Kiddushin, Daf Zayin, Part 3
Introduction
More theoretical musings by Rava on kiddushin.
אמר רבא התקדשי לי לחציי מקודשת חצייך מקודשת לי אינה מקודשת
Rava said: [If a man declares,] Be betrothed to half of me, she is betrothed: Half of you be betrothed to me, she is not betrothed.
Rava introduces this paradoxical statement, whereby a formula of be betrothed to half of me is effective, but half you be betrothed to me is not. The rest of the sugya will explore why one works but the other does not.
אמר ליה אביי לרבא מאי שנא חצייך מקודשת לי דאינה מקודשת אשה אמר רחמנא ולא חצי אשה ה"נ איש אמר רחמנא ולא חצי איש
Abaye said to Rava: Why is half of you be betrothed to me different, that she is not betrothed? Because the Torah said, [When a man takes] a wife, but not half a wife? Here too the verse says, a man, but not half a man?
Abaye points out that if we are reading halves into the verse then neither formula should work. The Torah refers to whole men and women.
א"ל הכי השתא התם איתתא לבי תרי לא חזיא אלא גברא מי לא חזי לבי תרי וה"ק לה דאי בעינא למינסב אחריתי נסיבנא
He said back to him: Is that so! There, a woman is not fit to marry two [men]; but is not a man fit to marry two [women]? Hence this is what he said to her: Should I want to marry another, I may do so.
Rava responds that while half a man cannot marry a woman, a man can marry two women. Saying, you are married to half of me is akin to the man pointing out that he might want to marry another woman. Since this is possible (although not the most romantic way to pop the question) it is effective as a betrothal formula. But a woman cannot be married to two men, so he cannot say to her half you be betrothed to me.
אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא וניפשטו לה קידושי בכולה מי לא תניא האומר רגלה של זו עולה תהא כולה עולה ואפי’ למ"ד אין כולה עולה ה"מ היכא דמקדיש דבר שאין הנשמה תלויה בו אבל מקדיש דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו הויא כולה עולה
Mar Zutra, son of R. Mari, said to Ravina: Yet let the kiddushin spread through the whole of her. Has it not been taught: If one declares, Let the foot of this [animal] be a burnt offering, the whole animal is a burnt-offering. And even according to the one that holds that it is not all a burnt-offering, that is only if one dedicates a limb upon which life is not dependent; but if he dedicates a limb upon which life is dependent, it is all a burnt-offering!
Mar Zutra points out that when it comes to dedicating an animal, if one dedicates a limb, at least a limb that the life depends on (such as the head), the whole animal is considered dedicated. So too this should work with a woman if he says half of you is betrothed to me the kiddushin should spread to the whole woman and she would be fully betrothed to him.
מי דמי התם בהמה הכא דעת אחרת
Are the two the same? There it is an animal, whereas here there is another mind.
The difference between the two is that with the animal, it is property. If the man wants he can dedicate his entire animal and no one can stop him. But with the woman, we need her consent to be betrothed and she consented only to be half-betrothed. So we cannot compare the case of betrothal to dedicating an animal.
הא לא דמיא אלא להא דאמר רבי יוחנן בהמה של שני שותפין הקדיש חציה וחזר ולקחה והקדישה קדושה ואינה קריבה ועושה תמורה ותמורתה כיוצא בה
This can only be compared with that which R. Yohanan stated: An animal belonging to two partners: if one [of them] dedicates half, and then purchases it [the other half] and dedicates it, it is holy, yet cannot be sacrificed; and it causes its substitute to be sacred, and the substitute is like it.
The better comparison is when someone else owns half the animal. In such a case, one partner cannot dedicate the animal because it is not all his. So too a man cannot betroth half a woman.
The Talmud talks out some of the halakhic rules relevant to the case of the animal. If he then goes back and purchases the second half of the animal, and dedicates the second half, then it is all dedicated. However, since it was not fit for sacrifice when half dedicated, it cannot actually be sacrificed. If someone tries to substitute another animal for it, that animal becomes holy, and the original animal remains holy. In other words, this is a fully dedicated animal that cannot be sacrificed.
שמע מינה תלת ש"מ בעלי חיים נדחים וש"מ דחוי מעיקרא הוי דחוי וש"מ יש דחוי בדמים
Learn from this three things: 1) Live animals may become [permanently] deferred; 2) something that is rejected ab initio is fully deferred forever; 3) deferral applies to monetary sanctity.
The Talmud learns three halakhot relevant to sacrifices and things dedicated to the Temple. The concept discussed here is called defferal or dichui. Once something has become invalid as a sacrifice, it can never return to becoming valid. This applies to live animals so we learn from the half-dedicated animal. 2) It can be deferred even from the outset, as soon as it is fit. Others say (elsewhere) that in order for a sacrifice to be permanently deferred, it must first be fit for a sacrifice. This animal which was only half-dedicated, never was fit to be offered. 3) Deferral applies even if only the value of the animal was dedicated, like this one half of whose value was dedicated.