – אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. כֵּיצַד? אָמַר: ״פֵּירוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ תְּלוּשִׁין יִהְיוּ תְּרוּמָה עַל פֵּירוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ מְחוּבֶּרֶת״, ״פֵּירוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ מְחוּבֶּרֶת יִהְיוּ תְּרוּמָה עַל פֵּירוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ תְּלוּשִׁין״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אָמַר ״לִכְשֶׁיִּתָּלְשׁוּ״ וְנִתְלְשׁוּ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan: One may not separate *teruma* from the detached for the attached, and if he separated *teruma*, his *teruma* is not *teruma*. How so?** If **he said: The detached produce of this garden bed will be *teruma* for the attached produce of this garden bed,** or: **The attached produce of this garden bed will be *teruma* for the detached produce of this garden bed, he has not said anything** of consequence, as the obligation to separate *teruma* applies only to detached produce. **But** if **he said** that the attached produce will be *teruma* **when they will be detached, and they become detached, his statement is valid,** as he has the power to detach them.


###### Kiddushin 62b:6
[Kiddushin 62b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/62b:6)

יָתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר ״פֵּירוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ תְּלוּשִׁין יִהְיוּ תְּרוּמָה עַל פֵּירוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ מְחוּבֶּרֶת״, ״פֵּירוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ מְחוּבֶּרֶת יִהְיוּ תְּרוּמָה עַל פֵּירוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ תְּלוּשִׁין לִכְשֶׁיָּבִיאוּ שְׁלִישׁ וְיִתָּלְשׁוּ״, וְהֵבִיאוּ שְׁלִישׁ וְנִתְלְשׁוּ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Moreover, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said** that **even** if **one said: The detached produce of this garden bed will be *teruma* for the attached produce of this garden bed,** or: **The attached produce of this garden bed will be *teruma* for the detached produce of this garden bed when they,** i.e., the attached produce, **will reach one-third** of their growth **and are detached,** although at the time they had yet to ripen which means that the obligations of *terumot* and tithes do not apply to them, when **they will reach one-third** of their growth **and are detached, his statement is upheld.**


###### Kiddushin 62b:7
[Kiddushin 62b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/62b:7)

אָמַר רַבָּה: לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אֶלָּא בְּשַׁחַת, אֲבָל בַּאֲגַם – לֹא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּאֲגַם. מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי אֲגַם לִישָּׁנָא דְּבוּצְלָנָא הוּא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הֲלָכֹף כְּאַגְמֹן רֹאשׁוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says** this ruling **only with regard to fodder,** produce that has grown stalks even if it is not yet ripe. **But** he did **not** refer **to** produce that is still completely **soft [*agam*]. Rav Yosef says:** He **even** referred **to soft** produce. In relation to this dispute, the Gemara asks: **From where may** it **be inferred that this** word ***agam* is a term of growth [*butzlana*]?** The Gemara answers that **Rabbi Elazar said** that this is **as the verse states: “Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush [*ke’agmon*]”** (Isaiah 58:5), i.e., like a soft, drooping plant.


###### Kiddushin 62b:8
[Kiddushin 62b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/62b:8)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ ״אִם יָלְדָה אִשְׁתְּךָ נְקֵבָה, מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת, אֲבָל אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין. כְּמַאן? אִי כְּרַבָּה כְּשֶׁהוּכַּר עוּבָּרָהּ, אִי כְּרַב יוֹסֵף – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הוּכַּר עוּבָּרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion is **that which is taught** in the following *baraita*: With regard to **one who says to another: If your wife gives birth to a female she is betrothed to me, he has not said anything? And Rabbi Ḥanina says: They taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case **where** the other’s **wife is not pregnant. But** if **his wife is pregnant his statement is upheld. In accordance with whose** opinion is this ruling? The Gemara answers: The *baraita* can be explained in accordance with everyone’s opinion. **If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabba,** it is referring to a situation **where her fetus was** already **noticeable,** just as the stalks of fodder are recognizable. **If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Yosef,** the *halakha* of the *baraita* applies **even if her fetus was not** yet **noticeable.**


###### Kiddushin 62b:9
[Kiddushin 62b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/62b:9)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַבָּה: לָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אֶלָּא בְּשַׁחַת דְּבֵי כִיבְשָׁא, אֲבָל בְּשַׁחַת דְּבֵי שָׁקְיָא – לָא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁחַת דְּבֵי שָׁקְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** a different version of this dispute. **Rabba says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says** his ruling **only with regard to fodder of a non-irrigated field,** which is not watered. **But** he did **not** speak **about fodder of an irrigated field.** Since the produce of this field will not grow on its own if it is not watered, it is not considered as if this produce has entered the world. **Rav Yosef said:** Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov referred **even to fodder of an irrigated field,** as this produce too is treated as having entered the world when it reaches the stage of fodder.


###### Kiddushin 62b:10
[Kiddushin 62b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/62b:10)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״אִם יָלְדָה אִשְׁתְּךָ נְקֵבָה מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת, אֲבָל אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִים. כְּמַאן – כְּשֶׁהוּכַּר עוּבָּרָהּ, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: According to this version of the dispute, **in accordance with whose** opinion is **that which is taught** in the following *baraita*: If **one says to another: If your wife gives birth to a female she is betrothed to me, he has not said anything? And Rabbi Ḥanina says: They taught** this **only when his wife is not pregnant, but** if **his wife is pregnant his statement is upheld. In accordance with whose** opinion is this ruling? The *baraita* must be referring to a case **where her fetus was noticeable,** and therefore **everyone agrees** with this ruling. The *baraita* is in accordance with the opinions of both Rabba and Rav Yosef, as even Rav Yosef agrees that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov was referring only to fodder whose stalks were already noticeable.


###### Kiddushin 62b:11
[Kiddushin 62b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/62b:11)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְרַבִּי, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ – אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי – דְּתַנְיָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, and Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and Rabbi Meir all hold** the following principle: **A person can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world.** That is, one can perform an act of acquisition for an item that is not yet in existence. The opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov** is referring to **that which we** just **said,** that one can separate *teruma* even for produce not yet included in this mitzva. Where does **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi state a similar opinion? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: