פירוש על קידושין 11:17

"My 'atzurah'—what is the law?" Rashi's explanation: "The terminology of 'atzeret' is that 'You should be gathered with me in the house.' But my teachers explained it according to 'For we are atzurah from a woman' (1 Shmuel 21:6), but this is not clear. For he meant 'Separate from us' when he said that, for Ahimelekh said to David: Have the young men been guarding themselves from a woman? And David answered him: A woman is atzurah from us, and behold we are pure." [In other words: Rashi's problem is that "atzurah" in his teacher's verse means "separate" and therefore can't be used for a kiddushin formula, which is about bringing a woman closer to a man.] But Rabbenu Yitzhak responds to the biblical language according to [Rashi's teachers] and this is its explanation: There was a woman that was with us recently, but now we are pure. [In other words, the term atzurah, while it means "separate", implies that they previously were with a woman (also the verse says "recently" = מתמול שלשם), so it can be used for kiddushin.] And now it is fine because all the terms [in the sugya] are biblical language.

"Because it is said, 'For she is a female slave neherefet to a man'". [The Talmud here, in this first rereading of the baraita, must] think that the verse is dealing with [a female slave that is] half slave and half free who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave, and it is according to the one who says in [the chapter] Ha-Sholeiah (Gitin 43a) that kiddushin works for her. [In other words, the verse needs to be talking about a case where kiddushin is possible in order for it to be the source of a valid kiddushin formula.]

"For in Yehudah they call a betrothed woman 'harufah'". And [in this second reinterpretation of the baraita] it applies only in Yehudah but not in other places, for the [Talmud must think here] that the verse is speaking about a Canaanite slavegirl [and not one that is half free] for whom kiddushin does not work [because, if the verse was about actual kiddushin, then there is no reason it wouldn't apply everywhere since biblical language is not dialect-dependent].

If the man says “Behold you are betrothed to me” she is obviously betrothed. Shmuel seems to be teaching us nothing.
The Talmud answers that the second half of each of Shmuel’s statement is what he is teaching us. As stated above, the man must betroth the woman or send her away in divorce. He cannot use language that makes it seem like he is betrothing himself to her or sending himself away from her.

These are all valid betrothal formulas.
The Talmud notes that the baraita has two lists even though both lists have the same halakhah. This is unusual. Usually if there are two clauses in a baraita, they have opposite halakhot. But this is simply the way the baraita is. The tanna heard two different sets of halakhot and collated them into two lists.

The Talmud asks whether certain other formulae are also valid. Many of these words are taken from the stories of Adam and Eve or from elsewhere in the Bible. I will list the references here:
מיוחדת—Genesis 2:24
מיועדת—Exodus 21:8-9
עזרתי, נגדתי—Genesis 2:18
עצורתי—Unclear, some say this is from I Samuel 21:6, but Rashi disagrees.
צלעתי, סגורתי—Genesis 2:21
תפושתי—Deuteronomy 22:28
The only of these that we know is valid is “taken by me” because the verse explicitly uses the language “takes a wife.”

The Talmud asks whether certain other formulae are also valid. Many of these words are taken from the stories of Adam and Eve or from elsewhere in the Bible. I will list the references here:
מיוחדת—Genesis 2:24
מיועדת—Exodus 21:8-9
עזרתי, נגדתי—Genesis 2:18
עצורתי—Unclear, some say this is from I Samuel 21:6, but Rashi disagrees.
צלעתי, סגורתי—Genesis 2:21
תפושתי—Deuteronomy 22:28
The only of these that we know is valid is “taken by me” because the verse explicitly uses the language “takes a wife.”

In the beginning, the Talmud thinks this word can be used anywhere as a betrothal formula because it works in Judea and because it is used in Scripture. But in the end, the Talmud rules that this formula works only in Judea because in Judea the word “harufah” simply means betrothed and seems to be used frequently.

In the beginning, the Talmud thinks this word can be used anywhere as a betrothal formula because it works in Judea and because it is used in Scripture. But in the end, the Talmud rules that this formula works only in Judea because in Judea the word “harufah” simply means betrothed and seems to be used frequently.

The Talmud here is asking about all of the unclear betrothal formulae we have seen over the past few sections. What was the context in which he gave the money to her and said these things. If they were talking about getting married, then even if he says nothing and gives her the money, she is married, at least according to R. Yose, whom the halakhah follows.
And if they were not talking about getting married, how is she supposed to know what he is saying. The formulas listed above do not sound completely like betrothal formulas.

The Talmud here is asking about all of the unclear betrothal formulae we have seen over the past few sections. What was the context in which he gave the money to her and said these things. If they were talking about getting married, then even if he says nothing and gives her the money, she is married, at least according to R. Yose, whom the halakhah follows.
And if they were not talking about getting married, how is she supposed to know what he is saying. The formulas listed above do not sound completely like betrothal formulas.

The Talmud answers that if he said nothing, and they were talking about betrothal, then they would be married. But since he used one of these confusing formulas, she might not have understood what she was saying yes to—maybe she was agreeing to work for him. Therefore, they are considered of doubtful validity. In such a case the couple would either need to redo to betrothal or get divorced.

The Talmud answers that if he said nothing, and they were talking about betrothal, then they would be married. But since he used one of these confusing formulas, she might not have understood what she was saying yes to—maybe she was agreeing to work for him. Therefore, they are considered of doubtful validity. In such a case the couple would either need to redo to betrothal or get divorced.

Several amoraim comment on R. Yose’s opinion in the baraita according to which the husband need not make any declaration. They clarify that he must at least be talking about “that topic” meaning her betrothal or divorce.

Several amoraim comment on R. Yose’s opinion in the baraita according to which the husband need not make any declaration. They clarify that he must at least be talking about “that topic” meaning her betrothal or divorce.

There is a tannaitic dispute as to whether they actually have to be talking about betrothal or divorce for the act to be valid without an explicit statement. But R. Elazar holds that they don’t even need to be talking about the betrothal or divorce. But this seems perplexing—how does she know what he’s doing? Abaye explains that the betrothal or divorce is valid only if they were at least talking somewhat about the matter.

There is a tannaitic dispute as to whether they actually have to be talking about betrothal or divorce for the act to be valid without an explicit statement. But R. Elazar holds that they don’t even need to be talking about the betrothal or divorce. But this seems perplexing—how does she know what he’s doing? Abaye explains that the betrothal or divorce is valid only if they were at least talking somewhat about the matter.

R. Huna rules that the halakhah follows R. Yose—he need not make an explicit declaration about divorce or betrothal for the act to be valid.
R. Ashi then tells R. Yemar, his student, that Shmuel’s warning not to have any official dealings with a judge who does not know how to adjudicate the matters of betrothal and divorce applies even to this case. The consequences of a misjudgment in divorce or betrothal could be that a woman has a child who is a mamzer (offspring of a forbidden union). Therefore, a judge who wishes to take on responsibility in these areas must know all of the relevant halakhot, even that the halakhah follows R. Yose in this issue.

To slaves one says “behold you are free.” But this formula does not work for divorce because she was already free. Wives are not slaves and divorce is not manumission.
To a wife, one might say, “behold you are permitted to all men” because after divorce she may marry any other man she wants. But this does not work for slaves because she was not prohibited before manumission.

"He should not have dealings with them." Rashi's explanation: He shouldn't be a judge in this matter, lest he permit a forbidden sexual sin, and this is a bent thing that cannot be repaired (see Kohelet 1:15)." But Rabbenu Azriel's explanation: That he [the prospective husband] shouldn't talk with women about subjects of kiddushin to betroth them, for sometimes she will be betrothed through their speech or their giving and will not understand. Problem [on Rabbenu Azriel]: This is fine for kiddushin, but for divorce [which the Talmud also included in this], why do we care if she thinks that she isn't divorced!? [Her consent is not required for divorce, only for betrothal!]. Solution: There is a problem [if she wants to get married] to a kohen [who can't marry a divorcée]. New problem: The language of "with them (pl.)" doesn't worth for this, for a man can only give a get to his wife [so it should be singular]! Another problem: It says later in our chapter (Kiddushin 13a) that the concern [of having people who don't pay attention to this Rav Yehudah-Shmuel traditional] is [having sex with] a married woman [and not a kohen marrying a divorcée] when it says "[Those people] are worse for the world than the generation of the Flood [and see the prooftext there that mentions adultery specifically]"! Solution: It is possible that we are concerned if she stretched out her hand and received a betrothal from another [and this could lead to adultery and the multiple men she is betrothed to could account for the plural language].

"Even if he did not learn it." Explanation [of Rav Yemar's question]: A man that is appointed over gittin and kiddushin, do we need to inform him of this Rav Yehudah-Shmuel tradition (sic!, the Talmud says Rav Huna-Shmuel) such that he shouldn't fail in this common matter, or perhaps we are not worried about this since it is not so common? This is implied in Rashi's explanation.