Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Quotation for Temurah 22:33

נראין דברי רבי יוסי לר' יהודה בדבר שהנשמה תלויה בו שאף רבי יהודה לא נחלק עליו אלא בדבר שאין הנשמה תלויה בו אבל בדבר שהנשמה תלויה בו מודי ליה

But from the words: 'And the opinion of R'Jose where the dedication is of a part [of the animal the removal of which] will result in death', cannot we infer from this that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sh. Mek.');"><sup>22</sup></span>

Tosafot on Kiddushin

"Let the kiddushin spread through all of her! Is it not taught etc." Problem: Terumah 11b derives [the law in the case of] "This [animal's] leg is an olah" and "with regard to a vital organ" from a verse, as it is written, "Anything that he gives from it to God", but regarding a wife there are no verses written [to derive this information]. If this is so, how [can Mar Zutra] challenge "Aren't they not similar!?" Solution: It is because of this that Rashi was particular and explained that this "mekudeshet" that [the man] said to [his prospective wife] is the terminology of "sanctified property (hekdesh)" [and did not mean "betrothed"], and this is like at the beginning of this chapter [of Kiddushin] that [kiddushin is like hekdesh through analogy] "he forbade her to everyone else like hekdesh", that a man can make her like hekdesh. Therefore, it is possible that the ruling of this case could be like hekdesh [since this is what the man in the case actually said]. However, if he had said "engaged" or any of the other earlier formulae [for betrothing a woman, see Kiddushin 6a], then it would not have been possible [for Mar Zutra] to raise the challenge "Let the kiddushin spread through all of her".
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Tosafot on Kiddushin

"Let the kiddushin spread through all of her! Is it not taught etc." Problem: Terumah 11b derives [the law in the case of] "This [animal's] leg is an olah" and "with regard to a vital organ" from a verse, as it is written, "Anything that he gives from it to God", but regarding a wife there are no verses written [to derive this information]. If this is so, how [can Mar Zutra] challenge "Aren't they not similar!?" Solution: It is because of this that Rashi was particular and explained that this "mekudeshet" that [the man] said to [his prospective wife] is the terminology of "sanctified property (hekdesh)" [and did not mean "betrothed"], and this is like at the beginning of this chapter [of Kiddushin] that [kiddushin is like hekdesh through analogy] "he forbade her to everyone else like hekdesh", that a man can make her like hekdesh. Therefore, it is possible that the ruling of this case could be like hekdesh [since this is what the man in the case actually said]. However, if he had said "engaged" or any of the other earlier formulae [for betrothing a woman, see Kiddushin 6a], then it would not have been possible [for Mar Zutra] to raise the challenge "Let the kiddushin spread through all of her".
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse