Sefaria Kiddushin 9a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz)
Sefaria Kiddushin 9a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz)
Level four:
Near the weekly parsha with the haftorah both with Rashi, a chapter of Nach beginning with Joshua until the end of II Chronicles without Tehillim and start after the 'end' with Joshua again, Mishnah starting with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot until the end Seder Tahorot (Purity) Oktzin and start after the 'end' with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot, a daf from the Talmud Babylonian-Jerusalem starting from the beginning until the end and after the 'end' starting with the beginning again. Reading it very quickly every day.
About This Text
Kiddushin
Talmud
Kiddushin (“Betrothal”) is the last tractate in Seder Nashim (“Order of Women,” which addresses family law). Its four chapters primarily discuss laws relating to betrothal. Also addressed are laws of acquisition, sending representatives to perform legal actions, lineage, and the prohibition of seclusion between a man and a woman not married to each other.
Composed: Talmudic Babylon (c.450 - c.550 CE)נוצר/נערך: בבל התלמודית (450 - 550 לספירה בקירוב)
Current Version
Aramaic from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz Nikud (vocalization) by Dicta - the Israel Center for Text AnalysisRead More
Current Translation
English from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel SteinsaltzRead More
Source: korenpub.com
Digitization: Sefaria
License: CC-BY-NC
For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click from: Kiddushin 9a:1 with About (sefaria.org)
Kiddushin 9a-b
חוּמְרֵי פְּתַכְיָיתָא. אֲתַאי הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי חַד שׂוֹכָא״. אֲמַר לַהּ: ״אִי יָהֲבִינָא לִיךְ מִיקַּדְּשַׁתְּ לִי״? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״הַבָה מֵיהֲבָה״. אָמַר רַב חָמָא: כֹּל ״הַבָה מֵיהֲבָה״ לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא.
beads [ḥumrei]of glass [petakhyata]. A certain woman came and said to him: Give me one string. He said to her: If I give you this string will you be betrothed to me with it? She said to him: Give, give. Rav Ḥama said: Any use of the expression: Give, give, is nothing. Although she said: Give, give, she did not agree to the condition, as she was mocking him and had no intention of actually becoming betrothed.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָא שָׁתֵי חַמְרָא בְּחָנוּתָא. אֲתַאי הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי חַד כָּסָא״. אֲמַר לַהּ: ״אִי יָהֵיבְנָא לִיךְ מִיקַּדְּשַׁתְּ לִי״? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״אַשְׁקוֹיֵי אַשְׁקְיַין״. אָמַר רַב חָמָא: כֹּל ״אַשְׁקוֹיֵי אַשְׁקְיַין״ לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא.
The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who was drinking wine in a store. A woman came in and said to him: Give me one cup of wine. He said to her: If I give you a cup of wine will you be betrothed to me with it? She said to him: Give to drink, give it to me to drink. Rav Ḥama said that any use of the expression: Give to drink, give it to me to drink, is nothing, i.e., she certainly did not intend to accept the condition and she is not betrothed.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָא שָׁדֵי תַּמְרֵי מִדִּקְלָא. אֲתַאי הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״שְׁדִי לִי תַּרְתֵּי״! אֲמַר לַהּ: ״אִי שָׁדֵינָא לִיךְ מִיקַּדְּשַׁתְּ לִי״? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״שְׁדִי מִישְׁדָּא״. אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: כֹּל ״שְׁדִי מִישְׁדָּא״ לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא.
The Gemara further relates: There was a certain man who was picking dates from a date tree. A certain woman came and said to him: Throw me two. He said to her: If I throw two dates to you will you be betrothed to me with them? She said to him: Throw, throw. Rav Zevid said: Any use of the expression: Throw, throw, is nothing, and she is not betrothed.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״הַב״, ״אַשְׁקִי״, ״וּשְׁדִי״, מַהוּ? – אָמַר רָבִינָא: מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רַב סַמָּא בַּר רַקְתָּא אָמַר: תָּגָא דְמַלְכָּא! אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְהִלְכְתָא: אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If she said: Give, or: Give to drink, or: Throw, without the additional emphasis of the repetition, what is the halakha? Does this straightforward statement indicate that she actually meant him to give it to her in accordance with his stated condition, or does she not agree to betrothal even here? Ravina said: She is betrothed. Rav Sama bar Rakta said in the form of an oath: By the king’s crown! She is not betrothed. The Gemara states: And the halakha is that she is not betrothed.
וְהִלְכְתָא: שִׁירָאֵי לָא צְרִיכִי שׁוּמָא. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן.
The Gemara issues further rulings concerning the previous cases. And the halakha is: With regard to silk garments that are worth more than one peruta, appraisal is not necessary before a woman can be betrothed with them. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, that if a man promised a woman one hundred dinars as betrothal money and gave her only a dinar, she is betrothed. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who said that Rav Naḥman said that if he promised one hundred dinars and gave her only collateral, this is not a valid betrothal.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּשְׁטָר כֵּיצַד? כָּתַב לוֹ עַל הַנְּיָיר אוֹ עַל הַחֶרֶס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה, ״בִּתְּךָ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי״, ״בִּתְּךָ מְאוֹרֶסֶת לִי״, ״בִּתְּךָ לִי לְאִינְתּוּ״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.
§ The Sages taught: How is betrothal performed with a document? If he wrote the following for a young woman’s father on paper or earthenware, despite the fact that the paper or earthenware is not worth one peruta: Your daughter is betrothed [mekuddeshet] to me, or: Your daughter is betrothed [me’oreset] to me, or: Your daughter is to me as a wife, then she is betrothed. There is no requirement for the paper or earthenware to be worth one peruta, as she is not betrothed through the value of the paper or earthenware.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא בַּר מֶמֶל: הָא לָא דָּמֵי הַאי שְׁטָרָא לִשְׁטַר זְבִינֵי! הָתָם, מוֹכֵר כּוֹתֵב לוֹ ״שָׂדִי מְכוּרָה לָךְ״, הָכָא בַּעַל כּוֹתֵב ״בִּתְּךָ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי״!
Rabbi Zeira bar Memel objects to this description of the writing of the document: But this document is not comparable to a bill of sale. There, in the case of a bill of sale, the seller is the one who writes to the buyer: My field is sold to you. Here, the husband, who is akin to a buyer, is the one who writes: Your daughter is betrothed to me.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָתָם מֵעִנְיָינָא דִּקְרָא וְהָכָא מֵעִנְיָינָא דִּקְרָא. הָתָם כְּתִיב ״וּמָכַר מֵאֲחֻזָּתוֹ״ – בְּמוֹכֵר תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא, הָכָא כְּתִיב ״כִּי יִקַּח״ – בְּבַעַל תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא.
Rava said: There, in the case of a sale, the formulation of the document is taken from the context of the verse, and here, in the case of betrothal, the formulation of the document is likewise taken from the context of the verse. Rava elaborates: There, with regard to a sale, it is written: “And sells of his ancestral land” (Leviticus 25:25), which indicates that the Merciful One renders the transaction dependent on the seller. Here, it is written: “If a man takes a woman” (Deuteronomy 22:13), meaning that the Merciful One renders the betrothal dependent on the husband.
הָתָם נָמֵי כְּתִיב ״שָׂדוֹת בַּכֶּסֶף יִקְנוּ״! קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״יַקְנוּ״. מַאי טַעְמָא קָרֵית בֵּיהּ ״יַקְנוּ״ – מִשּׁוּם ״דִּכְתִיב״ וּמָכַר, הָכִי נָמֵי קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״כִּי יַקַּח״, ״דִּכְתִיב אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ״ הַזֶּה.
The Gemara asks: There, in the case of a sale, it is also written: “Men shall buy [yiknu] fields for money” (Jeremiah 32:44), which indicates that the matter depends upon the buyer. The Gemara answers: Read into the verse: Shall sell [yikkanu]. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that you read it as yikkanu; because it is written in the verse in Leviticus: “And sells,” and there is a preference to have the verse from the Prophets accord with that of the Torah? So too, instead of: “If a man takes [ki yikaḥ]” (Deuteronomy 22:13), read into the verse: When he is given [ki yakiaḥ], as it is written: “I gave my daughter to this man” (Deuteronomy 22:16), so that the verses will accord with each other.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא נִינְהוּ וְאַסְמְכִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן אַקְּרָאֵי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָתָם נָמֵי כְּתִיב ״וָאֶקַּח אֶת סֵפֶר הַמִּקְנָה״.
Rather, Rava said: There is no proof from the verses for these rulings, as they are a halakha received through tradition, and the Sages based them on the verses. And if you wish, say: There too, in the case in Jeremiah, it is written with regard to the buyer: “And I took the deed of purchase” (Jeremiah 32:11), thereby indicating that it is the seller who writes the document.
וְאָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כָּתַב לוֹ עַל הַנְּיָיר אוֹ עַל הַחֶרֶס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה, ״בִּתְּךָ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי״, ״בִּתְּךָ מְאוֹרֶסֶת לִי״, ״בִּתְּךָ לִי לְאִינְתּוּ״, בֵּין עַל יְדֵי אָבִיהָ בֵּין עַל יְדֵי עַצְמָהּ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת מִדַּעְתּוֹ, וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא בָּגְרָה.
And Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: If he wrote the following for him on paper or earthenware, despite the fact that the paper or earthenware is not worth one peruta: Your daughter is betrothed [mekuddeshet] to me, or: Your daughter is betrothed [me’oreset] to me, or: Your daughter is to me as a wife, whether he gave it to her father or whether he gave it directly to her, she is betrothed with the consent of her father. And this is the halakha provided that she has not yet reached her majority, before which her father alone has the authority to betroth her.
כָּתַב לָהּ עַל הַנְּיָיר אוֹ עַל הַחֶרֶס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה, ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי״, ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ לִי לְאִינְתּוּ״, ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְאוֹרֶסֶת לִי״ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, בֵּין עַל יְדֵי אָבִיהָ, בֵּין עַל יְדֵי עַצְמָהּ, מִדַּעְתָּהּ, וְהוּא שֶׁבָּגְרָה.
If he wrote for her on paper or earthenware, despite the fact that the paper or earthenware is not worth one peruta: You are hereby betrothed [mekuddeshet] to me, or: You are hereby to me as a wife, or: You are hereby betrothed [me’oreset] to me, then she is betrothed whether he gave it to her father or to her, as long as this was with her consent. And this is the halakha provided that she has reached her majority and is under her own authority.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: שְׁטַר אֵירוּסִין שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, מַהוּ? הֲוָיוֹת לִיצִיאוֹת מַקְּשִׁינַן, מָה
§ Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raises a dilemma: With regard to a document of betrothal that was written not for her sake, i.e., not for this particular woman, what is the halakha? Do we juxtapose the halakhot of the modes of becoming betrothed to the halakhot of the modes of leaving a marriage, i.e., divorce? If so, one should say: Just as
9b
יְצִיאָה בָּעֵינַן לִשְׁמָהּ – אַף הֲוָיָיה בָּעֵינַן לִשְׁמָהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא הֲוָיוֹת לַהֲדָדֵי מַקְּשִׁינַן, מָה הֲוָיָיה דְכֶסֶף לָא בָּעֵינַן, לִשְׁמָהּ – אַף הֲוָיָיה דִשְׁטָר לָא בָּעֵינַן לִשְׁמָהּ?
we require that the document of leaving, i.e., a bill of divorce, must be written specifically for her sake, so too, we require that the document of becoming betrothed be written for her sake. Or perhaps we juxtapose the different modes of becoming betrothed to each other and say: Just as we do not require that becoming betrothed with money must be carried out with coins minted for her sake, so too, we do not require that becoming betrothed with a document must be with a document written for her sake.
בָּתַר דְּבַעְיָא הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: הֲוָיָיה לִיצִיאָה מַקְּשִׁינַן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְיָצְאָה״ ״וְהָיְתָה״.
After he raised the dilemma, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish then resolved it. We juxtapose becoming betrothed to leaving a marriage, as the verse states: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes” (Deuteronomy 24:2). This shows that the halakhot of a betrothal document are derived from those of a bill of divorce, and therefore a document of betrothal must also be written for her sake.
אִיתְּמַר: כְּתָבוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ, וְשֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ – רָבָא וְרָבִינָא אָמְרִי: מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא אָמְרִי: אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֵימָא טַעְמָא דִידְהוּ וְאֵימָא טַעְמָא דִידִי. אֵימָא טַעְמָא דִידְהוּ – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְיָצְאָה״ ״וְהָיְתָה״ – מַקִּישׁ הֲוָיָיה לִיצִיאָה, מָה יְצִיאָה לִשְׁמָהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ, אַף הֲוָיָיה נָמֵי לִשְׁמָהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ.
It was stated that amora’im disagreed with regard to the following issue: If a man wrote a document of betrothal for her sake but without her consent, i.e., she did not know at the time that they were writing it but accepted it afterward, Rava and Ravina say: She is betrothed. Rav Pappa and Rav Sherevya say: She is not betrothed. Rav Pappa said: I will say their reason and I will say my reason. I will state their reason, as it is written: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes,” by which the verse juxtaposes becoming betrothed to leaving a marriage. Just as a bill of divorce, written for leaving a marriage must be written for her own sake but can be written without her consent, so too, a document written for becoming betrothed must be written for her own sake and can even be without her consent.
וְאֵימָא טַעְמָא דִידִי: ״וְיָצְאָה״ ״וְהָיְתָה״ – מַקִּישׁ הֲוָיָיה לִיצִיאָה, מָה יְצִיאָה בָּעֵינַן דַּעַת מַקְנֶה, אַף הֲוָיָיה בָּעֵינַן דַּעַת מַקְנֶה.
And I will say my reason: The verse says: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes.” The verse juxtaposes becoming betrothed to leaving a marriage. Just as with regard to a bill of divorce, written for leaving a marriage, we require the consent of the one transferring ownership, i.e., the man, as he divorces and transfers authority of the woman to herself, so too, with regard to a document written for becoming betrothed, we require the consent of the one transferring ownership, which in this case is the woman, who must agree to the marriage.
מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי אֵירוּסִין וְנִשּׂוּאִין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶן. מַאי לָאו שְׁטָרֵי אֵירוּסִין וְנִשּׂוּאִין מַמָּשׁ! לָא, שְׁטָרֵי פְּסִיקָתָא. וְכִדְרַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב,
The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Bava Batra 167b) against the opinion that she is betrothed if the document was written without her consent. One writes documents of betrothal and marriage only with the consent of both the man and woman. What, is the mishna not referring to actual documents of betrothal and marriage, which indicates that the document must be written with the woman’s consent? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, this is referring to documents of stipulation, which contain the details of the dowry. And this statement is in accordance with that which Rav Giddel says that Rav says.
דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: ״כַּמָּה אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לְבִנְךָ״? – ״כָּךְ וְכָךְ״, ״לְבִתְּךָ״? – ״כָּךְ וְכָךְ״, עָמְדוּ וְקִדְּשׁוּ – קָנוּ, הֵן הֵן הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּקְנִים בַּאֲמִירָה.
As Rav Giddel says that Rav says: If the father of one member of the couple says to the father of the other: How much are you giving to your son? And he answers: Such and such, and adds: How much are you giving to your daughter? And the other responds: Such and such, then if they, the couple, subsequently arose and became betrothed, they acquire everything that was promised. These are the matters that are acquired through speech, and they do not require an act of acquisition. The documents of betrothal mentioned here that require the woman’s consent are those which contain this type of monetary obligation, not actual documents of betrothal.
וּבְבִיאָה. מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״בְּעֻלַת בַּעַל״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה לָהּ בַּעַל עַל יְדֵי בְעִילָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּעוּרָה זוֹ שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבִּי ״וּבְעָלָהּ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה?
§ The mishna teaches that a woman can be betrothed through sexual intercourse. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “If a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba’al]” (Deuteronomy 22:22). This teaches that he becomes her husband [ba’al] by means of sexual intercourse [be’ila]. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu, and some say it was Reish Lakish who said this to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Is this other proof, taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, unacceptable: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 24:1)? This verse teaches that she can be acquired through intercourse.
אִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא עַד דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ וַהֲדַר בָּעֵיל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers that the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is insufficient proof that a woman can be betrothed via intercourse, as, if this halakha were derived only from there, I would say that she is not considered his wife unless he first betroths her through money, indicated by the phrase “takes a woman,” and then engages in intercourse with her. This is the only valid mode of betrothal, and intercourse alone is not enough. Therefore, the verse states “a married woman [beulat ba’al]” and teaches us that intercourse by itself is a valid means of betrothal.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: אִם כֵּן, נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא בִּסְקִילָה, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
Rabbi Abba bar Memel objects to this: The above suggestion, that both money and sexual intercourse are required for betrothal, cannot be the correct interpretation of the verse: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her.” This is because, if it is so, that a woman can be acquired only through both betrothal money and intercourse, the case of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, concerning which the Merciful One states in the Torah that he is punished by stoning (see Deuteronomy 22:23–24), how can you find a case where he is liable to be punished in this manner?
אִי דְּאקַדֵּישׁ וַהֲדַר בְּעֵיל בְּעוּלָה הִיא, אִי דְּאקַדֵּישׁ וְלָא בְּעֵיל לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא! אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ אָרוּס שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ.
Rabbi Abba bar Memel elaborates: If this is referring to a case where he betrothed her with money and then engaged in sexual intercourse with her, she is a non-virgin, and the punishment of stoning applies only to one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young virgin. If it is referring to a case where he betrothed her with money and did not engage in intercourse with her, this is nothing, as the betrothal has not been completed. The Rabbis said before Abaye: You find it in a case where he betrothed her with money and then the betrothed man engaged in intercourse with her in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse. Despite the fact that she is still a virgin, the betrothal has taken effect by means of this type of sexual intercourse.
אֲמַר לְהוּ אַבָּיֵי: עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן אֶלָּא בְּאַחֵר, אֲבָל בַּעַל – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ – עֲשָׂאָהּ בְּעוּלָה!
Abaye said to those Sages: The verse cannot be explained in that manner, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to another man, i.e., whether a woman is considered to be a virgin after engaging in anal intercourse with another man. But with regard to her husband, everyone agrees that if he engages in intercourse in an atypical manner with her he has rendered her a non-virgin. If so, she is no longer considered a virgin with regard to the halakha of a betrothed young woman.
מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים, וַעֲדַיִין הִיא בְּתוּלָה – כּוּלָּן בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּסְקִילָה, וְכוּלָּן בְּחֶנֶק.
The Gemara clarifies: What is the dispute to which Abaye refers? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 10:4): If ten men engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and she is still a virgin, as they engaged in anal intercourse with her, they are all punished by stoning. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that the first one is punished by stoning, as he engaged in intercourse with a virgin young woman, but all the others are punished by strangulation. Once the first man engages in intercourse with her she is no longer considered a virgin, even if he engaged in anal intercourse with her.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁהּ בִּשְׁטָר, הוֹאִיל וְגוֹמֵר וּמוֹצִיא, גּוֹמֵר וּמַכְנִיס.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said a different answer to Rabbi Abba bar Memel’s question: You find a situation where a man who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman is punished by stoning in a case where he betrothed her with a document. Everyone agrees that since a document, i.e., a bill of divorce, completely removes a woman from her husband, without the need for an additional act, it also completely brings her into the state of betrothal. If a young woman is betrothed by means of a document, she can be a betrothed young woman while remaining a virgin.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הַאי ״וּבְעָלָהּ״, מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ – זוֹ נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה, וְאֵין אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה.
The Gemara returns to the different derivations of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yoḥanan. And Rabbi Yoḥanan, who maintains that the mode of betrothal through intercourse is derived from the verse: “If a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba’al]” (Deuteronomy 22:22), what does he do with this verse: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 24:1)? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for a different halakha, as he maintains that it teaches that this woman can be acquired through intercourse, but a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired through intercourse.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא תֵּיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִיבָמָה: וּמָה יְבָמָהּ שֶׁאֵין נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף, נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה, זוֹ, שֶׁנִּקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁנִּקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה?
As it might enter your mind to say: Let the halakha of a Hebrew maidservant be derived through an a fortiori inference from the halakha of a yevama: Just as a yevama, who cannot be acquired through money at all, nevertheless can be acquired through intercourse, which indicates that the ability of an act of sexual intercourse to effect acquisition is greater than that of money, is it not logical that this Hebrew maidservant, who can be acquired through money, can also be acquired through intercourse?
מָה לִיבָמָה, שֶׁכֵּן זְקוּקָה וְעוֹמֶדֶת. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִב ״אִם אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח לוֹ״, הִקִּישָׁהּ הַכָּתוּב לְאַחֶרֶת. מָה אַחֶרֶת מִיקַּנְיָא בְּבִיאָה – אַף אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה מִיקַּנְיָא בְּבִיאָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara rejects this opinion: What is unique about a yevama is that she is bound and standing waiting for the yavam, i.e., there is already a connection between them. Perhaps it is for this reason that intercourse enables a yavam to acquire a yevama, and the same cannot be said of a maidservant. Rather, it might enter your mind to say a different claim: Since it is written with regard to a the master of a Hebrew maidservant: “If he take himself another wife” (Exodus 21:10), this verse juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant with another woman that a master marries: Just as another woman that a master marries can be acquired through intercourse, so too, a Hebrew maidservant can be acquired through intercourse. Therefore, the verse teaches us, with the phrase “and engages in sexual intercourse with her,” that this is not the case.
וְרַבִּי, הַאי סְבָרָא מְנָא לֵיהּ? אִם כֵּן לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּבָעַל״, מַאי ״וּבְעָלָהּ״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who learns that betrothal can be effected through sexual intercourse from this verse, from where does he derive this conclusion that a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired through intercourse? The Gemara answers: If so, that this verse is teaching only one halakha, let the Merciful One write simply: And he engages in sexual intercourse. What is the meaning of the phrase “And he engages in sexual intercourse with her”? Learn two halakhot from it. One can learn from this verse both that a woman can be acquired through intercourse, and that an ordinary woman can be betrothed through intercourse but a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired through intercourse.
וּלְרָבָא דְּאָמַר: בַּר אֲהִינָא אַסְבְּרַהּ לִי: ״כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ״ – קִידּוּשִׁין הַמְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין, קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה לָא הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין. מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said: Bar Ahina explained this to me by citing a proof from the following verse: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), which teaches that betrothal that is given to consummation, i.e., betrothal when it is permitted for the man and woman to engage in intercourse, is a betrothal, but betrothal that is not given to consummation is not a valid betrothal, what is there to say? Since he uses this verse for a different purpose, from where does Rava derive that a woman can be betrothed through intercourse and that a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired in this manner?
אִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״אוֹ בְעָלָהּ״, מַאי ״וּבְעָלָהּ״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כּוּלְּהוּ.
The Gemara answers: If so, that a woman cannot be betrothed through intercourse, let the verse write: When a man takes a woman or engages in intercourse with her. What is indicated by the phrase: “And engages in sexual intercourse with her”? One can learn from the verse all these halakhot, that intercourse is a valid mode of betrothing a woman but not acquiring a maidservant, and betrothal is effective only when it is given to consummation.
וְרַבִּי, הַאי ״בְּעֻלַת בַּעַל״, מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ – בַּעַל עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ בְּעוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְאֵין אַחֵר עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ בְּעוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what does he do with this verse: “If a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba’al]” (Deuteronomy 22:22), from which Rabbi Yoḥanan derives that intercourse is a valid means of betrothal? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi requires this verse for the halakha that the husband renders her a non-virgin even if he engages in intercourse with her in an atypical manner, but no other man renders her a non-virgin by engaging in intercourse with her in an atypical manner.
וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַב הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים וַעֲדַיִין הִיא בְּתוּלָה – כּוּלָּם בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּסְקִילָה, וְכוּלָּם בְּחֶנֶק!
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accept this opinion? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If ten men engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and she is still a virgin, they are all punished by stoning. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that the first one is punished by stoning, but the others are all punished by strangulation. This proves that in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, even one who is not her husband can render a woman a non-virgin by engaging in anal intercourse with her.
click:
42 Journeys of the Soul
The Messianic age will elevate the entire universe, including all the spiritual realms.
From the teachings of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi; adapted by Yitzchak Wagshul
click:
What Is Kabbalah?
The Soul of Judaism
By Tzvi Freeman
Click:
What Is Chassidut?
Teachings from the core essence
Click:
Click:
What Is Chabad?
Do-It-Yourself Judaism
Click:
Click:
What Is a Tzaddik?
Being human all the way
The Tzaddik HaDor
Tehillim Ohel Yosef Yitzchak
Click to download: Tehillim Ohel Yosef Yitzchak - Apps on Google Play
The perfect guide for every day reading Tehilim.
Pirkei Avot 6:10
Tehillim Ohel Yosef Yitzchak
Click to download: Tehillim Ohel Yosef Yitzchak - Apps on Google Play
Click to download: Tehillim Ohel Yosef Yitzchak - Apps on Google Play
The perfect guide for every day reading Tehilim.
Pirkei Avot 6:10
Dr. Joshua Kulp
חֲמִשָּׁה קִנְיָנִים קָנָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְעוֹלָמוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, תּוֹרָה קִנְיָן אֶחָד, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד, אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד, יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד, בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד. תּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (משלי ח), ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז. שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (ישעיה סו), כֹּה אָמַר ה' הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי אֵי זֶה בַיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ לִי וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קד) מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה' כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ קִנְיָנֶךָ. אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית יד), וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), עַד יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ ה' עַד יַעֲבֹר עַם זוּ קָנִיתָ, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים טז) לִקְדוֹשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ הֵמָּה וְאַדִּירֵי כָּל חֶפְצִי בָם. בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ פָּעַלְתָּ ה' מִקְּדָשׁ ה' כּוֹנְנוּ יָדֶיךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים עח) וַיְבִיאֵם אֶל גְּבוּל קָדְשׁוֹ הַר זֶה קָנְתָה יְמִינוֹ:Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they: The Torah, one possession; Heaven and earth, another possession; Abraham, another possession; Israel, another possession; The Temple, another possession. 1a) The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’) me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). 2a) Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3a) Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4a) Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire (possession) is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5a) The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).
click:
Dr. Joshua Kulp
חֲמִשָּׁה קִנְיָנִים קָנָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְעוֹלָמוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, תּוֹרָה קִנְיָן אֶחָד, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד, אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד, יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד, בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד. תּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (משלי ח), ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז. שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (ישעיה סו), כֹּה אָמַר ה' הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי אֵי זֶה בַיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ לִי וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קד) מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה' כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ קִנְיָנֶךָ. אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית יד), וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), עַד יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ ה' עַד יַעֲבֹר עַם זוּ קָנִיתָ, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים טז) לִקְדוֹשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ הֵמָּה וְאַדִּירֵי כָּל חֶפְצִי בָם. בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ פָּעַלְתָּ ה' מִקְּדָשׁ ה' כּוֹנְנוּ יָדֶיךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים עח) וַיְבִיאֵם אֶל גְּבוּל קָדְשׁוֹ הַר זֶה קָנְתָה יְמִינוֹ:
Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they: The Torah, one possession; Heaven and earth, another possession; Abraham, another possession; Israel, another possession; The Temple, another possession. 1a) The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’) me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). 2a) Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3a) Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4a) Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire (possession) is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5a) The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).
click:
LEARN HOW TO READ THE BIBLE IN HEBREW ONCE AND FOR ALL
click:
Ulpan and Hebrew Learning Resources Online
Petition click: 1 Million for a Jewish Temple Mount!
It should be most honest:'Israeli MK proposes dividing Temple Mount between Jews and Muslims
Petition click: 1 Million for a Jewish Temple Mount!
It should be most honest:
'Israeli MK proposes dividing Temple Mount between Jews and Muslims
**AMIT HALEVI'S PLAN WOULD GIVE MUSLIMS CONTROL OF THE SOUTHERN END OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT COMPLEX, WHICH CONTAINS THE AL-AQSA MOSQUE, WHILE JEWS WOULD RECEIVE THE CENTRAL AND NORTHERN AREAS.
(JUNE 8, 2023 / JNS)**A Likud lawmaker is proposing a plan to divide Jerusalem’s Temple Mount between Muslims and Jews and to remove Jordan’s custodial status over the holy site.Speaking to the Zman Yisrael Hebrew news site, Knesset member Amit Halevi outlined a plan whereby Muslims would control the southern end of the 37-acre complex which contains the Al-Aqsa mosque, while Jews would receive the central and northern area, where the Dome of the Rock sits.According to Halevi, the reorganization makes sense from a religious point of view because that part of the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism, where it is believed the First and Second Temples stood. The Foundation Stone at the center of the Dome of the Rock is where Jewish sources place the Holy of Holies.“This is the place of the First Temple and the place of the Second Temple built by Babylonian immigrants. No one needs to examine the stones to know that it is ours,” he said.Halevi also wants to end Israel’s agreement with the Jordanian Waqf whereby the Islamic trust controls and manages Islamic edifices on the Temple Mount.“Why not give them status in the Dizengoff Center [a large shopping mall in Tel Aviv] as well? This is a terrible mistake. This status should be abolished. I know it’s an agreement between countries, but we have to deal with it. It requires change, even if the process will take time,” he said.In addition, Halevi wants to give Jews the same access to the Temple Mount enjoyed by Muslims. Currently, the Waqf only allows Jews and non-Muslim tourists access to the Temple Mount via the Maghrebi Gate and only at certain hours when the gate is open.“We will take the northern end and pray there. The entire mountain is sacred to us, and the Dome of the Rock is the place on which the Temple stood. This should be our guideline,” he said. “Israel is leading. It will be a historical, religious and national statement. If this does not happen then you are not actually the owner of the house. You are a klutz. Why are you even going in there?”
Please let we all, Jews and all their friends, take the Har HaBayit and start building the Temple and restoring her service?כִּ֤י אִם־הֵיטֵיב֙ תֵּיטִ֔יבוּ אֶת־דַּרְכֵיכֶ֖ם וְאֶת־מַעַלְלֵיכֶ֑ם אִם־עָשׂ֤וֹ תַֽעֲשׂוּ֙ מִשְׁפָּ֔ט בֵּ֥ין אִ֖ישׁ וּבֵ֥ין רֵעֵֽהוּ׃
No, if you really mend your ways and your actions; if you execute justice between one party and another; גֵּ֣ר יָת֤וֹם וְאַלְמָנָה֙ לֹ֣א תַעֲשֹׁ֔קוּ וְדָ֣ם נָקִ֔י אַֽל־תִּשְׁפְּכ֖וּ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְאַחֲרֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים אֲחֵרִ֛ים לֹ֥א תֵלְכ֖וּ לְרַ֥ע לָכֶֽם׃
if you do not oppress the stranger, the orphan, and the widow; if you do not shed the blood of the innocent in this place; if you do not follow other gods, to your own hurt— וְשִׁכַּנְתִּ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶ֑ם לְמִן־עוֹלָ֖ם וְעַד־עוֹלָֽם׃
then only will I let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your ancestors for all time.Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.I like to call out to all my Jewish friends:
Zechariah 8:23
23So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."
כגכֹּֽה־אָמַר֘ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָאוֹת֒ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֲשֶׁ֚ר יַֽחֲזִ֙יקוּ֙ עֲשָׂרָ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל לְשֹׁנ֣וֹת הַגּוֹיִ֑ם וְֽהֶחֱזִ֡יקוּ בִּכְנַף֩ אִ֨ישׁ יְהוּדִ֜י לֵאמֹ֗ר נֵֽלְכָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם כִּ֥י שָׁמַ֖עְנוּ אֱלֹהִ֥ים עִמָּכֶֽם:
ten men: from the seventy nations. This equals seven hundred for each corner. For the four corners of the tallith there will be two thousand and eight hundred.
עשרה אנשים: משבעים לשון הרי שבע מאות לכל כנף וכנף הרי לד' כנפי הטלית אלפים ושמונ' מאו':
Please Judah if a righteous gentile tries ‘to grasp your ‘tsi-sit’ and say: "Let me go with you, for I have heard that God is with you." Open your heart for him/her and share all our Torah. The Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu as it is written and spared and is teaches in the Tanach and all scripture of Rabbinical Judaism………
Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.
Read my story: https://rb.gy/i654b
Please contact me for further questions: Telegram https://t.me/ArielRepresentative WhatsApp: +972 54-568-3031 Ariel van Kessel LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ariel-van-kessel-71797424 Email: arielvankessel@aol.com Ariel, hopefully your Representative
(JUNE 8, 2023 / JNS)**
A Likud lawmaker is proposing a plan to divide Jerusalem’s Temple Mount between Muslims and Jews and to remove Jordan’s custodial status over the holy site.
Speaking to the Zman Yisrael Hebrew news site, Knesset member Amit Halevi outlined a plan whereby Muslims would control the southern end of the 37-acre complex which contains the Al-Aqsa mosque, while Jews would receive the central and northern area, where the Dome of the Rock sits.
According to Halevi, the reorganization makes sense from a religious point of view because that part of the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism, where it is believed the First and Second Temples stood. The Foundation Stone at the center of the Dome of the Rock is where Jewish sources place the Holy of Holies.
“This is the place of the First Temple and the place of the Second Temple built by Babylonian immigrants. No one needs to examine the stones to know that it is ours,” he said.
Halevi also wants to end Israel’s agreement with the Jordanian Waqf whereby the Islamic trust controls and manages Islamic edifices on the Temple Mount.
“Why not give them status in the Dizengoff Center [a large shopping mall in Tel Aviv] as well? This is a terrible mistake. This status should be abolished. I know it’s an agreement between countries, but we have to deal with it. It requires change, even if the process will take time,” he said.
In addition, Halevi wants to give Jews the same access to the Temple Mount enjoyed by Muslims. Currently, the Waqf only allows Jews and non-Muslim tourists access to the Temple Mount via the Maghrebi Gate and only at certain hours when the gate is open.
“We will take the northern end and pray there. The entire mountain is sacred to us, and the Dome of the Rock is the place on which the Temple stood. This should be our guideline,” he said. “Israel is leading. It will be a historical, religious and national statement. If this does not happen then you are not actually the owner of the house. You are a klutz. Why are you even going in there?”
Please let we all, Jews and all their friends, take the Har HaBayit and start building the Temple and restoring her service?
כִּ֤י אִם־הֵיטֵיב֙ תֵּיטִ֔יבוּ אֶת־דַּרְכֵיכֶ֖ם וְאֶת־מַעַלְלֵיכֶ֑ם אִם־עָשׂ֤וֹ תַֽעֲשׂוּ֙ מִשְׁפָּ֔ט בֵּ֥ין אִ֖ישׁ וּבֵ֥ין רֵעֵֽהוּ׃
No, if you really mend your ways and your actions; if you execute justice between one party and another;
גֵּ֣ר יָת֤וֹם וְאַלְמָנָה֙ לֹ֣א תַעֲשֹׁ֔קוּ וְדָ֣ם נָקִ֔י אַֽל־תִּשְׁפְּכ֖וּ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְאַחֲרֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים אֲחֵרִ֛ים לֹ֥א תֵלְכ֖וּ לְרַ֥ע לָכֶֽם׃
if you do not oppress the stranger, the orphan, and the widow; if you do not shed the blood of the innocent in this place; if you do not follow other gods, to your own hurt—
וְשִׁכַּנְתִּ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶ֑ם לְמִן־עוֹלָ֖ם וְעַד־עוֹלָֽם׃
then only will I let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your ancestors for all time.
Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.
Zechariah 8:23
23So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you." | | כגכֹּֽה־אָמַר֘ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָאוֹת֒ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֲשֶׁ֚ר יַֽחֲזִ֙יקוּ֙ עֲשָׂרָ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל לְשֹׁנ֣וֹת הַגּוֹיִ֑ם וְֽהֶחֱזִ֡יקוּ בִּכְנַף֩ אִ֨ישׁ יְהוּדִ֜י לֵאמֹ֗ר נֵֽלְכָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם כִּ֥י שָׁמַ֖עְנוּ אֱלֹהִ֥ים עִמָּכֶֽם: |
ten men: from the seventy nations. This equals seven hundred for each corner. For the four corners of the tallith there will be two thousand and eight hundred. | | עשרה אנשים: משבעים לשון הרי שבע מאות לכל כנף וכנף הרי לד' כנפי הטלית אלפים ושמונ' מאו': |
Please Judah if a righteous gentile tries ‘to grasp your ‘tsi-sit’ and say: "Let me go with you, for I have heard that God is with you." Open your heart for him/her and share all our Torah. The Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu as it is written and spared and is teaches in the Tanach and all scripture of Rabbinical Judaism………
Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.
Read my story: https://rb.gy/i654b
Please contact me for further questions: Telegram https://t.me/ArielRepresentative WhatsApp: +972 54-568-3031 Ariel van Kessel LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ariel-van-kessel-71797424 Email: arielvankessel@aol.com Ariel, hopefully your Representative
A Living Library of Torah
Sefaria is home to 3,000 years of Jewish texts. We are a non-profit organization offering free access to texts, translations, and commentaries so that everyone can participate in the ongoing process of studying, interpreting, and creating Torah. Learn More ›
Sefaria is home to 3,000 years of Jewish texts. We are a non-profit organization offering free access to texts, translations, and commentaries so that everyone can participate in the ongoing process of studying, interpreting, and creating Torah. Learn More ›
Chabad of Old City - Jerusalem
חב"ד העיר העתיקה - ירושלים
Beit Yisrael International (Ephraim, The Lost sheep from the House of Israel)
click:
Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit. click:
click:
Beit Yisrael International (Ephraim, The Lost sheep from the House of Israel)
click:
Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.
click:
click:
Comments
Post a Comment