Kiddushin 13a — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 💬 Guemara that if she said: No, it would also be a betrothal. But why should that be the case? After all, she said: No. Rather, is…

that if she said: No, it would also be a betrothal. But why should that be the case? After all, she said: No. Rather, is it not to be explained in this manner, i.e., that the phrase: She wanted, means she said yes, and: She did not want, means that she remained silent. And one can learn from this that silence after the money is given is nothing. Her silence is not interpreted as an agreement to the betrothal. In the city of Pum Nahara they raised a difficulty against Rava’s proof, in the name of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: Is it comparable? There, in the baraita, he gave her the money as a deposit but they are his. She therefore thinks: If I throw them and they break I will be obligated to pay for them, as would anyone who destroys another person’s property. Consequently, her silence is interpreted as consent only to continue in her role of holding it as a deposit. By contrast, here he gives them to her as betrothal money so that they would belong to her. And if it is so, that she is not amenable to being betrothed, let her throw them away. Rav Aḥai refutes this argument: Is that to say that all women are learned in halakha? In this case also, she thinks: If I throw them and they break I will be responsible for them. Therefore, I will not throw them. One cannot deduce from the fact that she does not throw the coins that she accepted them as betrothal money. Rav Aḥa bar Rav, sent this question to Ravina: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Ravina sent the following response to him: We did not hear this statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. Therefore, we do not need to take it into consideration. You, who heard it, should be concerned about a possible betrothal. § The Gemara further relates: There was a certain woman who was selling belts. A certain man came and snatched a belt [varshekha] from her. She said to him: Give it to me. He said to her: If I give it to you will you be betrothed to me? She took it and was silent, and Rav Naḥman said: She could say: Yes, I took it, but I took my property. There is no proof that she agreed to accept it as a betrothal. Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: If a man betrothed a woman with property that was taken by robbery; or with property taken by a forced transaction, when the owner was reluctant to sell, or with property that was taken by theft; or if he grabbed a sela from her hand and betrothed her with it, she is betrothed. If so, why does Rav Naḥman say here that when he took it from her and betrothed her she is not betrothed? Rav Naḥman answered: There, it is referring to a case where he had previously arranged to marry her, and therefore if she remained silent she certainly agreed to the betrothal. And from where do you say that there is a difference between a case where he had previously arranged to marry her and where he had not arranged to do so? As it is taught in a baraita that with regard to a man who said to a woman: Take this sela that I owe you, and he went back and said to her: Be betrothed to me with it, if he said this at the time the money was given and she wanted it, she is betrothed; if she did not want it, she is not betrothed. If he issued his statement after the money was given, then even if she wanted it, she is not betrothed. Rav Naḥman clarifies: What is the meaning of: She wanted, and what is the meaning of: She did not want? If we say that: She wanted, means that she said yes, and: She did not want, means that she explicitly said no, it can be inferred that if she was silent it is a valid betrothal. But if so, let the baraita teach simply that she is betrothed, without specification, as it did there in the previous case, with regard to one who said: Take this sela as a deposit. It is obvious that if she explicitly said no, she is not betrothed. Rather, the phrase: She wanted, means she said yes, and: She did not want, means that she remained silent. And in this case of silence the baraita taught that she is not betrothed. What is the reason that she is not betrothed if she remained silent? It is that she can say: Yes I took it, but I took my own property and did not intend to become betrothed. But this is difficult with regard to that which we learned, that if a man betrothed her with property that was taken by robbery, or with property taken by a forced transaction, or with property that was taken by theft, or if he grabbed a sela from her hand and betrothed her with it, she is betrothed. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from it that this ruling, that she is betrothed if she was silent, is referring to a case where he arranged the marriage beforehand, whereas this ruling, that she is not betrothed when she remained silent, is referring to a situation where he did not arrange it beforehand? § The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Asi died, the Sages assembled to collect his statements, i.e., they wished to review his rulings of halakha lest they be forgotten. A certain member of the Sages, and Rabbi Ya’akov was his name, said to them: This is what Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Mani said: Just as a woman cannot be acquired by less than the value of one peruta, so too land cannot be acquired by less than the value of one peruta. They said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Although a woman cannot be acquired by less than the value of one peruta, land can be acquired by less than the value of one peruta? Rabbi Ya’akov said to them: When that baraita is taught to the effect that land can be acquired by less than the value of one peruta but a woman cannot, it was with regard to acquisition through symbolic exchange, i.e., a legal act of acquisition formalizing the transfer of ownership of an article. As it is taught in a baraita: One can acquire land and movable items through a symbolic exchange by giving a vessel, even though it is not worth one peruta. They then sat and said additional statements in the name of Rabbi Asi. One statement concerned that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Anyone who does not know the nature of bills of divorce and betrothals should have no dealings in them, as his ignorance might lead people to commit serious sins. In this context, Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And those who deal with these issues without proper knowledge are worse for the world than the generation of the flood, as it is stated: “Swearing and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery. They break all bounds, and blood touches blood” (Hosea 4:2). The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this verse is referring to individuals of this kind and that they are worse for the world than the generation of the flood? The Gemara explains: As Rav Yosef translated the phrase “and committing adultery, they break all bounds, and blood touches blood,” as: They give birth to children through the wives of others; they add sins upon sins. And it is written in the next verse: “Therefore the land mourns and everyone who dwells there languishes, with the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea are also taken away” (Hosea 4:3). This indicates that those who cause illegitimate children to be born lead to such a great tragedy that even the fish of the sea will die, whereas in the generation of the flood the decree was not imposed upon the fish in the sea, as it is stated: “Whatever was on dry land died” (Genesis 7:22). The explicit mention of dry land indicates that the fish in the sea did not die. But here, in the punishment described in the verses in Hosea, even the fish in the sea died. The Gemara asks: But one can say that this punishment is not administered until they perform all of them, i.e., only if they commit all of the sins mentioned in the verse, including taking false oaths, committing murder, and stealing. The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “For because of swearing the land mourns” (Jeremiah 23:10). This verse teaches that on account of taking false oaths alone the world can be destroyed, from which it may be inferred that each these acts on its own is enough to warrant destruction. The Gemara further asks: But one can say that taking a false oath is distinct, as it involves the desecration of God’s name, and these other sins are distinct, i.e., they are less severe offenses that entail a less serious punishment. Therefore, it is possible that this great tragedy will result only if one performs all of them.

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français que si elle dit : Non, ce serait aussi des fiançailles. Mais pourquoi en serait-il ainsi ? Après tout, elle a dit : Non.…

que si elle dit : Non, ce serait aussi des fiançailles. Mais pourquoi en serait-il ainsi ? Après tout, elle a dit : Non. Plutôt, n’est-ce pas qu’il faut l’expliquer de cette manière, à savoir que l’expression : Elle voulut, signifie qu’elle dit oui, et : Elle ne voulut pas, signifie qu’elle resta silencieuse. Et l’on peut apprendre de ceci que le silence après que l’argent est donné n’est rien. Son silence n’est pas interprété comme un consentement aux fiançailles. Dans la ville de Pum Nahara, ils soulevèrent une difficulté contre la preuve de Rava, au nom de Rav Huna, fils de Rav Yehoshua : Est-ce comparable ? Là-bas, dans la baraita, il lui donna l’argent comme dépôt mais il lui appartient. Elle pense donc : Si je les jette et qu’ils se brisent, je serai obligée de payer pour eux, comme quiconque détruit le bien d’autrui. Par conséquent, son silence est interprété comme un consentement uniquement à continuer son rôle de gardienne du dépôt. En revanche, ici, il lui donne comme argent de fiançailles afin qu’il lui appartienne. Et s’il en est ainsi, qu’elle n’est pas consentante à être fiancée, qu’elle les jette. Rav Aḥai réfute cet argument : Est-ce à dire que toutes les femmes sont savantes en halakha ? Dans ce cas aussi, elle pense : Si je les jette et qu’ils se brisent, je serai responsable pour eux. Par conséquent, je ne les jetterai pas. On ne peut pas déduire du fait qu’elle ne jette pas les pièces qu’elle les a acceptées comme argent de fiançailles. Rav Aḥa bar Rav envoya cette question à Ravina : Dans un cas comme celui-ci, quelle est la halakha ? Ravina lui envoya la réponse suivante : Nous n’avons pas entendu cette déclaration de Rav Huna, fils de Rav Yehoshua. Par conséquent, nous n’avons pas besoin d’en tenir compte. Toi, qui l’as entendue, tu dois t’inquiéter d’une possible fiançailles. § La Guemara relate en outre : Il y avait une certaine femme qui vendait des ceintures. Un certain homme vint et lui arracha une ceinture [varshekha]. Elle lui dit : Donne-la moi. Il lui dit : Si je te la donne, seras-tu fiancée à moi ? Elle la prit et resta silencieuse, et Rav Naḥman dit : Elle peut dire : Oui, je l’ai prise, mais j’ai pris mon bien. Il n’y a aucune preuve qu’elle ait accepté de la prendre comme fiançailles. Rava souleva une objection contre l’opinion de Rav Naḥman à partir d’une baraita : Si un homme fiança une femme avec un bien pris par vol ; ou avec un bien pris par une transaction forcée, lorsque le propriétaire était réticent à vendre, ou avec un bien pris par larcin ; ou s’il saisit un sela de sa main et la fiança avec, elle est fiancée. Si tel est le cas, pourquoi Rav Naḥman dit-il ici que lorsqu’il le lui a pris et l’a fiancée, elle n’est pas fiancée ? Rav Naḥman répondit : Là-bas, il s’agit d’un cas où il avait auparavant arrangé de l’épouser, et donc si elle resta silencieuse, elle consentit certainement aux fiançailles. Et d’où dis-tu qu’il y a une différence entre un cas où il avait auparavant arrangé de l’épouser et où il n’avait pas arrangé cela ? Comme il est enseigné dans une baraita qu’à propos d’un homme qui dit à une femme : Prends ce sela que je te dois, et il revint et lui dit : Sois fiancée à moi avec, s’il dit cela au moment où l’argent est donné et qu’elle le voulut, elle est fiancée ; si elle ne le voulut pas, elle n’est pas fiancée. S’il fit sa déclaration après que l’argent fut donné, alors même si elle le voulut, elle n’est pas fiancée. Rav Naḥman clarifie : Qu’est-ce que signifie : Elle voulut, et qu’est-ce que signifie : Elle ne voulut pas ? Si nous disons que : Elle voulut, signifie qu’elle dit oui, et : Elle ne voulut pas, signifie qu’elle dit explicitement non, on peut en déduire que si elle resta silencieuse, c’est des fiançailles valides. Mais s’il en est ainsi, que la baraita enseigne simplement qu’elle est fiancée, sans précision, comme elle le fit là-bas dans le cas précédent, à propos de celui qui dit : Prends ce sela comme dépôt. Il est évident que si elle dit explicitement non, elle n’est pas fiancée. Plutôt, l’expression : Elle voulut, signifie qu’elle dit oui, et : Elle ne voulut pas, signifie qu’elle resta silencieuse. Et dans ce cas de silence, la baraita enseigna qu’elle n’est pas fiancée. Quelle est la raison pour laquelle elle n’est pas fiancée si elle resta silencieuse ? C’est qu’elle peut dire : Oui, je l’ai pris, mais j’ai pris mon propre bien et je n’ai pas eu l’intention de me fiancer. Mais ceci est difficile par rapport à cela que nous avons appris, que si un homme la fiança avec un bien pris par vol, ou avec un bien pris par une transaction forcée, ou avec un bien pris par larcin, ou s’il saisit un sela de sa main et la fiança avec, elle est fiancée. Plutôt, n’est-ce pas correct d’en conclure que cette décision, qu’elle est fiancée si elle resta silencieuse, se réfère à un cas où il arrangea le mariage au préalable, tandis que cette décision, qu’elle n’est pas fiancée lorsqu’elle resta silencieuse, se réfère à une situation où il n’arrangea pas cela au préalable ? § La Guemara relate : Lorsque Rabbi Asi mourut, les Sages s’assemblèrent pour recueillir ses déclarations, c’est-à-dire qu’ils souhaitèrent examiner ses décisions de halakha de peur qu’elles ne soient oubliées. Un certain membre des Sages, et Rabbi Ya’akov était son nom, leur dit : Voici ce que Rabbi Asi dit que Rabbi Mani dit : De même qu’une femme ne peut être acquise par moins que la valeur d’une peruta, de même [...]

📜 Kiddushin — 13a

📋 Références bibliques — Kiddushin 13a

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant