Kiddushin, Nun Bet, Part 1

 

Introduction

This week s daf begins with Rav deriving halakhah from the strange story that appears at the end of the mishnah:

And it once happened that five women, among whom were two sisters, that a man gathered a basket of figs, which was theirs, and which was of the seventh year, and he said, Behold, you are betrothed to me with this basket, and one accepted it on behalf of them all and the sages said: the sisters are not betrothed.

 

מעשה בחמש נשים אמר רב ש"מ ממתניתין ארבע ונקיט רב בידיה תלת ש"מ המקדש בפירות שביעית מקודשת

 

It happened to five women. Rav said: Learn from our mishnah four halakhot; yet Rav was sure only of three:

[i] If one betroths [a woman] with seventh year produce, she is betrothed.

 

One is not allowed to use seventh year produce as merchandise. From our story we learn that one can use it for betrothal.

 

ושמע מינה קידשה בגזל אינה מקודשת אפילו בגזל דידה ממאי מדקתני שלהם היתה ושל שביעית היתה טעמא דשביעית דהפקר הוא הא דשאר שני שבוע לא

 

And learn from this ff he betroths her with a stolen goods, even things stolen from her, she is not betrothed.

How is this learned? Because it is stated: it was theirs, and it was of the seventh year: thus, it is only because it was of the seventh year, and thus ownerless; but if of any other year, it is not so.

 

Rav also learns from the story that one cannot betroth with stolen goods. In the story, the man uses something he took from the women and it was sabbatical produce. The kiddushin are valid only because the produce he stole was sabbatical produce which is considered ownerless. During the sabbatical year, anyone can take the produce from the field. Had it not been the sabbatical year, they would not have been betrothed because one cannot use stolen goods to betroth.

 

ושמע מינה אשה נעשית שליח לחבירתה ואפילו במקום שנעשית לה צרה

 

And learn from this a woman can be an agent for her fellow, even when she thereby becomes her rival.

 

In this story one woman accepts the betrothal on behalf of them all. This is allowed, even though the woman she accepts kiddushin for becomes her rival wife.

 

ואידך מאי היא קידושין שאין מסורים לביאה וניחשבה משום דמספקא ליה אי כאביי אי כרבא

And what is the other [halakhah learned from the mishnah]? Kiddushin which cannot be followed by intercourse.

Then let him count it?

Because he is doubtful whether it is [to be explained] according to Abaye or Rava.

 

This story was used by Abaye to prove that kiddushin that cannot be followed by intercourse are kiddushin. Abaye said that in the story the sisters are not betrothed because he married both at the same time. Had he married one then become mixed up as to which one he married, they both would have both been doubtfully betrothed even though he could not have intercourse with her.

Rava said that the mishnah refers to a case where he married only one but did not say which one. This proves that kiddushin that cannot be followed by intercourse are kiddushin.

Rav did not want to learn anything about this topic from the mishnah because he was not sure whether to read it like Abaye or Rava.

I should note that this is obviously not a chronological way of understanding Rav. Rav could not have known about the debate between Rava and Abaye, for they lived three generations after he did. Indeed, the reason that Rav does not learn anything about kiddushin that cannot be followed by intercourse from the mishnah is that this topic had not yet been brought up. It is also worth noting that this is a highly abstract concept, whereas the halakhot Rav did learn are far more practical. This is emblematic of the differences between early amoraim like Rav and later amoraim like Abaye and Rava. Rav is interested in real halakhic rules, whereas Abaye and Rava are interested in abstract halakhic concepts.