Kiddushin 10

The feature common to both is that they confer much pleasure!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 14, n. 5; no pleasure however, is derived from huppah.');">¹</span> Let deed then prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which gives us pleasure, yet effects betrothal.');">²</span>

As for deed, that is because it frees an Israelitish daughter!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it effects divorce.');">³</span> Then let money and cohabitation prove it.

And thus the argument revolves: the distinguishing feature of one is not that of another, nor is the distinguishing feature of this on that of the other:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding money and cohabitation as one proposition, and deed as another.');">⁴</span> the feature common to all is that they acquire in general and here too; so do I adduce huppah, that it acquires in general and here too.

[No.] As for the common feature, it is that they have powers of compulsion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 14, nn. 7, 8.');">⁵</span> And R'Huna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he dispose of this?');">⁶</span>

- Money at least has no compulsory powers in matrimonial relationships. Raba said: There are two refutations of the matter:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Huna's statement.');">⁷</span>

firstly, we learnt THREE, not 'four'; and secondly, can then huppah complete [marriage] but through [prior] kiddushin; are we then to deduce huppah, when not as a result of kiddushin, from the same when preceded by kiddushin? - Abaye answered him: As for your objection, we learnt THREE, not 'four': [only] what is explicitly stated [in Scripture] is taught, but not what not explicitly stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Money and deed, though deduced by exegesis, are regarded as explicit, since they are intimated in Scripture. But huppah is only inferred a minori.');">⁸</span> And as to your objection; can then huppah complete [marriage] but through [prior] kiddushin - that indeed is R'Huna's argument: if money_ which cannot complete [marriage] after money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when betrothal (erusin) is effected by money, the marriage cannot he completed by giving money a second time.');">⁹</span>

nevertheless acquires; then huppah, which completes [marriage] after money, can surely acquire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman in the first stage of marriage - kiddushin.');">¹⁰</span> Our Rabbis taught: How [is a woman acquired] by money?

If a man gives her [a woman] money or its equivalent and declares to her, 'Behold, thou art consecrated unto me,' [or] 'thou art betrothed unto me', [or] 'Behold, thou art a wife unto me' - then she is betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'consecrated,' i.e., she becomes an arusah.');">¹¹</span> But if she gives him [money or its equivalent] and says 'Behold, I am consecrated unto thee,' 'I am betrothed unto thee,' 'I am a wife unto thee,' she is not betrothed.

R'Papa demurred: Thus it is only when he both gives [the money] and makes the declaration [that the betrothal is valid]; but if he gives [it] and she speaks, she is not betrothed. Then consider the seco clause: But if she gives [it] to him, and she makes the declaration, the kiddushin is not valid.

[Hence,] it is only when she both gives [the money] and speaks, but if he gives the money and she speaks, the kiddushin is valid? - The first clause is exact, while the second is mentioned incidentally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In contrast to the first, but its implication is not to be stressed.');">¹²</span> But may a statement be made in the second clause contradictory to the first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if mentioned incidentally, it must be essentially, and in its implications, correct.');">¹³</span>

- But this is its meaning: If he gives [the money] and he speaks, the kiddushin is obviously valid; [but] if he gives, and she speaks, it is accounted as though she both gives and speaks, so that the kiddushin is not valid. Alternatively, if he gives and speaks, she is betrothed; if she gives and speaks, she is [certainly] not betrothed; but if he gives and she speaks, it is doubtful, and as a Rabbinical measure we fear [the validity of the kiddushin].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She is neither married nor unmarried, and if another man betroths her she must be divorced by both, since we do not know her rightful husband. kgc');">¹⁴</span>

Samuel said: In respect to kiddushin, if he gave her money or its equivalent and declares, 'Behold, thou art consecrated,' 'Behold, thou art betrothed,'[or] 'Behold, thou art a wife,' - then she is betrothed. [If he declares,] 'Behold, I am thy husband,' 'Behold, I am thy master,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. = husband.');">¹⁵</span>

'Behold, I am thy arus,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁶</span> - there are no grounds for fear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is definitely not valid betrothal, as below. Consequently, if another betroths her, the second kiddushin is valid. ard');">¹⁷</span>

The same applies to divorce: If he gives her [the document of divorce] and declares, 'Behold, thou art sent forth,' 'Behold, thou art divorced,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Heb. verb , garesh, literally means 'to expel', 'drive forth'.');">¹⁸</span> [or] 'Thou art [henceforth] permitted to any man, - then she is divorced.

[But if he declares,] 'I am not thy husband,' 'I am not thy master,' 'I am not thy arus, there are no grounds for fear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The divorce is definitely invalid.');">¹⁹</span> R'Papa said to Abaye: Shall we say that in Samuel's opinion inexplicit abbreviations are [valid] abbreviations?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'handles'. In the above, the formulas are abbreviations, since he declares 'Behold, thou art betrothed,' omitting 'unto me. Moreover, their purport is not explicit and beyond doubt, for he may have been speaking and acting on another man's behalf, yet Samuel rules that since he was the speaker, she is betrothed to him, thus shewing that he holds these to be valid.');">²⁰</span>

But we learnt: If one declares, 'I will be,' he becomes a nazir. Now we pondered thereon: but perhaps he meant, 'I will fast'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I will be in a fast'.');">²¹</span>

And Samuel answer - ed: That is only if a nazir was passing before him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then it is obvious that he meant, 'I will be like him.'');">²²</span> Thus, it is only because a nazir was passing before him, but not otherwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that Samuel holds that abbreviations must be beyond doubt.');">²³</span>

- The circumstances here are that he said 'unto me.' If so, what does he inform us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is obvious.');">²⁴</span> - His teaching is with respect to these