פירוש על קידושין 97:15

The first tanna who holds that one was merely indicating a place was R. Shimon from yesterday’s source about kiddushin.
The second source is about divorce documents, and it deals with the difference between plain gets, whose witnesses sign inside the document, and tied gets, whose witnesses sign on the outside of the document, after it has been tied. The tannaim dispute whether a get can be valid if signed in the wrong way. The Talmud will now discuss the various opinions in this source.

R. Ashi explains the disagreement between the first tanna and R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. The first opinion holds that if both types of documents are customary in that particular place and the husband asked to make a particular one and the scribe makes the other kind, the get is invalid. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says that he does not really care, he was merely “indicating a place.”

R. Ashi explains the disagreement between the first tanna and R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. The first opinion holds that if both types of documents are customary in that particular place and the husband asked to make a particular one and the scribe makes the other kind, the get is invalid. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says that he does not really care, he was merely “indicating a place.”

R. Ashi explains the disagreement between the first tanna and R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. The first opinion holds that if both types of documents are customary in that particular place and the husband asked to make a particular one and the scribe makes the other kind, the get is invalid. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says that he does not really care, he was merely “indicating a place.”

R. Shimon would agree that if he deceives her by presenting himself as being of lower lineage than he actually is, she is not betrothed. While R. Shimon believes that all women would agree to betrothal for a higher betrothal payment, not all women want to be married to a man of higher lineage. Some women might actually prefer the lower lineage, perhaps because they will not have to live up to such high expectations.

In the next mishnah, we learn of cases where a husband lies about his lineage. Even if he says that he was a Levite and it turns out he is a priest, a more prestigious lineage, she is not betrothed. R. Shimon does not disagree in this case. From here we can conclude that he only disagrees if the deception was with money. If the deception was with lineage, i.e. he has better lineage than he stated, she is not betrothed.
A “natin” is a category similar to a mamzer, both of whom have very limited marital prospects.

Mar bar R. Ashi points out that in the next mishnah, there is a case of a man who claims to not have an adult daughter who and it turns out that he does. Having such a daughter seems to be some sort of a monetary advantage. According to Ulla and R. Ashi, R. Shimon should disagree—if he deceives her and in reality has a monetary advantage, she is betrothed. But he does not disagree. This indicates that just because R. Shimon does not express his disagreement, does not mean that he does not disagree. R. Shimon, according to Mar bar R. Ashi, would hold that if he deceives her to her advantage, she is betrothed, even in the case of a deception involving lineage.

Mar bar R. Ashi points out that in the next mishnah, there is a case of a man who claims to not have an adult daughter who and it turns out that he does. Having such a daughter seems to be some sort of a monetary advantage. According to Ulla and R. Ashi, R. Shimon should disagree—if he deceives her and in reality has a monetary advantage, she is betrothed. But he does not disagree. This indicates that just because R. Shimon does not express his disagreement, does not mean that he does not disagree. R. Shimon, according to Mar bar R. Ashi, would hold that if he deceives her to her advantage, she is betrothed, even in the case of a deception involving lineage.

The Talmud rejects Mar bar R. Ashi. In the case of financial advantage, since the mishnah taught that R. Shimon disagrees with regard to the first clause, it assumes that the same dispute can be applied to the second clause. However, when the issue is one of lineage, if he disagrees then it should have taught his disagreement. The fact that it does not implies that R. Shimon agrees that if the deception was with regard to lineage, she is not betrothed.

The Talmud now interprets the word “megudelet” to mean something different from what we originally thought. It does not mean an adult daughter (like the word “gedolah”) but rather a daughter that an braid hair. A woman might not want a hairdresser for a daughter for such a hairdresser might gossip about her to her neighbors.

For a man to be a “Torah reader” all he has to do is read three verses in the synagogue, the minimum number for an aliyah. R. Judah says he must also be able to translate into Aramaic.

The Talmud clarifies that to translate does not mean to make up one’s own translation. It means to recite the official translation sanctioned by the sages.

“Kara” implies an expert in reading Scripture. Beyond that which is implied by the term “karyana.”

The word “shoneh” (or mishnah) which I have translated as “recite” always refers to reciting Oral Torah and not reading Written Torah. Therefore, when R. Yohanan says “Torah” he must mean midrash, which is exegesis of Torah. Thus we have here the two main forms of Oral Torah—Midrash, which are laws connected to verses, and halakhot, laws taught independent of verses. The latter form is found today in midrashic collections that follow the order of four of the five books of the Torah (there is none on Genesis). The former is found in the Mishnah and Tosefta.

The word “shoneh” (or mishnah) which I have translated as “recite” always refers to reciting Oral Torah and not reading Written Torah. Therefore, when R. Yohanan says “Torah” he must mean midrash, which is exegesis of Torah. Thus we have here the two main forms of Oral Torah—Midrash, which are laws connected to verses, and halakhot, laws taught independent of verses. The latter form is found today in midrashic collections that follow the order of four of the five books of the Torah (there is none on Genesis). The former is found in the Mishnah and Tosefta.