Kiddushin 102

אלא לאו דאמר להו אחת מכם וקתני אין אחיות מקודשות לרבא קשיא רישא לאביי קשיא סיפא אביי מתרץ לטעמיה רבא מתרץ לטעמיה

Hence it must surely mean that he said: 'One of you,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., let the three strangers and one of you be betrothed to me.');">¹</span> and it is taught that the sisters are not betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Proving that kiddushin which cannot be followed by intercourse is invalid.');">²</span>

אביי מתרץ לטעמיה המקדש אשה ובתה או אשה ואחותה כאחת אינן מקודשות הא אחת מאשה ובתה מאשה ואחותה מקודשת

On Raba's view, the first clause is difficult; on Abaye's, the second. Abaye reconciles it according to his opinion IF HE BETROTHS A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER OR A WOMAN AND HER SISTER SIMULTANEOUSLY, THEY ARE NOT BETROTHED; but if [he betrothed] one of a woman and her daughter or of a woman and her sister, she is betrothed.

ואם אמר הראויה לביאה תתקדש לי אינה מקודשת ומעשה נמי בחמש נשים ובהן שתי אחיות וליקט אחד כלכלה של תאנים ואמר הראויה לי מכם תתקדש לי ואמרו חכמים אין אחיות מקודשות

But if he says: 'She of you who is eligible for intercourse, let her be betrothed unto me,' she is not betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For neither is eligible.');">³</span> And thus IT ONCE HAPPENED TO FIVE WOMEN, AMONG WHOM WERE TWO SISTERS, THAT A MAN GATHERED A BASKET OF FIGS AND SAID, 'She of you who is eligible [for intercourse], let her be betrothed unto me': THE SAGES THEN RULED: THE SISTERS ARE NOT BETROTHED, Raba reconciled it with his opinion: If a man betroths one of a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister, it is as though he betrothed A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER OR A WOMAN AND HER SISTER SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND THEY ARE NOT BETROTHED.

ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה המקדש אחת מאשה ובתה או אחת מאשה ואחותה נעשה כמי שקידש אשה ובתה או אשה ואחותה כאחת ואינן מקודשות ומעשה נמי בחמש נשים ובהם שתי אחיות וליקט אחד כלכלה של תאנים ואמר הרי כולכם ואחת משתי אחיות מקודשות לי בכלכלה זו ואמרו חכמים אין אחיות מקודשות

AND IT THUS HAPPENED TO FIVE WOMEN, AMONG WHOM WERE TWO SISTERS, THAT A MAN GATHERED A BASKET OF FIGS AND DECLARED, 'Behold, all of you, and one of the two sisters, are betrothed unto me with this basket': THEN THE SAGES RULED: THE SISTERS ARE NOT BETROTHED. Come and hear: If he gives his daughters in betrothal without specifying which, bogeroth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁴</span>

ת"ש המקדש את בתו סתם אין הבוגרות בכלל הא קטנות בכלל ואמאי קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה נינהו ותיובתא דרבא

are not included.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a father has no marriage rights over his adult daughters.');">⁵</span> But minors are included: yet why, Seeing that it is kiddushin which cannot be followed by intercourse?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained on p. 258, n. 2.');">⁶</span>

אמר לך רבא הכא במאי עסקינן כשאין שם אלא גדולה וקטנה

which refutes Raba! - Raba can answer you: Here the circumstances are that there are only one bogereth and one minor. But 'bogeroth'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Plural.');">⁷</span>

הא בוגרות קתני מאי בוגרות בוגרות דעלמא אי הכי מאי למימרא

is taught! - By bogeroth, bogeroth in general are meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in general when a man betroths his daughter without naming her, an adult is not meant.');">⁸</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he has only one adult and one minor daughter.');">⁹</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן דשויתיה שליח מהו דתימא כי מקבל קידושי אדעתה דידה קא מקבל קמ"ל דלא שביק איניש מידי דאית ליה הנאה מיניה

why state it? - We refer to the case where she [the bogereth] appointed him [her father] an agent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To accept kiddushin on her behalf.');">¹⁰</span> I might have thought that when he accepted kiddushin he did it on her behalf: hence we are informed that a man does not put aside that by which he benefits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the kiddushin of his minor daughter which belongs to him, whereas that of a bogereth is her own.');">¹¹</span>

מי לא עסקינן דאמרה ליה קידושי לדידך אפ"ה לא שביק איניש מצוה דרמיא עליה ועביד מצוה דלא רמיא עליה

But do we not refer [even] to where she said to him, 'Let my kiddushin be yours!' - Even so, a man does not leave undone an obligation [sc. marrying his daughter] which falls [primarily] upon himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the betrothal of his minor daughter.');">¹²</span> to perform one which does not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bogereth can see to herself.');">¹³</span>

ת"ש מי שיש לו שתי כתי בנות משתי נשים ואמר קידשתי את בתי הגדולה ואיני יודע אם גדולה שבגדולות ואם גדולה שבקטנות אם קטנה שבגדולות שהיא גדולה מן הגדולה שבקטנות כולן אסורות חוץ מקטנה שבקטנות דברי ר"מ

Come and hear: If one has two groups of daughters by two wives, and he declares, 'I have given in betrothal my senior daughter, but do not know whether the senior of the seniors<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the earlier wife.');">¹⁴</span> or the senior of the juniors, or the junior of the seniors who is senior to the senior of the juniors,' all are forbidden, excepting junior of the juniors: this is R'Meir's opinion!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refutes Raba, since intercourse cannot follow such betrothal.');">¹⁵</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כשהוכרו ולבסוף נתערבו דיקא נמי דקתני איני יודע ולא קתני אין ידוע ש"מ

- Here the circumstances are that they were [originally] known, and [only] subsequently mixed up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He betrothed a particular daughter, but forgot which.');">¹⁶</span> This maybe proved, for it is taught: 'I do not know,' not, it is not known.

אי הכי מאי למימרא לאפוקי מדר' יוסי דאמר לא מחית איניש נפשיה לספיקא קמ"ל דמחית איניש נפשיה לספיקא

This proves it. If so, why state it? - To counter R'Jose, who said: A man does not permit himself to be brought into doubt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ned. 61b. So that all of whom there can be the least doubt are definitely excluded, and only the senior of the seniors is forbidden to strangers.');">¹⁷</span>

ת"ש מי שקידש אחת משתי אחיות ואינו יודע איזו קידש נותן גט לזו וגט לזו הכא במאי עסקינן כשהוכרו ולבסוף נתערבו דיקא נמי דקתני אינו יודע ולא קתני אינו ידוע

hence we are informed that one does bring himself into doubt. Come and hear: If a man betrothed one of two sisters and does not know which, he must give a divorce to both!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which again refutes Raba.');">¹⁸</span>

אי הכי מאי למימרא סיפא איצטריכא ליה מת ולו אח אחד חולץ לשתיהן היו לו שנים אחד חולץ ואחד מייבם אם קדמו וכנסו אין מוציאין אותם מידם

- Here [too] the circumstances are that they were [originally] known but only subsequently intermingled. This too may be proved, for it is taught: 'he does not know,' not, it is not known.

דוקא מיחליץ והדר יבומי אבל יבומי והדר מיחליץ לא דקא פגע באחות זקוקתו

If so, why state it? - The second clause is necessary: If he dies, and has one brother, he must perform halizah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁹</span> with both; if he has two [brothers], one performs halizah and the other yibum;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²⁰</span>

ת"ש שנים שקדשו שתי אחיות זה אינו יודע איזו קידש וזה אינו יודע איזו קידש זה נותן שני גטין וזה נותן שני גטין ה"נ שהוכרו ולבסוף נתערבו דיקא נמי דקתני אינו יודע ולא קתני אין ידוע שמע מינה

yet if they forestall [the Rabbis ruling] and marry them, they are not compelled to divorce them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they are not taken out of their hands'.');">²¹</span> [Thus:] only halizah and then yibum [is permissible], but not yibum and then halizah, because he may infringe [the interdict against] the sister of one bound to him by the Levirate tie.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he comes into contact with the sister etc'. - Thus: A betrothed X or Y, who are sisters, but does not remember which. On A's death, his brothers B and C perform halizah and yibum with X and Y respectively. Now, when B performs halizah with X, C may marry (perform yibum) Y. For if A had betrothed Y, she is C's yebamah, whom he must marry; while if A had betrothed X, Y is a stranger to C, and he may certainly marry her. For though Y is then the sister of X, who was bound to him by the Levirate tie, and such is forbidden, that tie has already been dissolved by the halizah which B performed. But before the tie is dissolved by halizah marriage is forbidden; hence only that order is permissible, viz., halizah by one brother first and then yibum by the second, (Of course, that is only permissive: the second too may perform halizah, if he does not wish to marry her.) The prohibition mentioned in this note is only Rabbinical, and therefore not insisted upon if the brothers marry both sisters without consulting a Rabbi previously, Yeb. 23b,');">²²</span>

אי הכי מאי למימרא סיפא איצטריכא ליה מת ולזה אח ולזה אח זה חולץ לשתיהן וזה חולץ לשתיהן לזה אחד ולזה שנים

Come and hear: If two [strangers] betroth two sisters, and neither knows which, each must give two divorces!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This too refutes Raba: v. p. 258, n. 2.');">²³</span> - Here too it means that they were [originally] known but [only] subsequently mixed up. This may be deduced too, for it is taught: 'neither knows,' not, it is not known: this proves it. If so, why state it? The second clause is necessary: If each dies, and each had one brother, this one must perform halizah with both, and the other must perform halizah with both. If one had one brother and the other two brothers,