Kiddushin 101

המרבה במעשר פירותיו מתוקנים ומעשרות מקולקלין ואמאי נימא כל שאינו בזה אחר זה אפי' בבת אחת אינו

If one gives excessive tithes, his produce is made fit, but his tithes are unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'spoiled'. After measuring off four measures, he separated one whole measure as tithe, instead of the half (= one tenth) due. Actually. however, only half becomes tithe, while the other half remains ordinary, untithed produce (tebel) , and the two are inextricably mixed up. No man may eat tebel, not even a priest or a Levite, and hence the whole tithe is forbidden until it is made fit by a further proportionate separation.');">¹</span> But why; let us say: That which cannot be [done] consecutively cannot be [done] simultaneously?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if he first separates half a measure as tithe and then another half, the second is certainly not tithe. Accordingly, when he separates the whole simultaneously, none of it is tithe, on Rabbah's principle: why then is the produce fit?');">²</span>

אמר ליה שאני מעשר דאיתיה לחצאים דאי אמר תתקדש פלגא דחיטתא קדשה

- Tithes are different, he replied, because it is possible in the case of half [grains]; for if one declares, 'Let half of each grain be sanctified tithe], it is sanctified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, when he separates excessive tithes, it is as though he declared that only half of each grain in the whole measure shall be tithe. But one cannot betroth half a woman.');">³</span> But cattle tithes are impossible in halves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One cannot count off nine animals and then declare the two halves of the next two as tithe.');">⁴</span>

והרי מעשר בהמה דליכא לחצאין וליכא בזה אחר זה ואמר רבא יצאו שנים בעשירי וקראן עשירי עשירי ואחד עשר מעורבים זה בזה

and also impossible consecutively;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After declaring the tenth tithe, the eleventh cannot be declared likewise.');">⁵</span> yet Rabbah said: If two [animals] came forth at the tenth, and he [their owner] proclaimed them both as 'tenth', the tenth and the eleventh are intermingled!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One is actual tithe, and the other is treated as a peace-offering, though it is not known which is which. Yet why so? If he declares the tenth tithe and then the eleventh too, the second declaration is invalid. Why then is his simultaneous declaration valid?');">⁶</span>

שאני מעשר בהמה דאיתיה בטעות דתנן קרא לתשיעי עשירי ולעשירי תשיעי ולאחד עשר עשירי שלשתן מקודשין

- Cattle tithe is different, because it is valid in error. For w learnt: If the ninth was proclaimed 'tenth', the tenth, 'ninth', and the eleventh, 'tenth', all three are sanctified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is not the same as the case mentioned in the previous note, where the eleventh is deliberately and knowingly called 'tenth'. - Hence, just as the eleventh is sanctified when it is designated 'tenth' in error, so are the tenth and the eleventh sanctified when designated simultaneously. But if one marries a second sister after the first in error, the second marriage is invalid; consequently they are invalid simultaneously.');">⁷</span>

הרי תודה דליתא בטעות וליתא נמי בזה אחר זה ואיתמר תודה שנשחטה על שמונים חלות חזקיה אמר קדשי לה ארבעים מתוך שמונים ור' יוחנן אמר לא קדשי לה ארבעים מתוך שמונים

But what of the thanksgiving-offering which can neither be in error nor consecutively,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thanksgiving-offering was accompanied by forty loaves, which were likewise sanctified (v. Lev, VII, 12ff: and Men. 76a) . Now, if the animal is sacrificed to sanctify certain loaves, which, however, are not really those intended, they are not sanctified. Again, if after forty loaves are sanctified another forty are declared holy, the declaration is invalid.');">⁸</span> yet it was stated: If the thanksgiving-offering is slaughtered over eighty loaves, - Hezekiah said: Forty out of the eighty are sanctified; R'Johanan said: Not even forty out of the eighty are sanctified!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The controversy is assumed to centre on Rabbah's dictum. Hezekiah, R. Johanan's teacher, thus contradicts Rabbah.');">⁹</span>

לאו איתמר עלה אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי הכל מודים כל היכא דאמר קדשי לה ארבעים מתוך שמונים קדשי לא יקדשו ארבעים אלא אם כן קדשי שמונים לא קדשי

- Was it not stated thereon: R'Joshua B'Levi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In 'Er. ');">¹⁰</span> said: All agree that if he declared: 'Let forty out of the eighty be sanctified,' they are sanctified; 'forty are not to be sanctified unless eighty are sanctified,' they are not sanctified?

לא נחלקו אלא בסתם מר סבר לאחריות קא מיכוון ומר סבר לקרבן גדול קא מיכוון

They differ only where no specific statement is made:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he merely declares that the slaughtering of the sacrifice shall hallow the loaves.');">¹¹</span> one Master holds that his intention is [to arrange] for the risks;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He brings eighty so that if the forty sanctified loaves become unfit for any reason the other forty may replace them. Hence forty are sanctified.');">¹²</span>

ורבא למה ליה לשנויי כרבה תיפוק ליה קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה נינהו

the other, that his intention is for a large offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the eighty should be sanctified: hence none are. This therefore has no bearing on Rabbah's dictum.');">¹³</span> Now, why need Raba explain the Mishnah as Rabbah; let him deduce it from the fact that it cannot be followed by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is not given over to'.');">¹⁴</span>

לדבריו דרמי בר חמא קאמר

intercourse?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even if he betroths only one, but without specifying which, he cannot take either, for fear she is the sister of the betrothed, and Raba says below that such kiddushin is invalid.');">¹⁵</span> - He [merely] explains it according to the view of Rami B'Hama.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who bases the ruling of the Mishnah on Lev. XVIII, 18.');">¹⁶</span>

איתמר קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה אביי אמר הוו קידושין רבא אמר לא הוו קידושין אמר רבא בר אהינא אסברא לי (דברים כד, א) כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה קידושין המסורין לביאה הוו קידושין קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה לא הוו קידושין

It was stated: Kiddushin which cannot be followed by intercourse, - Abaye says: It is valid kiddushin;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he must divorce both, because of doubt.');">¹⁷</span> Raba said: It is not valid kiddushin.

תנן המקדש אשה ובתה או אשה ואחותה כאחת אינן מקודשות הא אחת מאשה ובתה או מאשה ואחותה מקודשת ואמאי קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה נינהו תיובתא דרבא

Raba said: Bar Ahina explained it to me: When a man taketh a woman and has intercourse with her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1.');">¹⁸</span> [this teaches:] kiddushin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implied by, when a man taketh, i.e., betroths.');">¹⁹</span>

אמר לך רבא ולטעמיך אימא סיפא מעשה בחמש נשים ובהן שתי אחיות וליקט אחד כלכלה של תאנים ושלהן היתה ושל שביעית היתה ואמר הרי כולכם מקודשות לי בכלכלה זו ואמרו חכמים אין אחיות מקודשות אחיות הוא דאינן מקודשות הא נכריות מקודשות

that can be followed by intercourse is [valid] kiddushin; that which cannot be followed by intercourse is not [valid] kiddushin. We learnt: IF HE BETROTHS A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER OR A WOMAN AND HER SISTER SIMULTANEOUSLY, THEY ARE NOT BETROTHED.

ה"ד אילימא דאמר כולכם קני את וחמור הוא ואת וחמור לא קנה

This implies, [if he betroths] one of a woman and her daughter or of a woman and her sister [without specifying which], she is betrothed: yet why, seeing that it is kiddushin which may not be followed by intercourse? Hence this refutes Raba! - Raba can answer you: Yet even on your view, consider the second clause: 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, AND HE DECLARED, 'BEHOLD, YE ARE ALL BETROTHED UNTO ME WITH THIS BASKET, AND ONE ACCEPTED IT ON BEHALF OF ALL: THE SAGES THEN RULED, THE SISTERS ARE NOT BETROTHED. Thus, it is only the sisters who are not betrothed, but the strangers are. Now how is it meant? Shall we say that he declared: 'All of you'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'All of you be betrothed to me'.');">²⁰</span> - it is a case of 'you and the ass acquire', and such does not acquire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one bestows gifts upon a living person and an unborn child simultaneously, not even the first acquires his gift, because the second cannot, - metaphorically, 'you and the ass acquire them'. Hence here too, since the sisters cannot acquire aught thereof as kiddushin, the others cannot either.');">²¹</span>