Kiddushin, Daf Mem Zayin, Part 2

Introduction

Today s section raises a difficulty from this baraita on Rav and Shmuel whose disagreement with R. Ammi appeared earlier. I am replicating here the mishnah for ease of reference:

1.     He who says to a woman, Be betrothed to me with this date, be betrothed to me with this one if any one of them is worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed.

2.     [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.

3.     If she eats them one by one, she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth a perutah.

The dispute between R. Ammi and Rav and Shmuel was over whether the last clause refers to the first clause (Rav and Shmuel) or the second clause (R. Ammi).

הניחא למאן דאמר אסיפא קאי ומאי עד שיהא באחת מהן שוה פרוטה עד שיהא באחרונה שוה פרוטה הכי נמי עד שיהא באחרונה שוה פרוטה

That goes well to the one that said that it refers to the second clause, and what is meant by, unless one of them is worth a perutah ? Unless the last is worth a perutah.

Then here too [in the baraita just quoted] it means, unless the last is worth a perutah.

R. Ammi could be consistent in his interpretation of the baraita and mishnah in both cases the last clause refers to the second clause, and she is not betrothed unless the last one is worth a perutah. This avoids the problem of this being a case of betrothal by forgiving a loan.

אלא לרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו ארישא קאי ואוכלת איצטריכא ליה הכא כללי קחשיב פרטי לא קא חשיב

But according to Rav and Shmuel, who says that it refers to the first clause, and it was necessary to state this because of eating: here general statements are given, but separate statements are not given?

Rav and Shmuel say that the mishnah s last clause refers to the first clause. Rav said despite the fact that she gets immediate benefit by eating the dates immediately, a single date must be worth a perutah for her to be betrothed. The problem for them is the baraita, which lists a general statement be betrothed to me with these. So why would any one item need to be worth a perutah?

הא מני רבי היא דאמר לא שנא כזית כזית ולא שנא כזית וכזית פרטא הוי

Whose opinion is this? It is Rabbi, who said: There is no difference between the size of an olive, the size of an olive, and the size of an olive and the size of an olive : they are [both] separate enumerations.

Rabbi here is addressing the laws of piggul, sacrifices offered with improper intent. If the priest making the sacrifice thinks to himself that he will eat the size of an olive outside of its proper time, the size of an olive outside of its proper place or he thinks the word and in between the two statements, in both cases, he has committed two acts of piggul. He did not intend to combine the statements. So too in the case of kiddushin, since he said with this, with this he has made separate statements, even though he said be betrothed to me only once.