Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Het, Part 3

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to discuss the explanation of beloved and hated in the verse about a man married to two wives. The rabbis who disagree with R. Akiva and hold that kiddushin are effective with women prohibited by a negative commandment explain this verse as referring to such women. But why why not explain the verse as referring to women prohibited by positive commandments? In other words, why do they hold like they do and not like R. Akiva?

 

ורבנן אדמוקי לה בחייבי לאוין נוקמא בחייבי עשה הני

חייבי עשה במאי נינהו אי שתיהן מצריות שתיהן שנואות אי אחת מצרית ואחת ישראלית שתי נשים מעם אחד בעינן אי בעולה לכהן גדול מי כתיב תהיין לכהן

 

And the Rabbis: instead of explaining [the verse] as referring to those prohibited by negative commandments, let them refer it to those forbidden by positive commandments?

Those who are forbidden by positive commandments, who are they? If both are Egyptian women, both are hated ? If one is an Egyptian woman and the other a Jew, we require that the two wives be from one people: if [one is] a non-virgin [married] to a High Priest, is it then written, [If] there be [two wives] to a priest?

 

The rabbis don t interpret the two wives as being prohibited by positive commandments because this would not fit the verse. If both are Egyptian (a positive commandment prohibition) then both are hated. If one is Egyptian and one a Jew, then both need to be from the same nation. And if the verse refers to the prohibition of a non-virgin to a High Priest, well the verse says man not priest.

ורבי עקיבא בעל כורחיך שבקיה לקרא דהוי דחיק ומוקי אנפשיה

 

And R. Akiva? You are forced to leave the verse to be difficult and explain itself.

 

R. Akiva, who reads the verse as referring either to a non-virgin married to a high priest or an Egyptian married to a Jew is forced to just read the verse in a difficult manner. Sometimes there is nothing else you can do, even if you re R. Akiva.