Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Heh, Part 5
Introduction
Today s section continues to address the topic of one who betroths without the presence of two witnesses.
אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא משמיה דרב המקדש בעד אחד אין חוששין לקידושיו ואפילו שניהם מודים
R. Yitzchak b. Shmuel b. Marta said in the name of Rav: If a man betroths in the presence of one witness, we disregard his kiddushin, even if both admit it.
Without two witnesses, there is no betrothal.
אמר רבה בר רב הונא המקדש בעד אחד בי דינא רבה אמרי אין חוששין לקידושיו
מאן בי דינא רבה רב ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב המקדש בעד אחד בי דינא רבה אמרי אין חוששין לקידושיו
מאן בי דינא רבה רבי
Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If a man betroths in the presence of one witness, the Great Court rules: We disregard his kiddushin. Who is the Great Court?
Rab.
Others state, Rabbah b. R. Huna said in the name of Rav: If a man betroths in the presence of one witness, the Great Court rules: We disregard his kiddushin. Who is the Great Court? Rabbi.
Whoever this great court is, they do not believe that kiddushin performed in front of one witness is valid.
מתיב רב אחדבוי בר אמי שנים שבאו ממדינת הים ואשה עמהם וחבילה עמהם זה אומר זו אשתי וזה עבדי וזו חבילתי וזה אומר זו אשתי וזה עבדי וזו חבילתי ואשה אומרת אלו שני עבדי וחבילה שלי צריכה שני גיטין וגובה כתובתה מן החבילה
היכי דמי אי דאית ליה סהדי להאי ואית ליה סהדי להאי מי מצי אמרה אלו שני עבדי וחבילה שלי
אלא לאו בעד אחד
R. Ahdavoi b. Ammi raised an objection: If two come from overseas and a woman is with them and a bundle is with them: One says, This is my wife, this is my slave, and this is my bundle , while the other says: This is my wife, this my slave, and this is my bundle while the woman claims, These two are my slaves and bundle is mine, she requires two divorces, and collects her kethubah from the bundle.
How so? If this one has witnesses and the other has witnesses, can she claim, These two are my slaves and the bundle is mine?
Rather it means that there is one witness.
A twisted scenario indeed. Both men have to give her a get, which means we must have some degree of certainty that they are married to her. But if either has two witnesses, then how could she claim, These are my slaves. Thus it must be that there is one witness. This is sufficient to create the suspicion of kiddushin. And thus this is a difficulty against those who say that with one witness, we disregard her kiddushin.
ותסברא עד אחד בהכחשה מי מהימן
אלא למישרי לעלמא דכ"ע לא פליגי דשרי והכא הכי קאמר צריכה שני גיטין כדי לגבות כתובתה מן החבילה ור’ מאיר היא דאמר מטלטלי משתעבדי לכתובה
Now, is that logical? Is one witness believed when he is rebutted?
Rather as for permitting her to the world, all agree that she is permitted; here, this is what it means: she needs two divorces in order to collect her ketubah from bundle, and it is according to R. Meir, who ruled: Movables are subject to the ketubah.
One witness might have, at certain times, some level of believability. But not when this witness is contradicted by the woman herself.
Rather, the men do not give her a divorce in order to free her to marry someone else. She is free to marry someone else even without a divorce from either of them. They give her a divorce in order for her to collect the ketubah, which according to R. Meir, can be collected from movable property.
מאי הוי עלה רב כהנא אמר אין חוששין לקידושיו רב פפא אמר חוששין לקדושיו
אמר ליה רב אשי לרב כהנא מאי דעתיך דילפת דבר דבר מממון אי מה להלן הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי אף כאן הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי
א"ל התם לא קא חייב לאחריני הכא קא חייב לאחריני
What is the conclusion about this?
R. Kahana said: We disregard his kiddushin;
R. Papa said: We are concerned that his kiddushin are effective.
R. Ashi said to R. Kahana: What is your opinion? That we learn the meaning of davar [matter] here from monetary matters? If so, just as there the admission of the litigant is like a hundred witnesses, then so too here, the admission of the litigant should be as a hundred witnesses!
He said to him: There he does not obligate others; here, he does obligate others.
R. Kahana and R. Papa argue over whether we are concerned for kiddushin done in front of one witness in a case where the man and woman agree that there was kiddushin. R. Kahana says that such kiddushin are not valid. But R. Ashi argues with him. Perhaps R. Kahana is thinking that just as the word davar stated in reference to monetary matters (Deuteronomy 19:15) means that we require two witnesses, so too the word stated in reference to sexual matters (Deuteronomy 24:1) implies that we need two witnesses. The problem with this analogy is that in monetary matters, a person who admits he is liable is liable. But R. Kahana is arguing that even if the couple says they were betrothed, without two witnesses, the betrothal is invalid.
R. Kahana responds by noting the difference between the two situations. In the case of monetary matters, if a person admits he owes money, he is not causing others to be obligated. But here, the couple s admission impacts each other s relatives, who will not be able to marry them. Therefore, it is invalid.