משנה: עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בֵּית כּוֹר עָפָר הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ. עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאַרְאֵךְ בֵּית כּוּר עָפָר הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת וְיַרְאֶנָּהּ. וְאִם הֶרְאָהּ בַּבִּקְעָה אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר כָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִּתְנַאי בְּנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן אֵינוֹ תְנַאי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֲלֵיהֶם אִם יַעַבְרוּ בְּנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן. וְאִם לֹא יַעַבְרוּ חֲלוּצִים אִתְּכֶם וגו׳. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ הָיָה הַדָּבָר לְאוֹמְרוֹ שֶׁאִילְמָלֵא כֵן יֵשׁ בְּמַשְׁמַע שֶׁאֲפִילוּ בְאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן לֹא יִנְחָלוּ. MISHNAH: “On condition106He gives the woman a peruṭah as marriage gift and specifies that he preliminarily marries her as owner of a bet kor, 30 bet se‘ah or 75’000 square cubits of agricultural land. If he actually is the owner of the land, she is married immediately; he can show her the title to his land later. that I possess a bet kor of arable land,” she is preliminarily married if he owns it. “On condition that I possess it at place X”, she is preliminarily married if he owns it at place X, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. “On condition that I shall show you a bet kor of arable land,” she is preliminarily married and he has to show her107Since he said “to show”, it means that she has to see it with her own eyes; it is not enough for him to prove his ownership to her., but if he showed it in the valley108בִּקְעָא everywhere means open agricultural land not easily accessible. In all these conditions, a claim of ownership is understood. she is not preliminarily married. 109In the independent Mishnah mss. and later in the Halakhah here starts a new Mishnah 4. Rebbi Meïr says, any condition which is not formulated in the manner of the condition imposed on the tribes of Gad and Reuben is invalid109In the independent Mishnah mss. and later in the Halakhah here starts a new Mishnah 4., as it is said111Numbers.32.29-30">Num. 32:29–30.: “Moses said to them, if the tribes of Gad and Reuben cross over … but if they will not in arms cross over with you, etc.” Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said, that formulation was necessary112The involved formulation of the deed of Transjordan to the tribes of Gad and Reuben was necessary under the circumstances. A simple condition is valid; it is not necessary for a man to say: “Be preliminarily married to me on condition that I possess a bet kor of arable land, but be not preliminarily married to me if I do not possess a bet kor of arable land.” for otherwise one would have understood that even in the Land of Canaan they should not inherit.
הלכה: עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בֵּית כּוֹר עָפָר כול׳. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִלֵּל בְּעָא. אִילּוּ מָאן דְּאָמַר. בְּנִי פְלוֹנִי יַעֲשֶׂה דְּבַר פְּלוֹנִי וְיִטּוֹל חֶפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי וּשְׁאָר בָּנַיי יִירְשׁוּ נְכָסַיי. אִין עֲבַד הוּא נְסִיב וְאִין לָא עֲבַד לָא נְסִיב. אוֹ שַׁנְייָא הִיא דִּכְתִיב לָתֵת לְתִשְׁעַת הַמַּטּוֹת וַחֲצִי הַמַּטֶּה. וַהֲוֵי דוּ אָמַר. בְּנִי פְלוֹנִי יַעֲשֶׂה דְּבַר פְּלוֹנִי וְיִטּוֹל חֶפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי וּשְׁאָר בָּנַיי יִירְשׁוּ נְכָסַיי. אִין עֲבַד הוּא נְסַב וְאִין לָא עֲבַד לָא נְסַב לָא מִיכָּא וְלָא מִיכָּא. HALAKHAH: “On condition that I possess a bet kor of arable land,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel asked113He asks against R. Ḥanaiah ben Gamliel.: If somebody said, my son A should perform action X and receive property Y, and the rest of my sons shall inherit my properties; if he performs, he takes, but if he does not perform, he does not take114This does not disinherit A from sharing with his brothers.. Or maybe it is a difference since it is written: “To give to Nine and a half tribes.115Numbers.34.13">Num. 34:13. This verse clearly excludes the Transjordan tribes from property in Canaan. Therefore, R. Ḥanaiah ben Gamliel’s argument is correct.” It is as if he said, my son A should perform action X and receive property Y, and the rest of my sons shall inherit my properties; if he performs, he takes, but if he does not perform, he does not take from here or from there.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. מַתְנֶה אָדָם עַל עֵירוּבוֹ. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. מַתְנֶה אָדָם עַל עֵירוּבָו. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מָאן תַּנָּא. אִם בָּאוּ וְאִם לֹא בָאוּ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר. הֵיידֵין רִבִּי מֵאִיר. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרִין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּקִידּוּשִׁין. דְּתַנֵּי. הָאוֹמֵר לָאִשָּׁה. הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. יָֽרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. בֵּין שֶׁיָּֽרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא יָֽרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיִּכְפּוֹל תְּנָייוֹ. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם אָמַר. לְאַחַר שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. יָֽרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּעֵירוּבִין הִיא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אִם סָפֵק. רִבִּי מֵאיר וְרִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמְרִים. הֲרֵי זֶה גַּמָּל חַמָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא לְחוֹמָרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. וְיֵאוּת. בְּעֵירוּבוֹ אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה שֶׁלֹּא זִכֶּה בוֹ אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ. כִּבְנֵי עִירוֹ. שֶׁנָּתֶן דַּעְתּוֹ לַעֲקוֹר אֶת רַגְלָיו מִבְּנֵי עִירוֹ. וְהָכָא לָרִאשׁוֹן אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת שֶׁלֹּא יָֽרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. וְלַשֵּׁינִי אֶינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת שֶׁלּֽא כָפַל תְּנָייוֹ. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה וְהֵן אִם לֹא כִי לֹא אֶחָד הוּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁהָֽיְתָה הָאָרֶץ לִפְנֵיהֶן וְהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ לְהוֹצִיאָהּ מִיָּדָם. 118From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Eruvin 3, 21b line 1 ff. There, we have stated: “A person can impose a condition of his ‘eruv.119The rabbinic interpretation of the biblical commandment that (Exodus.16.29">Ex. 16:29) “nobody shall leave his place of residence on the Seventh Day” is that on the Sabbath one may not go a distance greater than 2’000 cubits from the boundary of the built-up domain in which one resides. Since by tradition the diameter of the encampment of the Israelites in the desert was 12 mil, 24’000 cubits (Shevi‘it 6:1, Note 28), and certainly the Israelites were able to freely move in their camp on the Sabbath, it is clear that the restriction to 2’000 cubits is purely rabbinical. Therefore, it is open to manipulation. One of the accepted ways of manipulation is for a person to deposit some food, the ‘eruv, at the border of the permitted domain and declare that he intends to consider the place of that food as dwelling for the coming Sabbath. Then he still can move freely in the built-up domain, which is counted only as 4 cubits, but he has an additional 2’000 cubits on the other side of the ‘eruv, but nothing on the opposite side of the built-up area. Mishnah ‘Eruvin 3:5 permits a person to prepare a number of ‘eruvin which are mutually exclusive, and say: “If attackers appear in the East, my ‘eruv in the West shall be active; if they appear in the West, my ‘eruv in the East shall be active; if there is no danger, I shall be like the other inhabitants of my place.”” So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition of his‘eruvin.120Since there are at least two. This remark belongs to ‘Eruvin, not to Qiddušin.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr121He will hold that even if there was only one ‘eruv, it has to be spelled out that the ‘eruv shall be invalid if there is no danger; otherwise the person making the ‘eruv can never keep the Sabbath with the other inhabitants of his place.! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of Qiddušin122Mishnah ‘Eruvin 3:5 is a direct application of Kiddushin 3:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.3.3.1">Mishnah Qiddušin 3:3 and the baraita quoted in the sequel.. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain123If a peruṭah changed hands and a definite time was given for the duration of the condition.. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition124If it was not stated explicitly that there was no marriage without rainfall, the condition is void and the marriage valid unconditionally.. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall125If the peruṭah is given with the understanding that it is counted as marriage gift when it rained before a fixed date, that explains the modalities of the preliminary marriage, it is not a condition., if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there126Mishnah ‘Eruvin 3:4. Somebody put an ‘eruv near the Sabbath boundary. If it was somehow moved and now it is not clear whether it is inside or outside the Sabbath boundary: If it is still within the boundary, the person making it can reach it on the Sabbath and it is valid. If it is outside, it cannot be reached and is invalid. If it is in doubt, according to rabbis Meïr and Jehudah, the person making it can only move in the domain permitted both if the ‘eruv is valid and if it is invalid.: “If it be in doubt, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a camel-donkey driver.127The donkey driver has to go behind his animal; it will not move otherwise. The camel driver has to go in front of his animal and draw it by its bridle; it will not move otherwise. The camel-donkey driver cannot function at all; the usual Babli expression “donkey-camel driver” describes one who cannot move from between the animals as similar to the person with an ‘eruv in doubt who cannot leave the four cubits at which he started the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction128R. Meïr requires a double formulation of a condition only for marriage and divorce, not for ‘eruvin. While this is also the opinion of Rif, most interpreters of the Babli hold that a double formulation is always required. Cf. Sefer Ha’iṭṭur I, p. 74 ff.. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ‘eruv since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place129The fact that the person with the ‘eruv in doubt is a donkey-camel driver has nothing to do with the requirement of a double formulation. The ‘eruv cannot be valid if the person cannot reach it on the Sabbath; the person cannot have the domain available to the other residents since he had decided not to be part of the population for the coming Sabbath.. And here130A hypothetical case in which a first man contracted a preliminary marriage conditioned upon the timely arrival of rains, when a second man contracted an unconditional preliminary marriage with the same woman before the arrival of rains. Since she was not married when the second man came, it is impossible to say that the latter’s preliminary marriage were invalid. It is also impossible to say that it were valid, since the first man’s condition was not stated in the double formulation required by R. Meïr; she needs divorces from both men., she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since [the first] did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose131This question is directed against R. Ḥanaiah ben Gamliel. What was the necessity of the double formulation in the case of the tribes Gad and Reuben? The question should be asked not for the negative part but for the positive; was it necessary to state that the tribes will get the Transjordan territory if they come to fight in Canaan?: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand132They already were in possession; to make this possession conditional needed the involved formulation. and he wanted to take it away from them.
רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר סִיסִין רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. יָֽרְדוּ לְסִימְפוֹן בְּשִׁיטַּת רִבִּי מֵאִירִ דְּקִידּוּשִׁין. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה חֲבֵרִין דְּרַבָּנִין בְּעָא. לָמָּה לִי כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אֲפִילוּ כְרַבָּנִין. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. סֶדֶר סִימְפוֹן כָּךְ הוּא. אֲנָא פַּלָּן בַּר פַּלָּן מְקַדֵּשׁ לֵיךְ אַנְתְּ פַּלְנִיתָא בַּת פְּלוֹנִי עַל מְנָת לִיתֵּן לִיךְ מִיקְּמַת פַּלָּן וּמִיכְנְסִינִיךְ לְיוֹם פַּלָּן. וְאִין אָתָא וְלָא כְנַסְתִּיךְ לָא יֶהֱוֵי לִי עָלַיִךְ כְּלוּם. וְיֹאמַר. עַל מְנָת. שֶׁלֹּא לִכְפּוֹל תְּנָייוֹ. אִילּוּ לֹא כָפַל תְּנָייוֹ מִיעָקַר קִידּוּשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּכָל־אָתָר אִית לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר מִמַּשְׁמַע לָאו אַתְּ שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵין. וְהָכָא לֵית לֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מִתַּנְייָה. חוֹמֶר הוּא בָּעֲרָיוֹת. Rebbi Jehudah bar Sisin133An Amora of this name is not otherwise documented in Talmudic literature. Probably the reading of ע “R. Jehudah ben Shalom” is correct., Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. They formulated the symphōn according to Rebbi Meïr134Since it states both that there is preliminary marriage if the conditions are satisfied but none if they are not satisfied.. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage135Even the rabbis must require an extra stipulation which will eliminate the preliminary marriage if the conditions are not satisfied.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here136The Nedarim.11a">Babli (Nedarim 11a,13b; Ševu’ot 36a) emphatically holds that R. Meïr requires a double formulation since he does not infer a positive statement from a negative one. For example, a statement “this shall for me be not profane” implies a dedication for the rabbis but not for R. Meïr.? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.