Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Bet, Part 1

 

Introduction

This is the last sugya about R. Meir s requirement to use a double formulation when making a stipulation. Again, the Talmud searches for verses that either do or do not use such a double formula.

 

בשלמא לרבי חנינא בן גמליאל היינו דכתיב (במדבר ה, יט) אם לא שכב איש אותך ואם לא שטית טומאה תחת אישך הנקי אלא לרבי מאיר חנקי מיבעי ליה

 

It goes well for R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, that which is written: If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone aside to impurity while under your husband, you shall be free (Numbers 5:19). But according to R. Meir, it should [also] state, [And if a man has lain with you], you will be strangled.

 

The oath administered to the sotah, the woman accused of adultery, does not use a double formulation. This accords with R. Hanina b. Gamaliel but not with R. Meir.

 

אמר ר’ תנחום הנקי כתיב

בשלמא לר’ מאיר היינו דכתיב הנקי אלא לרבי חנינא ב"ג למה לי

אצטריך סד"א אם לא שכב איש הנקי ואם שכב לא הנקי ולא חנקי אלא איסורא בעלמא קמ"ל

 

R. Tanhum said: hinnaki (without a yod) is written.

This goes well for R. Meir, thus it is written hinnaki. But according to R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, why do I need this? It is necessary, lest I would have said, If no man has lain [with you] . . . be free; but if a man has lain [with you], be neither free nor strangled, but merely [guilty of violating] a prohibition. Hence it teaches us [otherwise].

 

R. Tanhum resolves R. Meir by rereading the Hebrew word for be free. The word is hinnaki which could also be read ḣinnaki with a chet, which means strangled. Thus R. Meir can indeed read a double formulation into the verse.

But now we have the opposite difficulty if the verse is a double formulation, then it is a difficulty against R. Hanina. Again, the Talmud resolves by noting that the verse needed to teach that she is totally free if she did not sleep with another man. Otherwise, we might have thought that she is guilty of a violation since, according to rabbinic interpretation, to become a sotah she had to have been isolated with another man.

 

בשלמא לרבי מאיר היינו דכתיב (במדבר יט, יב) הוא יתחטא בו ביום השלישי וביום השביעי יטהר ואם לא יתחטא וגו’ אלא לרבי חנינא ב"ג למה לי אצטריך סד"א מצות הזאה בשלישי ובשביעי והיכא דעבד בחד מינייהו עבד קמ"ל

 

It goes well for R. Meir, that it is written: He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day, [then] he shall be clean: but if he does not purify (Numbers 19:12) etc. But according to R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, why do I need this?

It is necessary, lest I would say, the mitzvah of sprinkling is [to be performed] on the third and the seventh [days]; yet if it is done only on one of these days, it has been successfully performed. Therefore it teaches us [that both days are essential].

 

The verse with regard to sprinkling the purificatory red heifer waters is expressed through a double formulation. This accords with R. Meir but seems to be a difficulty on R. Hanina b. Gamaliel. R. Hanina could respond that were it not for the continuation of the verse I might have thought that it would be sufficient to sprinkle on one of the days.

 

(במדבר יט, יט) והזה הטהור על הטמא ביום השלישי וביום השביעי למה לי אצטריך סד"א שלישי למעוטי שני שביעי למעוטי ששי דקא ממעט בימי טהרה אבל היכא דעבד בשלישי ובשמיני דקא מפיש בימי טהרה אימא שפיר דמי קמ"ל

 

And the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure person on the third day, and on the seventh day (Numbers 19:19), why do I need this?

It is necessary, lest I would say, the third excludes the second, and the seventh excludes the sixth, because he thereby diminishes the days of purification; but if it is performed on the third and the eighth days thereby increasing the period of purification, I might say that it has been successfully performed. Hence it teaches us [otherwise].

 

The Torah repeats the same instructions later in the chapter to let us know that the sprinkling must be performed on the third and seventh, not the third and eighth days.

 

(במדבר יט, יט) וחטאו ביום השביעי למה לי אצטריך סד"א הני מילי לקדשים אבל לתרומה בחד נמי סגיא קמ"ל

 

And on the seventh day he shall purify him (Numbers 19:19)?

It is necessary, lest I would say, that [the sprinkling on these days] is only to enable him to eat sacred food, but for terumah even one is sufficient: hence it teaches us [that it is not so].

 

Again, the Talmud enquires concerning what seems to be an extraneous verse why do we need this verse. The answer is that this verse is needed to teach that both sprinklings are necessary in order for him to be pure enough to eat even terumah.