Kiddushin, Daf Nun Aleph, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s sugya begins a discussion of whether kiddushin that cannot be followed by intercourse count as kiddushin. This is a situation in which a man betroths a woman but cannot have sex with her because she is prohibited to him. Is she betrothed such that she would need a get?

 

איתמר קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה אביי אמר הוו קידושין רבא אמר לא הוו קידושין

אמר רבא בר אהינא אסברא לי (דברים כד, א) כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה קידושין המסורין לביאה הוו קידושין קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה לא הוו קידושין

 

It was stated: Kiddushin which cannot be followed by intercourse:

Abaye says: It is valid kiddushin; Rava said: It is not valid kiddushin.

Rava said: Bar Ahina explained it to me: When a man takes a woman and has intercourse with her (Deuteronomy 24:1): kiddushin that can be followed by intercourse is [valid] kiddushin; kiddushin which cannot be followed by intercourse is not [valid] kiddushin.

 

This is the core dispute. Rava backs up his opinion with a verse, whereas Abaye does not.

תנן המקדש אשה ובתה או אשה ואחותה כאחת אינן מקודשות הא אחת מאשה ובתה או מאשה ואחותה מקודשת ואמאי קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה נינהו תיובתא דרבא

 

We taught [in a mishnah]: If a man betroths a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister simultaneously, they are not betrothed. This implies, [if he betroths] one of a woman and her daughter or of a woman and her sister [without specifying which], she is betrothed: yet why, this is kiddushin which may not be followed by intercourse? This is refutation of Rava.

 

The mishnah is used as a difficulty against Rava. A man cannot betroth both a woman and her sister, daughter or mother. But if he says to a woman and her mother/sister/daughter, One of the two of you is betrothed to me by deduction it would seem that they all could be doubtfully betrothed even though sex with any of them would be prohibited. This seems to be a refutation of Rava.

 

אמר לך רבא ולטעמיך אימא סיפא מעשה בחמש נשים ובהן שתי אחיות וליקט אחד כלכלה של תאנים ושלהן היתה ושל שביעית היתה ואמר הרי כולכם מקודשות לי בכלכלה זו ואמרו חכמים אין אחיות מקודשות אחיות הוא דאינן מקודשות הא נכריות מקודשות

ה"ד אילימא דאמר כולכם קני את וחמור הוא ואת וחמור לא קנה אלא לאו דאמר להו אחת מכם וקתני אין אחיות מקודשות

 

Rava could answer you: According to your view, consider the second clause: And it once happened to five women, amongst whom were two sisters, that a man gathered a basket of figs, which was theirs, and which was of the seventh year, and he declared, Behold, you are all betrothed to me with this basket, and one accepted it on behalf of all. The sages then ruled, the sisters are not betrothed.

Thus, it is only the sisters who are not betrothed, but the strangers (the non-sisters) are.

What is the precise case? If we say that he said: All of you this is a case of you and the donkey acquire and you and the donkey do not acquire.

Rather it must surely mean that he said: One of you, and it is taught that the sisters are not betrothed.

 

Rava responds that the end of the mishnah could be read as supporting him. A man says to a bunch of women, Behold you are all betrothed to me. The sisters are not betrothed, but the non-sisters are.

So what exactly did he say? If he said all of you then this would be like a case of a person who says to another person and a donkey (or any animal), You and the donkey should acquire this. Since the donkey cannot acquire, the other person does not either. So too here, since the sisters do not acquire the betrothal money, neither would the non-sisters.

Rather, he must have said, one of you [is betrothed to me]. The sisters are not betrothed because this is kiddushin that cannot be followed by intercourse since he could not have sex with either one of them.

This discussion continues tomorrow.