Kiddushin 103

האחד חולץ לשתיהן והשנים אחד חולץ ואחד מיבם אם קדמו וכנסו אין מוציאין אותן מידם

the one [brother] must perform halizah with both, and of the two, one must perform halizah [first] and the other yibum; yet if they forestall [the Rabbis' ruling] and marry, they are not compelled to divorce them. Thus, only halizah and then yibum, but not yibum and then halizah, because he may infringe [the interdict against] a yebamah's marriage to a stranger.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a yebamah to the market place'. - The general reasoning is the same as in the previous case. When the one brother frees both sisters by halizah, the others may perform halizah and yibum. But before the one brother has performed his task, one of the sisters may be his yebamah, and so neither of the other two brothers can perform yibum.');">¹</span>

דוקא מיחלץ והדר יבומי אבל יבומי והדר מיחלץ לא דקא פגע ביבמה לשוק

Come and hear: For Tabyumi learned: If A has five sons and B five daughters, and A declares; 'One of your daughters be betrothed to one of my sons,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His sons had authorised him.');">²</span> each requires five divorces.

ת"ש דתני טביומי לזה חמשה בנים ולזה חמשה בנות ואמר אחת מבנותיך מקודשת לאחד מבני כל אחת ואחת צריכה חמשה גיטין מת אחד מהם כל אחת ואחת צריכה ארבעה גיטין וחליצה מאחד מהן

If one dies, each requires four divorces and halizah from one of them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This contradicts Raba.');">³</span> And should you answer, here too it means that they were [originally] known and only subsequently mixed up - but it is taught: 'One of your daughters to one of my sons!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shewing that there was doubt at the very outset.');">⁴</span>

וכ"ת ה"נ כשהוכרו ולבסוף נתערבו הא אחת מבנותיך לאחד מבני קתני תיובתא דרבא תיובתא והילכתא כוותיה דאביי ביע"ל קג"ם

This refutation of Raba is indeed a refutation. Now, the law agrees with Abaye in Y'AL KGM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An abbreviation of six laws; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 159, n. 3. The K stands for kiddushin which cannot be followed by coition. In every other controversy between Abaye and Raba the halachah is as the latter.');">⁵</span>

מעשה בחמש נשים אמר רב ש"מ ממתניתין ארבע ונקיט רב בידיה תלת

IT HAPPENED TO FIVE WOMEN. Rab said: Four deductions follow from the Mishnah; yet Rab was sure only of three:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained below - Lit., 'he held three in his hand.'');">⁶</span>

ש"מ המקדש בפירות שביעית מקודשת ושמע מינה קידשה בגזל אינה מקודשת אפילו בגזל דידה ממאי מדקתני שלהם היתה ושל שביעית היתה טעמא דשביעית דהפקר הוא הא דשאר שני שבוע לא

- [i] If one betroths [a woman] with seventh year produce, she is betrothed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is free to all.');">⁷</span> [ii] If he betroth her with a stolen article, even her own, she is not betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Even her own' - and we do not say that her acceptance proves that she has forgiven him and renounced her rights therein, so that it ceases to be stolen property.');">⁸</span>

ושמע מינה אשה נעשית שליח לחבירתה ואפילו במקום שנעשית לה צרה

How does this follow? - Because it is stated: IT WAS THEIRS, AND IT WAS OF THE SEVENTH YEAR: thus, it is only because It was of the seventh year, and thus hefker;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Hence it is not stolen.');">⁹</span> but if of any other year,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the other years of the septennate.'');">¹⁰</span>

ואידך מאי היא קידושין שאין מסורים לביאה וניחשבה משום דמספקא ליה אי כאביי אי כרבא

it is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the betrothal is invalid.');">¹¹</span> [iii] A woman can be an agent for her companion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To accept kiddushin on her behalf.');">¹²</span>

כי סליק ר' זירא אמרה להא שמעתא קמיה דר' יוחנן אמר ליה מי אמר רב הכי והוא לא אמר והאמר ר' יוחנן גזל ולא נתייאשו הבעלים שניהם אינם יכולים להקדיש זה לפי שאינו שלו וזה לפי שאינו ברשותו הכי קא"ל מי אמר רב כוותי

even when she thereby becomes her rival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zarah, q.v. Glos.');">¹³</span> And what is the fourth? - Kiddushin which cannot be followed by intercourse.

מיתיבי קידשה בגזל בחמס ובגניבה או שחטף סלע מידה וקדשה מקודשת התם בגזל דידה

- Then let him count it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why is he in doubt?');">¹⁴</span> - Because he is doubtful whether it is [to be explained] according to Abaye or Raba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra ');">¹⁵</span>

הא מדקתני סיפא או שחטף סלע משלה מכלל דרישא בגזל דעלמא עסקינן פירושי קא מפרש קידשה בגזל בחמס ובגניבה כיצד כגון שחטף סלע מידה וקדשה בו

When R'Zera went up [to Palestine, from Babylon], he recited this pronouncement [of Rab] before R'Johanan. Said he to him: Did then Rab say thus! But did he himself not say [likewise]? Surely R'Johanan said: If one stole<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gazal denotes theft by violence.');">¹⁶</span> [an article] and the owner did not abandon hope,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of its return. Yi'ush is a technical term, despair or abandonment, whereby a stolen (or lost) article formally passes out of its first ownership into that of the person actually in possession. - The thief is then liable for having removed it from the ownership of the victim.');">¹⁷</span> both cannot consecrate it: the one [the thief], because it is not his;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But it is technically his if the owner abandons it.');">¹⁸</span> the other, because it is not [actually] in his possession! - He meant thus: Did Rab [truly] rule as I [did]? An objection is raised: If one betroths a woman with an article of robbery, violence, or theft,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An article of robbery is one stolen by violence; 'theft' denotes stolen in secret; 'violence', an article forcibly taken from its owner and paid for.');">¹⁹</span> or if he snatches a sela' out of her hand and betroths her therewith, she is betrothed? - There it refers to her own robbery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he robbed her, cf. p. 262, n. 7: the argument rejected there is admitted here.');">²⁰</span> But since the second clause teaches 'or if he snatches a sela' out of her hand,' it follows that the first clause refers to robbery in general? - It is an explanation. If one betroths a woman with robbery. How so? If he snatches an article out of her hand and betroths her therewith.