Kiddushin, Daf Mem Zayin, Part 1

 

Introduction

Today s section continues with the next section of the mishnah which reads:

[If he says,] [Be betrothed to me] with this one and with this one and with this one if together they are worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed.

 

אמר רבא לא שנו אלא דאמר לה בזו ובזו ובזו אבל אמר לה באלו אפילו אוכלת נמי מקודשת כי קא אכלה מדנפשה קאכלה

 

Rava said: This was taught only if he said to her, With this one and with this one and with this one. But if he said to her, [Be betrothed to me] with these, even if she eats [them one by one], she is betrothed: when she eats, she is eating from her own.

 

If he said with these then he is betrothing her with all of the dates he is going to give her. Even if she eats one at a time she is already betrothed and is eating her own dates.

 

תניא כותיה דרבא התקדשי לי באלון ברמון ובאגוז או שאמר לה התקדשי לי באלו אם יש בכולן שוה פרוטה מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת בזו ובזו ובזו אם יש בכולם שוה פרוטה מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת בזו נטלתו ואכלתו בזו נטלתו ואכלתו ועוד בזו ועוד בזו אינה מקודשת עד שיהא באחת מהן שוה פרוטה

 

It was taught in accordance with Rava: [If he says] Be betrothed to me with an acorn, a pomegranate and a nut ; or if he says to her, Be betrothed to me with these if they are all together worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed.

[Be betrothed to me] with this and this and this if they are all together worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed.

With this one and she took and ate it; with this one, and she took it and ate it; and also with this one, and also with this one she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth a perutah.

 

This baraita is brought as a support for Rava. If in his betrothal statement he includes all of the produce he is giving her, then she is betrothed if the sum value is a perutah. But if he specifies each piece of produce and before he gives her all of them she eats them one at a time, she is not betrothed unless each is worth a perutah.

The Talmud will demonstrate precisely how this baraita supports Rava.

 

האי באלון ברמון באגוז היכי דמי אילימא דאמר לה או באלון או ברמון או באגוז אם יש בכולן שוה פרוטה מקודשת והא או קאמר

ואלא באלון וברמון ובאגוז היינו בזו ובזו ובזו

 

Now, this [clause], with an acorn, a pomegranate, and or a nut, what is the precise situation? If we assume that he said to her, or with an acorn, or with a pomegranate, or with a nut ? If they are altogether worth a perutah she is betrothed ! But he said: or !

Alternatively, if he said, with an acorn and a pomegranate and a nut then it is identical with with this and with this!

 

The Talmud tries to figure out the precise situation referred to in the first clause of the baraita. If he meant to say or with an acorn etc. then they must each individually be worth a perutah, yet the baraita said that we add the value up together.

If he meant and with an acorn, and with a pomegranate etc., then this is the same lesson as the last clause. This would make the baraita repetitive.

אלא לאו דאמר לה באלו

 

Rather it must surely mean that he said to her, With these.

 

The baraita refers to a case where he said with these and he had an acorn, pomegranate and nut.

 

הא מדקתני סיפא או שאמר לה התקדשי לי באלו מכלל דרישא לאו באלו עסקינן

פירושי קא מפרש התקדשי לי באלון ברמון באגוז כיצד כגון דאמר לה התקדשי לי באלו

 

But since the second clause teaches: or if he said to her, Be betrothed to me with these, it follows that the first clause does not refer to with these !

The [second clause] explains] the first clause, Be betrothed to me with an acorn, a pomegranate and a nut, How so? For instance he said to her: Be betrothed to me with these.

 

The problem is that the second clause of the baraita says with these which implies that the first clause must refer to a different statement, otherwise it would be repetitive. To solve the problem the Talmud suggests that the second clause simply explains the first clause.

וקתני סיפא בזו נטלתו ואכלתו אם יש באחת מהם שוה פרוטה מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת

ואילו רישא לא קא מפליג בין אוכלת למנחת שמע מינה כל היכא דאמר לה באלו כי קא אכלה מנפשה קא אכלה שמע מינה

 

Now, the final clause teaches: With this one and she took and ate it: if one of them is worth a perutah she is betrothed, but if not she is not betrothed.

Whereas the first clause draws no distinction whether she eats or lays it down.

This proves that whenever he says to her, with these, if she eats, she eats her own. This proves it.

 

The Talmud now proves that there is a distinction between saying with this one and with this one and with these as Rava said. In the case of with this one , if she eats one at a time she will not be betrothed until on individual piece is worth a perutah. To be betrothed she must put them down until they add up to a perutah. But if he says with these she is betrothed if they all add up to a perutah even if she eats one at a time, because as soon as he gives them to her, they are hers.