Responsa for Kiddushin 100:13
אלא אמר רבא קרא בזה אחר זה ומתניתין כדרבה דאמר רבה כל שאינו בזה אחר זה אפי' בבת אחת אינו
The Torah decreed that when they become rivals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. zaroth, the technical designation of wives of the same husband in their relationship toward each other.');"><sup>23</sup></span> to each other, he can have no marital connection with [even] one of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that the verse refers to a simultaneous betrothal.');"><sup>24</sup></span> Said Raba to him: If so, how is it written, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 29.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. Without any previous courting A gave money or presents to Leah saying they were tokens of love. The witnesses testify that A did not speak to Leah about marriage while he gave her the money, and that she did not express her consent.
A. If there are witnesses that A proposed to Leah on a previous occasion and that she accepted his proposal, she is betrothed to A, even though A did not expressly say he was betrothing her. When there are no such witnesses, but both, A and Leah, admit that they had a previous understanding between them, or that at the time A gave the money to Leah they both intended the money to bind them in betrothal, Leah is betrothed to A. Moreover, the mere statement of A to Leah that he gave her the money as a token of love may constitute a betrothal, and therefore, Leah needs a divorce from A before she can marry another.
SOURCES: Cr. 19; Pr. 519–520; Mord. Kid. 521; Tesh. Maim. to Ishut, 4.
A. If there are witnesses that A proposed to Leah on a previous occasion and that she accepted his proposal, she is betrothed to A, even though A did not expressly say he was betrothing her. When there are no such witnesses, but both, A and Leah, admit that they had a previous understanding between them, or that at the time A gave the money to Leah they both intended the money to bind them in betrothal, Leah is betrothed to A. Moreover, the mere statement of A to Leah that he gave her the money as a token of love may constitute a betrothal, and therefore, Leah needs a divorce from A before she can marry another.
SOURCES: Cr. 19; Pr. 519–520; Mord. Kid. 521; Tesh. Maim. to Ishut, 4.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy