Kiddushin, Daf Heh, Part 6
Introduction
In today s sugya Shmuel continues to discuss the language of kiddushin.
אמר שמואל בקידושין נתן לה כסף ושוה כסף ואמר לה הרי את מקודשת הרי את מאורסת הרי את (לי) לאינתו הרי זו מקודשת
הריני אישך הריני בעליך הריני ארוסיך אין כאן בית מיחוש
Shmuel said: In respect to kiddushin, if he gave her money or its equivalent and said to her, Behold, you are mekudeshet, Behold, you are betrothed, [or] Behold, you are a wife, — she is betrothed.
[If he declares,] Behold, I am your husband, Behold, I am your master, Behold, I am your betrothed, there are no grounds for fear [that she is betrothed].
The main thing that Shmuel says is that the husband must actively betroth her to him. He cannot betroth himself to her.
וכן בגירושין נתן לה ואמר לה הרי את משולחת הרי את מגורשת הרי את מותרת לכל אדם הרי זו מגורשת
איני אישך איני בעליך איני ארוסיך אין כאן בית מיחוש
The same applies to divorce: If he gives her [the get] and declares, Behold, you are sent out Behold, you are divorced, [or] Behold your permitted to any man, then she is divorced.
[But if he declares,] I am not your husband, I am not your master, I am not your betrothed, there are no grounds for fear [that she is divorced].
The same holds true for divorce. He has to send her forth, divorce her. He cannot divorce himself from her.
אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי למימרא דסבר שמואל ידים שאין מוכיחות הויין ידים
והתנן האומר אהא הרי זה נזיר והוינן בה ודילמא אהא בתענית קאמר ואמר שמואל והוא שהיה נזיר עובר לפניו טעמא דנזיר עובר לפניו הא לאו הכי לא
R. Papa said to Abaye: Shall we say that Shmuel holds that ambiguous abbreviations are [valid] abbreviations? But have we not learned: If one declares, I will be, he becomes a nazir. And we asked about this: but perhaps he meant, I will fast ? And Shmuel said, That is only if a nazir was passing before him.
The reason is because a nazir was passing before him, but if not so, then he would not be [a nazir].
R. Papa notes that in Shmuel s formulation the man does not say to me. He just says you are betrothed. How then do we know that he is not acting as an agent to betroth her to someone else? This is what is called ambiguous abbreviations. It seems, R. Papa notes, that here Shmuel holds that ambiguous abbreviations are valid.
But elsewhere Shmuel seems to hold the opposite. If a person says I will be he has taken a nazirite vow only if a nazirite is walking by. If not, then although this does seem to be some sort of nazirite vow formula, he is not a nazirite.
הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר לי
Here we are dealing with a case where he said to me.
The answer is that he does say Behold you are betrothed to me. Without the words to me the statement is too ambiguous and she is not betrothed.
אי הכי מאי קמ"ל הני לישני בתראי קמ"ל הכא כתיב (דברים כד, א) כי יקח ולא שיקח את עצמו והכא כתיב (דברים כד, א) ושלחה ולא שישלח את עצמו :
If so, what does he teach us? He teaches us these latter expressions.[For] here it is written, When a man takes [a woman], but not that causes himself to be taken by her, and there it is written, And when he send her away, but not that he sends himself away.
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.