Kiddushin, Daf Nun, Part 4
מתני׳ המקדש את האשה על מנת שאין עליה נדרים ונמצאו עליה נדרים אינה מקודשת כנסה סתם ונמצאו עליה נדרים תצא שלא בכתובה
Mishnah: If a man betrothed a woman on condition that she was under no vows and she was found to be under vows, she is not betrothed.
If he married her without making any conditions and she was found to be under vows, she leaves without her ketubah.
It can be assumed that a husband does not want his wife to be subject to vows that will prevent her from engaging in certain activities, such as eating meat or drinking wine. Such vows would certainly disrupt the normal functioning of a marriage. If he betroths her on the specific condition that she is not subject to any vows, and after betrothal it is found out that she is subject to vows, she is not betrothed. Since the betrothal was made under false pretenses it is invalid and she does not need a get to remarry, nor does she receive her ketubah. However, if he did not make such a condition, and then later finds out that she is subject to vows, the marriage is valid. Nevertheless, since she should have told him that she had vows, he may divorce her without paying her the ketubah. In other words, the marriage was not exactly made under a false assumption and therefore she needs a get in order to remarry, but she still was dishonest with him and therefore she loses the ketubah.
על מנת שאין עליה מומין ונמצאו בה מומין אינה מקודשת כנסה סתם ונמצאו בה מומין תצא שלא בכתובה שכל המומין הפוסלין בכהנים פוסלין בנשים
[If a woman was betrothed] on condition that she has no bodily defects, and she was found to have defects, she is not betrothed.
If he married her without making any conditions and she was found to have defects, she leaves without her ketubah.
All defects which disqualify priests also disqualify women.
The same rule concerning a woman subject to vows is also true with regard to a woman who has physical defects. If he specifically stipulated that she not have any physical defects (assumedly ones that he could not detect when she was clothed), and she does, the betrothal is invalid. If he did not make a stipulation, the betrothal is valid but he may divorce her without paying the ketubah.
With regard to physical defects, it is essential for us to know what physical defects are significant enough that they invalidate the betrothal or allow the husband to divorce her without paying the ketubah. The answer is that any defect that disqualifies a priest from serving at the altar (see Lev 21:17), also disqualifies a woman. These defects are listed in the seventh chapter of tractate Bekhorot.
גמ׳ ותנן נמי גבי כתובות כי האי גוונא הכא קידושין איצטריכא ליה תנא כתובות אטו קידושין התם כתובות איצטריכא ליה תנא קידושין אטו כתובות
Gemara: And the same was taught with regard to ketubot in this manner.
Here, it needed to teach about kiddushin, so it also taught it about ketubot.
There it needed to teach it about ketubot, so it also taught it about kiddushin.
The same mishnah was also taught in ketubot. The first clause of the mishnah is about kiddushin, which is why the mishnah is found here, and the second clause is about ketubot, which is why the mishnah is found there. But the entire mishnah was taught in both places.
מתני׳ המקדש שתי נשים בשוה פרוטה או אשה אחת בפחות משוה פרוטה אף על פי ששלח סבלונות לאחר מכאן אינה מקודשת שמחמת קידושין הראשונים שלח
Mishnah: If he betroths two women with the value of a perutah, or one woman with less than the value of a perutah, even if he subsequently sends gifts, she is not betrothed, because he sent them on account of the first kiddushin.
In both of these cases the first act does not cause the woman, or women to be betrothed because there was not a perutah s worth given to each woman. When the man later sends gifts which are worth more than a perutah, we might have thought that these gifts can now act as the betrothal money. After all, he clearly intended to betroth her and she clearly agreed. However, the mishnah rules that since these gifts were not sent with the intent of effecting betrothal, they do not act as such. We also do not assume that the man realized that his first act of betrothal was invalid and that he is now sending betrothal money.
וכן קטן שקידש
The same is true if a minor betroths.
A minor cannot betroth a woman. Betrothal requires awareness , and minors legally lack the required awareness. Therefore, if he tries to betroth a certain woman, she is not betrothed. Even if he later on sends presents to the woman whom he tried to betroth, the presents do not effect kiddushin, for they were not sent as such but rather on account of the first act of betrothal, which was invalid.
גמ׳ וצריכא דאי אשמעינן שוה פרוטה איידי דקא נפיק ממונא מיניה טעי אבל פחות משוה פרוטה אימא יודע שאין קידושין תופסין בפחות משוה פרוטה וכי קא משדר סבלונות אדעתא דקידושין קא משדר
GEMARA. And it is necessary [to state both]. For if it taught us the case of a perutah’s worth [for two women], [I might argue,] since money has gone forth from him, he may err [and think the kiddushin valid]. But [with respect to] less than a perutah’s worth, I might say that he knows that kiddushin with less than a perutah’s worth is invalid, and so when he sends gifts, he sends them as kiddushin.
The first clause of the mishnah contains two clauses. If the mishnah had taught only the case where he gave one perutah to two women, I might have thought that in that case, he thought that since he gave a perutah, the kiddushin was valid. Therefore, when he sent gifts later, he did not think of them as kiddushin. But in the case where he gave less than a perutah, we might have argued that everyone knows that one cannot perform kiddushin with less than a perutah. Therefore, when he sent presents, they were kiddushin. Thus the mishnah needed to teach us that even in this case, the presents are not considered kiddushin money.
ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי משום דבין פרוטה לפחות משוה פרוטה לא קים להו לאינשי אבל קטן שקידש הכל יודעין שאין קידושי קטן כלום אימא כי קא משדר סבלונות אדעתא דקידושי קא משדר קא משמע לן
And if it had taught us these two cases, that is because one may not be able to distinguish between a perutah and less than a perutah; but when a minor betroths, all know that a minor s betrothal is nothing; hence when he sends gifts, I might have said that he sends them as kiddushin. Therefore it teaches us [that even in this case, the gifts are not considered kiddushin].
In the cases in the first clause, I might have thought that the gifts were not kiddushin because the man might not have known that he had given less than a perutah for each woman he was betrothing. After all, it is hard to distinguish between a perutah and less than a perutah. He might have thought that he performed kiddushin, and that the gifts were just gifts.
But when it comes to the minor who betroths, we might have thought that everyone knows that minors cannot betroth. Therefore, when he sends gifts as an adult, this is kiddushin. Therefore, the mishnah had to teach us that also in this case the gifts do not count as kiddushin.