Kiddushin 100

אינה מקודשת שמחמת קידושין הראשונים שלח וכן קטן שקידש

SHE IS NOT BETROTHED, BECAUSE THEY WERE SENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST KIDDUSHIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not as new kiddushin.');">¹</span> IT IS LIKEWISE SO IF A MINOR BETROTHS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And sends gifts on attaining his majority.');">²</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>And it is necessary [to state both].

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וצריכא דאי אשמעינן שוה פרוטה איידי דקא נפיק ממונא מיניה טעי אבל פחות משוה פרוטה אימא יודע שאין קידושין תופסין בפחות משוה פרוטה וכי קא משדר סבלונות אדעתא דקידושין קא משדר

For if we were informed the case of a perutah's worth [for two women], [I might argue,] since money has gone forth from him, he may err [and think the kiddushin valid]. But [with respect to] less than a perutah's worth, I might say that he knows that kiddushin with less than a perutah's worth is invalid, and so when he sends gifts, he sends them as kiddushin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the fact that no declaration accompanies them makes no difference, such being unnecessary when preceded by marriage negotiations: v. supra 6a.');">³</span> And if these two cases were taught, that is because one may not be clear on a perutah's worth and less;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He may have over-estimated the value of the article.');">⁴</span>

ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי משום דבין פרוטה לפחות משוה פרוטה לא קים להו לאינשי אבל קטן שקידש הכל יודעין שאין קידושי קטן כלום אימא כי קא משדר סבלונות אדעתא דקידושי קא משדר קא משמע לן

but when a minor betroths, all know that such betrothal is nothing; hence when he sends gifts, I might reason that he sends them as kiddushin. We are therefore informed otherwise. It was stated: R'Huna said: We pay regard to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fear'.');">⁵</span>

איתמר רב הונא אמר חוששין לסבלונות וכן אמר רבה חוששין לסבלונות אמר רבה ומותבינן אשמעתין אף על פי ששלח סבלונות לאחר מכאן אינה מקודשת אמר ליה אביי התם כדקתני טעמא שמחמת קידושין הראשונים שלח

gifts: and Rabbah said likewise: We pay regard to gifts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a marriage is arranged, and the would-be husband sends gifts in the presence of witnesses, we fear that these may be meant as kiddushin, and so she is a doubtful married woman. Should another man then betroth her, both must divorce her.');">⁶</span> Rabbah said: An objection is raised against our teaching: EVEN IF HE SUBSEQUENTLY SENDS GIFTS, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED! - Abaye answered him: There the reason is as stated: BECAUSE THEY WERE SENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST KIDDUSHIN. Others state, Rabbah said: Whence do I know it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we pay regard to gifts.');">⁷</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רבה מנא אמינא לה כדקתני טעמא שמחמת קידושין הראשונים שלח הכא הוא דטעי הא בעלמא הוו קידושין

From the reason stated: BECAUSE THEY WERE SENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST KIDDUSHIN: hence, it is [only] here, because he may err;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thinking the first kiddushin valid.');">⁸</span> but elsewhere,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where no kiddushin preceded the gifts.');">⁹</span> they [the gifts] may be kiddushin.

ואביי לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא בעלמא דלא נחית לתורת קידושין כלל אלא אפילו הכא דנחית לתורת קידושין אימא הוו קידושין קא משמע לן

And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he accept this proof?');">¹⁰</span> - The most remarkable case is taught.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he (the Tanna) says: " it="" is="" unnecessary".'');"="">¹¹</span> It is unnecessary to state in general [that gifts are not betrothal], Seeing that has not entered into the state of kiddushin at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man not having given her previously any token of kiddushin.');">¹²</span>

מאי הוי עלה אמר רב פפא באתרא דמקדשי והדר מסבלי חיישינן מסבלי והדר מקדשי לא חיישינן

But even here, when he has entered the state of kiddushin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By actually offering something as such.');">¹³</span> I might think that they [the gifts] are kiddushin:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he discovered his error.');">¹⁴</span> hence we are informed [that it is not so].

מקדשי והדר מסבלי פשיטא לא צריכא דרובא מקדשי והדר מסבלי ומיעוטא מסבלי והדר מקדשי מהו דתימא ניחוש למיעוטא קא משמע לן

What is our decision on the matter - R'Papa said: In that place where one [first] betroths and then sends gifts, we pay regard thereto;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the gifts are first sent, we fear that they were meant for kiddushin.');">¹⁵</span> but in that place where gifts are [first] sent and then one betroths, we have no fear.' [Where] one [first] betroths and then sends gifts'.

בעא מיניה רב אחא בר רב הונא מרבא הוחזק שטר כתובה בשוק מהו אמר ליה וכי מפני שמחזיק שטר כתובה בשוק נחזיק בה כאשת איש מאי הוי עלה אמר רב אשי באתרא דמקדשי והדר כתבי כתובה חיישינן כתבי והדר מקדשי לא חיישינן

- But that is obvious! - It is necessary [to state it only where the majority [first] betroth and then send gifts; but the minority first send gifts and then betroth: might argue, Let us pay regard to the minority; hence we are informed [otherwise].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So the text in cur. edd. This however involves a difficulty: 'I might argue, let us fear the minority' implies that we are to impose a stringent ruling on that account, whereas here, by regarding the minority, we are lenient. Ri, quoted in Tosaf. s.v. dðv gives another reading: where gifts are first sent and then betrothal is performed - then it is obvious that she is not betrothed. It is necessary to state it only where the majority first send gifts and then betroth, yet a minority do the reverse. I might argue, let us fear the minority, so she is betrothed. Hence we are informed otherwise.');">¹⁶</span> R'Aha son of R'Huna propounded to Raba: What if a deed of settlement became known in the market place?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A marriage settlement (kethubah) between a certain man and woman was seen, though it was not known whether they had actually become betrothed, and then she accepted kiddushin from another.');">¹⁷</span> - He replied: Simply because a marriage settlement becomes known in the market place we are to assume her a married woman! What is our decision thereon? - Said R'Ashi: 'Where betrothal is [first] performed and then a kethubah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁸</span>

מקדשי והדר כתבי פשיטא לא צריכא דלא שכיח ספרא מהו דתימא ספרא הוא דאתרמי קא משמע לן

is written, we pay regard thereto; but in the place where they first write a kethubah and then betroth. we have no fear. In the place where there is [first] betrothal and then writing' - but that is obvious! - It is necessary to state it only where scribes are rare: I might have thought that he jus chanced to find a scribe:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And had the settlement drawn up before the betrothal, to take advantage of the scribe's presence.');">¹⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המקדש אשה ובתה או אשה ואחותה כאחת אינן מקודשות ומעשה בחמש נשים ובהן שתי אחיות וליקט אדם אחד כלכלה של תאנים ושלהן היתה ושל שביעית היתה ואמר הרי כולכם מקודשות לי בכלכלה זו וקיבלה אחת מהן ע"י כולן ואמרו חכמים אין אחיות מקודשות

hence we are informed [otherwise]. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE BETROTHS A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER OR A WOMAN AND HER SISTER SIMULTANEOUSLY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Saying, 'Be ye both betrothed unto me'.');">²⁰</span> THEY ARE NOT BETROTHED.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנהני מילי אמר רמי בר חמא דאמר קרא (ויקרא יח, יח) אשה אל אחותה לא תקח לצרור התורה אמרה בשעה שנעשו צרות זו לזו לא יהא לו ליקוחים אפי' באחת מהם אמר ליה רבא אי הכי היינו דכתיב (ויקרא יח, כט) ונכרתו הנפשות העושות מקרב עמם אי קידושין לא תפסי בה כרת מי מחייב

AND IT ONCE HAPPENED TO FIVE WOMEN, AMONGST WHOM WERE TWO SISTERS, THAT A MAN GATHERED A BASKET OF FIGS, WHICH WAS THEIRS, AND WHICH WAS OF THE SEVENTH YEAR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Talmud discusses this below.');">²¹</span> AND DECLARED, BE - HOLD, BE YE ALL BETROTHED UNTO ME WITH THIS BASKET, AND ONE ACCEPTED IT ON BEHALF OF ALL: THE SAGES RULED, THE SISTERS ARE NOT BETROTHED. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whence do we know it? - Said Rami B'Hama: Because Scripture saith, and thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her [li-zeror]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 18.');">²²</span>

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.');">²³</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.');">²⁴</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.');">²⁵</span>

גופא אמר רבה כל שאינו בזה אחר זה אפי' בבת אחת אינו איתיביה אביי

but if kiddushin with her is not valid, is he then liable to kareth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V, Glos. in fact, he is not married to either, and so may take the sister.');">²⁶</span> But, said Raba, the verse refers to consecutive [marriage],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this after this'.');">²⁷</span> and our Mishnah is in accordance with Rabbah, who said: That which cannot be [done] consecutively cannot be [done] simultaneously. The text [stated]: 'Rabbah said: That which cannot be [done] consecutively cannot be done simultaneously.' Abaye raised an objection against him: