Kiddushin 123
חרב תאכלו אמר רבא מילחא גללניתא נהמא דשערי אקושא ובצלי דאמר מר פת פורני חריבה במלח ובצלים קשים לגוף כחרבות
'ye shall be fed with the sword'?- Said Raba: Coarse salt, hard baked barley bread, and onions; for a Master said: Stale bread baked in a large oven with salt and onions is as harmful to the body as swords.<br> <br> Now, as for R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, it is well: hence it is written: If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, be thou free.But according to R. Meir, it should [also] state, 'be thou strangled'?- Said R. Tanhum: hinnaki is written.[Then] as for R. Meir, it is well: hence it is written hinnaki. But according to R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, what is its purpose?- It is necessary: I might think, If no man have lain [with thee] ... be thou free; but if a man have lain [with thee], be thou neither free nor strangled, but merely [guilty of violating] a prohibition. Hence we are informed [otherwise].<br> <br> As for R. Meir, it is well: hence it is written: He shall purify himself therewith on the third day, and on the seventh day, [then] he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself etc.But according to R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, what is its purpose? - It is necessary: I might think, The precept of sprinkling is [that it be performed] on the third and the seventh [days]; yet if it is done only on one of these days, it is done [and effective]. Therefore we are told [that both days are essential]. What is the purpose of, and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day?- It is necessary: I might think, the third excludes the second, and the seventh excludes the sixth, because thereby one 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 is well. Hence we are informed [otherwise].What is the purpose of, 'and on the seventh day he shall purify him'? - It is necessary: I might think, that [sc. sprinkling on these days] is only for sacred food,but for terumah even one is sufficient: hence we are told [that it is not so]. MISHNAH. IF HE BETROTHS A WOMAN AND THEN DECLARES, T THOUGHT THAT SHE WAS A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER, WHEREAS SHE IS OF A LEVITE.' OR OF A LEVITE WHEREAS SHE IS OF A PRIEST; 'POOR', WHEREAS SHE IS WEALTHY, OR 'WEALTHY', WHEREAS SHE IS POOR, SHE IS BETROTHED, SINCE SHE DID NOT DECEIVE HIM. IF HE SAYS TO A WOMAN, BEHOLD, BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME AFTER I BECOME A PROSELYTE,' OR 'AFTER THOU BECOMEST A PROSELYTE, AFTER I AM LIBERATED,' OR 'AFTER THOU ART LIBERATED, AFTER THY HUSBAND DIES'. OR, 'AFTER THY SISTER DIES.' OR 'AFTER THY YABAM PERFORMS HALIZAH FOR THEE'; SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. LIKEWISE, IF HE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, IF THY WIFE BEARS A FEMALE, LET HER BE BETROTHED UNTO ME,' SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. (IF HIS WIFE, HOWEVER, IS PREGNANT, THE CHILD BEING DISCERNIBLE, HIS WORDS ARE VALID, AND IF SHE BEARS A FEMALE, SHE IS BETROTHED.) <br> <br> GEMARA. We learnt elsewhere: Terumah must not be separated from detached [corn] for that which is attached, and if he does separate, his separation is not terumah. R. Assi asked R. Johanan: What if one declares, 'The detached produce of this furrow be terumah for the detached produce of this one, when it is plucked', and then it is plucked? - He answered him: Whatever [act] lies in his power, is not as though that act were lacking. He raised an objection: IF ONE SAYS TO A WOMAN, BEHOLD, THOU ART BETROTHED UNTO ME AFTER I BECOME A PROSELYTE, OR, 'AFTER THOU BECOMEST A PROSELYTE,' 'AFTER I AM LIBERATED, OR, 'AFTER THOU ART LIBERATED,' 'AFTER THY HUSBAND DIES,' OR, 'AFTER THY SISTER DIES,' OR, AFTER THY YABAM PERFORMS HALIZAH FOR THEE.' SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. As for all, it is well, for they are not in his power; but [to be] a proselyte surely lies in his power! - [To become] a proselyte is not in his power either. For R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name:<br>