Kiddushin, Daf Nun Aleph, Part 1
Introduction
Today s sugya goes back to Rabbah s general principle that we encountered yesterday, Anything which cannot be [done] consecutively cannot be [done] simultaneously.
גופא אמר רבה כל שאינו בזה אחר זה אפי’ בבת אחת אינו
איתיביה אביי המרבה במעשר פירותיו מתוקנים ומעשרות מקולקלין
ואמאי נימא כל שאינו בזה אחר זה אפי’ בבת אחת אינו
The text [stated]: Rabbah said: That which cannot be [done] consecutively cannot be done simultaneously.
Abaye raised an objection against him: If one gives excessive tithes, his produce is made fit, but his tithes are unfit.
But why; let us say: That which cannot be [done] consecutively cannot be [done] simultaneously?
If one gives 2/10 of one s produce as tithe, the produce is considered tithed and may be eaten. But the tithes themselves are ruined since we do not know which part is the tithe and which part is not. But why, Abaye asks, is the second tenth considered even potentially a tithe? If I can t first separate 1/10 and then another 1/10 both as tithes (indeed, one cannot), then when both are separated at the same time, neither of them should be tithes? This seems to refute Rabbah.
אמר ליה שאני מעשר דאיתיה לחצאים דאי אמר תתקדש פלגא דחיטתא קדשה
He said to him: Tithes are different, because it is possible in the case of half [grains]; for if one says, Let half of each grain be sanctified [as tithe], it is sanctified.
One can dedicate not just whole grains, but even half grains. One can say let half of each grain be the tithe. So this is how we understand what happened in the case of the person who made double the amount tithe. He didn t make 2/10 of the produce tithe rather he made of each grain of 2/10 of the produce tithe. The remainder of the produce is tithed, but the tithe itself is ruined because we can t tell which half of each piece of grain is tithe.
והרי מעשר בהמה דליכא לחצאין וליכא בזה אחר זה ואמר רבא יצאו שנים בעשירי וקראן עשירי עשירי ואחד עשר מעורבים זה בזה
But cattle tithes are cannot be done in halves, and also [should be impossible] consecutively; yet Rava said: If two [animals] came forth at the tenth, and he [their owner] proclaimed them both as tenth the tenth and the eleventh are intermingled!
Abaye now cites the example of cattle tithes. The cattle tithe is performed by letting animals out of a pen, counting them, and every tenth becoming the tithe. If two come out at the same time and the owner calls both tenth then one is the tithe and one is not but we do not know which is which. But animals cannot be partially tithed. Yet nevertheless, although one cannot call both the tenth and the eleventh animal tithe consecutively, when one calls them both tenth at the same time, the statement takes effect.
שאני מעשר בהמה דאיתיה בטעות דתנן קרא לתשיעי עשירי ולעשירי תשיעי ולאחד עשר עשירי שלשתן מקודשין
Cattle tithe is different, because it is valid when done in error. For we learned: If he called the ninth tenth, the tenth, ninth, and the eleventh, tenth, all three are sanctified.
Cattle tithe is different because an animal can be considered tithe even if one makes a mistake in counting. Just as in the mishnah cited here, animals that are not the tenth can be considered tithe, so too in Rava s example of the tenth and eleventh coming out of the pen together, both can be considered tithes. But kiddushin cannot be done accidentally, and therefore, if the kiddushin cannot be done one after the other, they also cannot be done simultaneously.
הרי תודה דליתא בטעות וליתא נמי בזה אחר זה ואיתמר תודה שנשחטה על שמונים חלות חזקיה אמר קדשי לה ארבעים מתוך שמונים ור’ יוחנן אמר לא קדשי לה ארבעים מתוך שמונים
But what of the thanksgiving-offering which can neither be in error nor consecutively, yet it was stated: If the thanksgiving-offering is slaughtered over eighty loaves, Hizkiyah said: Forty out of the eighty are sanctified; R. Yohanan said: Not even forty out of the eighty are sanctified!
Forty loaves of bread are supposed to be offered with the thanksgiving offering. If one tries to offer eighty loaves with them, Hizkiyah says that all eighty are sanctified. It looks like Hizkiyah is saying that although they can t be sanctified consecutively, they can be sanctified simultaneously. R. Yohanan would invoke Rabbah s principle.
לאו איתמר עלה אמר ר’ יהושע בן לוי הכל מודים כל היכא דאמר קדשי לה ארבעים מתוך שמונים קדשי לא יקדשו ארבעים אלא אם כן קדשי שמונים לא קדשי לא נחלקו אלא בסתם מר סבר לאחריות קא מיכוון ומר סבר לקרבן גדול קא מיכוון
Was it not stated on this: R. Joshua b. Levi said: All agree that if he declared: Let forty out of the eighty be sanctified, they are sanctified; forty are not to be sanctified unless eighty are sanctified, they are not sanctified. They argue only where no specific statement is made: one Master holds that his intention is [to arrange] was to take responsibility; the other, that his intention was to make a large offering.
Hizkiyah and R. Yohanan were not arguing about Rabbah s principle. They were arguing about how we interpret the person s words when they were stated unclearly. If he clearly states that he only intends for forty to be sanctified, then they are sanctified, although we would not know which are sacred and which are not. If it sounds like he is trying to make all eighty sacred, then the statement definitely does not work because whatever cannot be done consecutively cannot be done simultaneously. The only issue is whether when he simply states that all 80 are being sacrificed we assume that he was taking responsibility that if some loaves were ruined, others would be sacred in its place, or whether he intended to actually dedicate eighty loaves.
ורבא למה ליה לשנויי כרבה תיפוק ליה קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה נינהו לדבריו דרמי בר חמא קאמר
Now, why did Rava explain the mishnah according to Rabbah; let him deduce it from the fact that it cannot be followed by intercourse?
He [merely] explains it according to the view of Rami b. Hama.
Rava explained that since one cannot marry a woman and then her sister, if one marries two sisters at the same time, neither are married. This follows Rabbah s principle. But Rava could have invoked a different principle, one that he uses elsewhere. Kiddushin which create a situation in which the couple may not have sex do not count as kiddushin. This is the situation here. If the man was married to both sisters, he could not have sex with either because each is his wife s sister.
The Talmud explains that Rava was explaining it according to the verse used by Rami b. Hama to explain the mishnah (see end of daf Nun). Rava said that the verse Rami b. Hama used cannot explain the mishnah because it refers to a man who marries a woman and then her sister, whereas the mishnah refers to a man who marries both at the same time.