Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Heh, Part 4
Introduction
Today s sugya contains a dispute over whether two witnesses are needed for betrothal.
אמר רב יהודה המקדש בעד אחד אין חוששין לקידושיו
Rav Judah said: If a man betroths in the presence of one witness, we are not concerned that his kiddushin are valid.
According to R. Judah, without two witnesses, the kiddushin are totally invalid.
בעו מיניה מרב יהודה שניהם מודים מאי אין ולא ורפיא בידיה
They asked R. Judah: What if both admit it?
He answered: Yes and no and was uncertain.
R. Yehudah was uncertain whether or not they are betrothed if both agree.
איתמר אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל המקדש בעד אחד אין חוששין לקידושיו ואפי’ שניהם מודים
איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן האומר לאשה קדשתיך והיא אומרת לא קדשתני הוא אסור בקרובותיה והיא מותרת בקרוביו
אי דאיכא עדים אמאי מותרת בקרוביו
ואי דליכא עדים אמאי אסור בקרובותיה
אלא לאו בעד אחד
It was stated: R. Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: If a man betroths in the presence of one witness, we do not consider his kiddushin valid even if both admit it.
Rava raised a difficulty against R. Nahman: if one says to a woman, I have betrothed you and she says, You did not betroth me her relatives are forbidden to him, while his relatives are permitted to her.
Now, if there are witnesses, why are his relatives permitted to her? And if there are no witnesses, why are her relatives forbidden to him?
Rather it refers to a case where there is one witness.
R. Nahman rules that two witnesses are necessary for kiddushin to be valid. But this seems to contradict our mishnah. If there were witnesses in the case in our mishnah, then his relatives should not be permitted to her indeed, they are married. But if there are no witnesses, why would anyone think that her relatives are prohibited to him. According to the Talmud no one holds that kiddushin can be valid without any witnesses.
Rather, Rava posits that the case refers to one witness. This is a difficulty against R. Nahman who posited that with one witness no one thinks that the kiddushin have any validity.
הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאמר לה קידשתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להם למדינת הים
What are we dealing with here? When he says to her, I betrothed your in the presence of So-and-so, and So-and-so who have [since] gone overseas.
R. Nahman says the mishnah refers to a case where the husband claims he performed the betrothal in front of witnesses but that those witnesses are gone overseas and cannot be examined. Since he is claiming that he performed the kiddushin in a valid manner he is prohibited from marrying her relatives.
איתיביה המגרש את אשתו ולנה עמו בפונדקי ב"ש אומרים אינה צריכה הימנו גט שני וב"ה אומרים צריכה הימנו גט שני
היכי דמי אי דאיכא עדים מאי טעמייהו דב"ש ואי דליכא עדים מאי טעמייהו דבית הלל אלא לאו בעד אחד
He raised an objection: If one divorces his wife and then stays overnight with her in an inn: Beth Shammai says: She does not require a second divorce from him; while Beth Hillel says: She does require a second divorce from him.
What is the case? If there are witnesses, what is Beth Shammai’s reason? And if there are no witnesses, what is Beth Hillel’s reason?
Hence it must refer to a case where there is one witness!
The issue at hand in this mishnah is whether we think the husband betrothed his ex-wife when he stayed with her at an inn (the betrothal might have been done through sex). But again, were there witnesses? If there were, then why would Bet Shammai not require him to give her a get? And if there were no witnesses, why would Bet Hillel say she does require a get. Without witnesses, kiddushin are invalid.
Therefore, Rava again assumes there was one witness. And since Bet Hillel requires a get, this is a difficulty against R. Nahman.
וליטעמיך אימא סיפא ומודים בנתגרשה מן האירוסין שאין צריכה הימנו גט שני מפני שאין לבו גס בה ואי סלקא דעתך עד אחד מהימן מה לי מן האירוסין מה לי מן הנשואין
But according to your view, what about the second clause: But they agree that if she was divorced after betrothal, she does not require a second divorce from him, because he was not intimate with her.
Now if you think that one witness is believed, what does it matter whether [the divorce was] from betrothal or marriage?
According to the baraita, Bet Hillel would agree that if they were divorced after betrothal but before marriage, then we would not assume that he had relations with her and thereby betrothed her, because he was not previously intimate with her.
But if there was one witness, what should it matter whether they stayed at the inn after having been previously betrothed or married. The reason Bet Hillel requires a get would be because of the witness, not due to an assumption that he betrothed her.
אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאיכא עדי יחוד וליכא עדי ביאה בית שמאי סברי לא אמרינן הן הן עדי יחוד הן הן עדי ביאה ובית הלל סברי אמרינן הן הן עדי יחוד הן הן עדי ביאה
ומודים ודאי בנתגרשה מן האירוסין דלא אמרינן הן הן עדי יחוד הן הן עדי ביאה מפני שאין לבו גס בה
Rather what are we dealing with here? With a case that there are witnesses who say they were alone together, but there are no witnesses that say they had intercourse.
Beth Shammai holds: we do not say that witnesses of seclusion are witnesses of intercourse; Beth Hillel holds we do say that the witnesses of seclusion are witnesses of intercourse.
But they certainly agree that if she was divorced from betrothal, we do not say that the witnesses of seclusion are witnesses of intercourse, because he was not intimate with her.
The Talmud now assumes that in this mishnah there were witnesses, but only witnesses that they were secluded, not that they had intercourse, which would constitute betrothal. Bet Shammai says that this is not sufficient to create an assumption of sex and betrothal and therefore she does not require a divorce. Bet Hillel says it is sufficient.
However, they both agree that if the couple had not previously had intercourse because they were never married, then she does not require a get. In such a circumstance, we cannot assume that they had sex at the inn.