Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 15, 2016 | 讝壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Kiddushin 65

Study Guide Kiddushin 65. A man who says he betroths his older daughter – if he has two sets of wives and daughters from both wives, there is a debate whether or not all of them except the youngest are considered betrothed out of doubt or only the oldest of the older group of sisters. 聽Abaye clarifies that the debate would not apply in a case of 3 daughters all from the same mother – in that case it would be clear that the middle daughter would not be betrothed. 聽His opinion is questioned but the questions are resolved. 聽The mishna brings a case where either the man or the woman admits to being betrothed but the other does not. 聽The gemara then brings an opinion that if there is only one witness to a betrothal even if both the man and woman admit to the betrothal, they are not considered betrothed. 聽This opinion is questioned by our mishna and by other tannaitic sources but all difficulties are are resolved.

讗诪爪注讬转 砖讘讻转 砖谞讬讛 转砖转专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛

with regard to one who said: I betrothed my elder daughter, the middle daughter of the younger second group should be permitted, as he would have called her by name rather than referring to her as: The elder one. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where there are only two daughters, an adult woman and a minor girl, but no middle daughter.

讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇讬转谞讬讬讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讗诪爪注讬转 砖讘讻转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讜讚讗讬 住驻讬拽讗 讜讗住讬专讗 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛

The Gemara adds: And so too, it is reasonable that this is the case, as, if it is so, that there is a middle daughter, let the mishna teach its halakha with a direct reference to her as well, as the uncertainty also applies to this daughter. In other words, the mishna should have stated: And I do not know if it was the middle of the younger group of daughters. The fact that the mishna does not refer to this daughter indicates that there are only two women in each group. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: But according to your reasoning, the middle one of the first group is definitely included in the uncertainty and is forbidden to the prospective husband, and yet does the mishna teach its halakha with a direct reference to her?

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 转谞讗 拽讟谞讛 讚讬讚讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讱 讚拽砖讬砖讗 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara questions this argument: How can these cases be compared? There it taught its halakha with a direct reference to a daughter who is younger than the middle daughter of the older group, and that daughter is mentioned for a prohibition, as the mishna states that the uncertainty applies even to the youngest of the older group; and if so, the same is true of this middle daughter, who is older than the youngest of the older group, i.e., it is evident that the same uncertainty applies to her, and therefore there is no reason to mention the middle daughter of the older group.

讛讻讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 谞讬转谞讬讬讛

Conversely, here, with regard to the younger group, if it is so that there is uncertainty with regard to the middle daughter and she is forbidden, the mishna should teach its halakha with a direct reference to her, as one might think she is excluded from the uncertainty because she is not the eldest. Consequently, the fact that the mishna omits all reference to the middle daughter from the second group proves that the second wife has only two daughters.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讛讗 驻住讞 讚讻讬 讻转 讗讞转 讚诪讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: But there is the case of Passover, which is comparable to one group of daughters, as all the days of the Festival are part of a single group, and yet Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei disagree with regard to it. This apparently contradicts Abaye鈥檚 opinion that everyone agrees in the case of a single group.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讘诇讬砖谞讗 讚注诇诪讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 注讚 驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 注讚 拽诪讬 驻讬住讞讗 讜诪专 住讘专 注讚 讚诪讬驻谞讬 驻讬住讞讗

Rava said to him: There they disagree with regard to the general usage of language. In other words, their dispute in that case does not concern the basic issue of whether or not one places himself in a position of uncertainty. Rather, they disagree over the way people speak. One Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that the phrase: Until before Passover, means: Until just before Passover, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that it means until Passover passes and ends.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 拽讚砖转讬讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 拽讚砖转谞讬 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 拽讚砖转谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 拽讚砖转讬讱 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she says: You did not betroth me, he is forbidden to her relatives, as his claim that he has betrothed her renders himself forbidden to her relatives. And she is permitted to his relatives, in accordance with her stance that she is not betrothed to him. If she says: You betrothed me, and he says: I did not betroth you, he is permitted to her relatives and she is forbidden to his relatives by the same reasoning.

拽讬讚砖转讬讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 拽讬讚砖转 讗诇讗 讘转讬 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 拽讟谞讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜

If a man says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she says: You betrothed only my daughter, he is forbidden to the relatives of the older woman, the mother, whom he claims to have betrothed, and the older woman is permitted to his relatives. He is permitted to the relatives of the younger woman, the daughter, as he maintains that he did not betroth her, and the younger woman is permitted to his relatives, since her mother鈥檚 statement is insufficient to render her forbidden.

拽讚砖转讬 讗转 讘转讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 拽讚砖转 讗诇讗 讗讜转讬 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 拽讟谞讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讗住讜专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讜

Similarly, if he says: I betrothed your daughter, and she, the mother, says: You betrothed only me, he is forbidden to the relatives of the younger woman, and the younger woman is permitted to his relatives; he is permitted to the relatives of the older woman, and the older woman is forbidden to his relatives.

讙诪壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 拽讚砖转讬讱 讜讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讘讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讘专讗 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 讜诪讬拽专讬 讗诪专

GEMARA: The mishna taught that with regard to one who says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she denies his claim, he is forbidden to her relatives while she remains permitted to his. The mishna then provides several examples illustrating the same principle. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the mishna to specify all these cases. The Gemara elaborates: As, had the mishna taught us the halakha only with regard to himself, i.e., the case where he claims to have betrothed the woman, one might have said that he is not deemed credible at all, because a man does not care if he happens to say that he betrothed a woman even if he did not do so, as he can betroth another woman.

讗讘诇 讗讬讛讬 讗讬诪讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽讬诐 诇讛 讘讚讬讘讜专讛 诇讗 讛讜转 讗诪专讛 讜诇讬转住专 讗讬讛讜 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

But in a case where she claims to have been betrothed by him, one might say that if her statement was not certain to her she would not have said it. Since her claim that he betrothed her renders her forbidden to everyone else, it is likely that it is true, and therefore one might think that he should also be forbidden to her relatives on the basis of this assumption. The mishna therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

拽讬讚砖转讬讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讜讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讘 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讬诪谞讜讛 诇讚讬讚讛 讜转讬转住专 讘专转讛 讘讚讬讘讜专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Likewise, with regard to one who says: I betrothed you, and she says: You betrothed only my daughter, in which case he is forbidden to her relatives but she is permitted to his, the Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? The principle has already been established. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this case too, as it might enter your mind to say: Since by Torah law, the Merciful One deems credible a father who claims to have betrothed his daughter to a particular person, perhaps the Sages deem a mother credible by rabbinic law, and therefore her daughter should be forbidden based on her statement. The mishna therefore teaches us that a mother is not believed with regard to her daughter.

拽讬讚砖转讬 讗转 讘转讱 讜讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讛讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讛讗

The Gemara continues this line of questioning. With regard to the case where a man says: I betrothed your daughter, and she replies: You betrothed only me, why do I need this as well? What novelty is taught in this case? The Gemara answers: Since the mishna taught this other case, of a man claiming he betrothed a woman and the woman replying that it was her daughter, it also taught this last case, so that it mentions all the permutations, despite the fact that this particular case provides no novelty.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讻讜驻讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讜诇讗 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed over how the court should proceed in practice with regard to the cases described in the mishna. Rav says: The court forces the man to give her a bill of divorce, and Shmuel says: The court requests that he give a bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: With regard to which case of the mishna is this referring? If we say it is referring to the first clause, where he says: I betrothed you, and she replies: You did not betroth me, no ruling of: The court forces, is relevant here, nor is the ruling: The court requests, relevant. Since she is permitted to marry even his relatives, she is certainly permitted to marry anyone else. Why, then, would it be necessary for him to give her a bill of divorce? Rather, the dispute applies to the latter clause of the mishna, where he denies her claim that he betrothed her. To allow her to marry somebody else, the court either forces or requests of him to give her a bill of divorce.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诇讞讬讬 讗诇讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚讗讬转住专 讘拽专讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion that the court requests that he give a bill of divorce, it is well. Since she has rendered herself forbidden to everyone, one can ask him to release her. But why should the court force him to issue a bill of divorce? Can鈥檛 he say: It is not satisfactory for me to be forbidden to her relatives? His giving her a bill of divorce is an admission that he betrothed her, which means that he may not marry her relatives.

讗诇讗 砖诪注转转讗 讗讛讚讚讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪诪谞讜 诇讬转谉 讙讟 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 谞转谉 讙讟 诪注爪诪讜 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

Rather, the Gemara offers a different explanation: These halakhot were stated together, as follows: Shmuel says that the court requests of him to give a bill of divorce. Rav says: If he gave a bill of divorce of his own accord, without being asked to do so but merely in response to her claim, the court forces him to give her payment for her marriage contract as well. By giving her a bill of divorce of his own volition, he has effectively admitted that he betrothed her, despite the fact that he has not said so explicitly. Consequently, he must also provide her with payment for her marriage contract.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讜驻讬谉 讜诪讘拽砖讬谉 转专转讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪诪谞讜 诇讬转谉 讙讟 讜讗诐 谞转谉 诪注爪诪讜 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

It was also stated: Rav A岣 bar Adda says that Rav says, and some say Rav A岣 bar Adda says that Rav Hamnuna says that Rav says: The court forces him and requests of him. The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this statement: How can these two statements be reconciled? Rather, it must be that this is what Rav A岣 bar Adda is saying: The court requests of him to give a bill of divorce, and if he gave a bill of divorce of his own accord the court forces him to give her payment for her marriage contract.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讜诇讗 讜专驻讬讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐

Rav Yehuda says: With regard to one who betroths another with, i.e., in the presence of, one witness, one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. The students raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda: If both the man and the woman concede that it was a betrothal, what is the halakha? Is the betrothal valid? Rav Yehuda did not provide a clear answer. He said: Yes and no, and the matter was uncertain to him. It was stated that amora鈥檌m discussed this point. Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect, and this is the halakha even if both parties concede that there was a betrothal.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 拽讚砖转讬讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 拽讚砖转谞讬 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from the mishna: With regard to one who says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she says: You did not betroth me, he is forbidden to her relatives and she is permitted to his relatives. Rava proceeds to analyze the exact circumstances of this case. If the case is one where there are witnesses, why is she permitted to his relatives? It is a full-fledged betrothal performed in the presence of witnesses. And if there are no witnesses at all, why is he forbidden to her relatives without any testimony to that effect? Rather, is it not referring to a case where there was one witness?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 拽讬讚砖转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where he said to her: I betrothed you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, i.e., there were two witnesses, but they went overseas and there is no way of clarifying what really occurred. Consequently, there are only the conflicting accounts of the man and woman, and therefore he is prohibited from marrying her relatives while she is permitted to marry his.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诇谞讛 注诪讜 讘驻讜谞讚拽讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from a mishna (Eduyyot 4:7): If one divorces his wife, and she subsequently lodged with him in an inn, Beit Shammai say: She does not require a second bill of divorce from him, and Beit Hillel say: She requires a second bill of divorce from him. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this case? If there are witnesses who saw them engage in sexual inter-course for the purpose of betrothal, what is the reason that Beit Shammai do not require a second bill of divorce? If there are no witnesses, what is the reason that Beit Hillel require a second bill of divorce? Rather, is it not referring to a case where there was one witness who saw them engage in intercourse for the purpose of betrothal?

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讚 讗讞讚 诪讛讬诪谉 诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉

Rav Na岣an responds: And according to your reasoning, that there was one witness, say the latter clause of that mishna: And Beit Hillel concede with regard to a woman who was divorced after betrothal that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, due to the fact that he is not accustomed to her. Since he had not previously been intimate with her, there is no concern that they engaged in intercourse, even though they lodged together at the inn. And if it enters your mind that one witness is deemed credible in this case, what difference is it to me whether it was after her betrothal, and what difference is it to me if it occurred after her marriage?

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讜诇讬讻讗 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讗

Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not referring to when there is one witness, and here we are dealing with a case where there are witnesses to their seclusion, but there are no witnesses to their engaging in intercourse. The dispute is based on the implications of this seclusion. Beit Shammai hold: One does not

讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讘谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛

say: These are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse. According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in intercourse. And Beit Hillel hold: We do say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse. Since it is assumed that they engaged in intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him. And Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai that certainly in the case of a woman divorced from betrothal, that we do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse, because he is not accustomed to her.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 专讘讛 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 诪讗谉 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 专讘讛 专讘 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 专讘讛 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 诪讗谉 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 专讘讛 专讘讬

Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect, and this is the halakha even if the man and woman both concede that there was a betrothal. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, the Great Court says that one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. The Gemara asks: Who is the Great Court? Rav. And there are those who say a different version of this discussion. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, the Great Court says that one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. Who is the Great Court? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讘讗讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖讛 注诪讛诐 讜讞讘讬诇讛 注诪讛诐 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讗砖转讬 讜讝讛 注讘讚讬 讜讝讜 讞讘讬诇转讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讗砖转讬 讜讝讛 注讘讚讬 讜讝讜 讞讘讬诇转讬 讜讗砖讛 讗讜诪专转 讗诇讜 砖谞讬 注讘讚讬 讜讞讘讬诇讛 砖诇讬 爪专讬讻讛 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讜讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谉 讛讞讘讬诇讛

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami raises an objection from the following baraita: There were two men who came from overseas and a woman was with them, and they had a bundle with them. This man says: This is my wife, and this other man is my slave, and this is my bundle. And this second man says: This is my wife, and this other man is my slave, and this is my bundle. And the woman says: These are my two slaves and this is my bundle. In this case she requires two bills of divorce, as with each of them there is uncertainty concerning whether she is married to him, and she collects payment of her marriage contract from the bundle. Even according to their claims that she is married to one of them, now that they have each divorced her she is at least entitled to payment of her marriage contract from the bundle.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 住讛讚讬 诇讛讗讬 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 住讛讚讬 诇讛讗讬 诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专讛 讗诇讜 砖谞讬 注讘讚讬 讜讞讘讬诇讛 砖诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚

Rav A岣dvoi鈥檚 objection is as follows: What are the circumstances of this case? If the baraita is referring to a case where this man has two witnesses supporting his claim and that man has two witnesses supporting his claim, can the woman say: These are my two slaves, and this is my bundle? After all, there are two witnesses that one of the men is her husband. Rather, is it not referring to a case where each of the men has only one witness? This proves that a betrothal performed in the presence of a single witness is effective, as she requires a bill of divorce from each of them.

讜转住讘专讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讘讛讻讞砖讛 诪讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 诇注诇诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖专讬

The Gemara rejects this opinion: And how can you understand it that way? In a situation involving one witness in the face of contradicting testimony, as in the case here, where another witness claims she is betrothed to the second man, is a single witness deemed credible at all? Rather, one must understand this case as follows: Everyone agrees that with regard to permitting her to marry all other people, she is permitted even without a bill of divorce.

讜讛讻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讻讚讬 诇讙讘讜转 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谉 讛讞讘讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诪砖转注讘讚讬 诇讻转讜讘讛

And here, this is what the baraita is saying: She requires two bills of divorce in order to collect payment of her marriage contract from the bundle. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Even movable property, not only land, is subject to a lien for payment of a marriage contract. Consequently, to collect from this bundle, which has three claimants, the woman must receive a bill of divorce from both men, thereby obligating them to give her payment of a marriage contract.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讚讜砖讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讚讬诇驻转 讚讘专 讚讘专 诪诪诪讜谉

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about the case of one who betroths another in the presence of one witness? Rav Kahana said: One need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. Rav Pappa said: One need be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: What is your opinion that leads you to claim that there is no concern that his betrothal has taken effect? It must be that you derive it by means of a verbal analogy from the word 鈥渕atter鈥 written with regard to forbidden sexual intercourse and the word matter written with regard to monetary matters. The Torah states concerning one who desires to divorce his wife: 鈥淏ecause he has found some unseemly matter in her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), a reference to adulterous intercourse, and with regard to monetary matters it states: 鈥淎t the mouths of two witnesses, or at the mouths of three witnesses, shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15).

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讻诪讗讛 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬 讗祝 讻讗谉 讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讻诪讗讛 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讛讻讗 拽讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬谞讬

Rav Ashi asks: But if so, just as there, with regard to monetary matters, the legal status of the admission of a litigant is similar to that of one hundred witnesses and it renders him liable, so too here, the admission of a litigant should be similar to that of one hundred witnesses. This would mean that if the man and woman both admit to the betrothal, they should be liable to bear the consequences of this claim. Rav Kahana said to him: There is a difference between the two cases. There, with regard to one who admits that he owes money, he does not act to the detriment of another, whereas here, he acts to the detriment of another, as their confessions render them forbidden to each other鈥檚 relatives, which means that their claims affect others as well.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜专讘 讗讚讗 住讘讗 讘谞讬 讚专讘 诪专讬 讘专 讗讬住讜专 驻诇讬讙 谞讬讻住讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬讛讚专 诇讗 诪爪讬 讛讚专讬 讘讛讜 讜讗谞谉 诇讗 讛讚专讬

The Gemara relates: Mar Zutra and Rav Adda the Elder, the sons of Rav Mari bar Issur, divided their shared property between them. They came before Rav Ashi and said to him that they had the following dilemma. The Merciful One states: 鈥淎t the mouths of two witnesses, or at the mouths of three witnesses, shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15). Why do we say that two witnesses are required? So that if the parties involved wish to retract from their agreement and say that it never happened, they cannot retract from their agreement. And as we will not retract from our agreement, we do not require witnesses to establish our division of the property.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 诪拽讬讬诪讗 诪诇转讗 讗诇讗 讘住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗讬讘专讜 住讛讚讬 讗诇讗 诇砖拽专讬

Or perhaps the matter is established only through witnesses. In other words, perhaps the witnesses do not merely provide proof that the division occurred, but they are a constitutive factor in its establishment from a legal perspective. Rav Ashi said to them: Witnesses were created only for liars, and they are not needed to establish the matter. If no one denies the transaction, it remains in effect.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讜 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讻诇转 讞诇讘 讜讛诇讛 砖讜转拽 谞讗诪谉 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讜 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讻诇转 讞诇讘 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 驻讟讜专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讛讗 讗讬砖转讬拽 诪讛讬诪谉

搂 With regard to a related issue, Abaye says: If one witness says to someone: You ate forbidden fat, and that one, the subject of the testimony, remains silent and does not deny it, the witness is deemed credible and the person in question must bring a sin-offering for his sin. And the tanna of the mishna also taught (Karetot 11b): If one witness said to someone: You ate forbidden fat, and that person says: I did not eat it, he is exempt from bringing an offering. One can infer from this that the reason he is exempt is only because he said definitively: I did not eat, which indicates that if he was silent, the witness is deemed credible.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讜 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讟诪讗讜 讟讛专讜转讬讱 讜讛诇讛 砖讜转拽 谞讗诪谉 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞讟诪讗讜 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讟诪讗讜 驻讟讜专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讛讗 讗讬砖转讬拽 诪讛讬诪谉

And Abaye says that if one witness says to someone: Your ritually pure food was rendered impure, and that person remained silent, the witness is deemed credible. And the tanna of the mishna also taught (Karetot 12a): If one witness said to someone: Your ritually pure food was rendered impure, and that person says: It was not rendered impure, he is exempt. The reason he is exempt is only because he said definitively that his food was not rendered ritually impure, which indicates that if he was silent, the witness is deemed credible.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讜 注讚 讗讞讚

And Abaye further says that if one witness says to someone:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 65

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 65

讗诪爪注讬转 砖讘讻转 砖谞讬讛 转砖转专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛

with regard to one who said: I betrothed my elder daughter, the middle daughter of the younger second group should be permitted, as he would have called her by name rather than referring to her as: The elder one. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where there are only two daughters, an adult woman and a minor girl, but no middle daughter.

讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇讬转谞讬讬讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讗诪爪注讬转 砖讘讻转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讜讚讗讬 住驻讬拽讗 讜讗住讬专讗 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛

The Gemara adds: And so too, it is reasonable that this is the case, as, if it is so, that there is a middle daughter, let the mishna teach its halakha with a direct reference to her as well, as the uncertainty also applies to this daughter. In other words, the mishna should have stated: And I do not know if it was the middle of the younger group of daughters. The fact that the mishna does not refer to this daughter indicates that there are only two women in each group. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: But according to your reasoning, the middle one of the first group is definitely included in the uncertainty and is forbidden to the prospective husband, and yet does the mishna teach its halakha with a direct reference to her?

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 转谞讗 拽讟谞讛 讚讬讚讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讱 讚拽砖讬砖讗 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara questions this argument: How can these cases be compared? There it taught its halakha with a direct reference to a daughter who is younger than the middle daughter of the older group, and that daughter is mentioned for a prohibition, as the mishna states that the uncertainty applies even to the youngest of the older group; and if so, the same is true of this middle daughter, who is older than the youngest of the older group, i.e., it is evident that the same uncertainty applies to her, and therefore there is no reason to mention the middle daughter of the older group.

讛讻讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 谞讬转谞讬讬讛

Conversely, here, with regard to the younger group, if it is so that there is uncertainty with regard to the middle daughter and she is forbidden, the mishna should teach its halakha with a direct reference to her, as one might think she is excluded from the uncertainty because she is not the eldest. Consequently, the fact that the mishna omits all reference to the middle daughter from the second group proves that the second wife has only two daughters.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讛讗 驻住讞 讚讻讬 讻转 讗讞转 讚诪讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: But there is the case of Passover, which is comparable to one group of daughters, as all the days of the Festival are part of a single group, and yet Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei disagree with regard to it. This apparently contradicts Abaye鈥檚 opinion that everyone agrees in the case of a single group.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讘诇讬砖谞讗 讚注诇诪讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 注讚 驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 注讚 拽诪讬 驻讬住讞讗 讜诪专 住讘专 注讚 讚诪讬驻谞讬 驻讬住讞讗

Rava said to him: There they disagree with regard to the general usage of language. In other words, their dispute in that case does not concern the basic issue of whether or not one places himself in a position of uncertainty. Rather, they disagree over the way people speak. One Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that the phrase: Until before Passover, means: Until just before Passover, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that it means until Passover passes and ends.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 拽讚砖转讬讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 拽讚砖转谞讬 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 拽讚砖转谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 拽讚砖转讬讱 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she says: You did not betroth me, he is forbidden to her relatives, as his claim that he has betrothed her renders himself forbidden to her relatives. And she is permitted to his relatives, in accordance with her stance that she is not betrothed to him. If she says: You betrothed me, and he says: I did not betroth you, he is permitted to her relatives and she is forbidden to his relatives by the same reasoning.

拽讬讚砖转讬讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 拽讬讚砖转 讗诇讗 讘转讬 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 拽讟谞讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜

If a man says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she says: You betrothed only my daughter, he is forbidden to the relatives of the older woman, the mother, whom he claims to have betrothed, and the older woman is permitted to his relatives. He is permitted to the relatives of the younger woman, the daughter, as he maintains that he did not betroth her, and the younger woman is permitted to his relatives, since her mother鈥檚 statement is insufficient to render her forbidden.

拽讚砖转讬 讗转 讘转讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 拽讚砖转 讗诇讗 讗讜转讬 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 拽讟谞讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讗住讜专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讜

Similarly, if he says: I betrothed your daughter, and she, the mother, says: You betrothed only me, he is forbidden to the relatives of the younger woman, and the younger woman is permitted to his relatives; he is permitted to the relatives of the older woman, and the older woman is forbidden to his relatives.

讙诪壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 拽讚砖转讬讱 讜讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讘讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讘专讗 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 讜诪讬拽专讬 讗诪专

GEMARA: The mishna taught that with regard to one who says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she denies his claim, he is forbidden to her relatives while she remains permitted to his. The mishna then provides several examples illustrating the same principle. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the mishna to specify all these cases. The Gemara elaborates: As, had the mishna taught us the halakha only with regard to himself, i.e., the case where he claims to have betrothed the woman, one might have said that he is not deemed credible at all, because a man does not care if he happens to say that he betrothed a woman even if he did not do so, as he can betroth another woman.

讗讘诇 讗讬讛讬 讗讬诪讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽讬诐 诇讛 讘讚讬讘讜专讛 诇讗 讛讜转 讗诪专讛 讜诇讬转住专 讗讬讛讜 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

But in a case where she claims to have been betrothed by him, one might say that if her statement was not certain to her she would not have said it. Since her claim that he betrothed her renders her forbidden to everyone else, it is likely that it is true, and therefore one might think that he should also be forbidden to her relatives on the basis of this assumption. The mishna therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

拽讬讚砖转讬讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讜讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讘 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讬诪谞讜讛 诇讚讬讚讛 讜转讬转住专 讘专转讛 讘讚讬讘讜专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Likewise, with regard to one who says: I betrothed you, and she says: You betrothed only my daughter, in which case he is forbidden to her relatives but she is permitted to his, the Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? The principle has already been established. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this case too, as it might enter your mind to say: Since by Torah law, the Merciful One deems credible a father who claims to have betrothed his daughter to a particular person, perhaps the Sages deem a mother credible by rabbinic law, and therefore her daughter should be forbidden based on her statement. The mishna therefore teaches us that a mother is not believed with regard to her daughter.

拽讬讚砖转讬 讗转 讘转讱 讜讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讛讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讛讗

The Gemara continues this line of questioning. With regard to the case where a man says: I betrothed your daughter, and she replies: You betrothed only me, why do I need this as well? What novelty is taught in this case? The Gemara answers: Since the mishna taught this other case, of a man claiming he betrothed a woman and the woman replying that it was her daughter, it also taught this last case, so that it mentions all the permutations, despite the fact that this particular case provides no novelty.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讻讜驻讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讜诇讗 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed over how the court should proceed in practice with regard to the cases described in the mishna. Rav says: The court forces the man to give her a bill of divorce, and Shmuel says: The court requests that he give a bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: With regard to which case of the mishna is this referring? If we say it is referring to the first clause, where he says: I betrothed you, and she replies: You did not betroth me, no ruling of: The court forces, is relevant here, nor is the ruling: The court requests, relevant. Since she is permitted to marry even his relatives, she is certainly permitted to marry anyone else. Why, then, would it be necessary for him to give her a bill of divorce? Rather, the dispute applies to the latter clause of the mishna, where he denies her claim that he betrothed her. To allow her to marry somebody else, the court either forces or requests of him to give her a bill of divorce.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诇讞讬讬 讗诇讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚讗讬转住专 讘拽专讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion that the court requests that he give a bill of divorce, it is well. Since she has rendered herself forbidden to everyone, one can ask him to release her. But why should the court force him to issue a bill of divorce? Can鈥檛 he say: It is not satisfactory for me to be forbidden to her relatives? His giving her a bill of divorce is an admission that he betrothed her, which means that he may not marry her relatives.

讗诇讗 砖诪注转转讗 讗讛讚讚讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪诪谞讜 诇讬转谉 讙讟 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 谞转谉 讙讟 诪注爪诪讜 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

Rather, the Gemara offers a different explanation: These halakhot were stated together, as follows: Shmuel says that the court requests of him to give a bill of divorce. Rav says: If he gave a bill of divorce of his own accord, without being asked to do so but merely in response to her claim, the court forces him to give her payment for her marriage contract as well. By giving her a bill of divorce of his own volition, he has effectively admitted that he betrothed her, despite the fact that he has not said so explicitly. Consequently, he must also provide her with payment for her marriage contract.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讜驻讬谉 讜诪讘拽砖讬谉 转专转讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪诪谞讜 诇讬转谉 讙讟 讜讗诐 谞转谉 诪注爪诪讜 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

It was also stated: Rav A岣 bar Adda says that Rav says, and some say Rav A岣 bar Adda says that Rav Hamnuna says that Rav says: The court forces him and requests of him. The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this statement: How can these two statements be reconciled? Rather, it must be that this is what Rav A岣 bar Adda is saying: The court requests of him to give a bill of divorce, and if he gave a bill of divorce of his own accord the court forces him to give her payment for her marriage contract.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讜诇讗 讜专驻讬讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐

Rav Yehuda says: With regard to one who betroths another with, i.e., in the presence of, one witness, one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. The students raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda: If both the man and the woman concede that it was a betrothal, what is the halakha? Is the betrothal valid? Rav Yehuda did not provide a clear answer. He said: Yes and no, and the matter was uncertain to him. It was stated that amora鈥檌m discussed this point. Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect, and this is the halakha even if both parties concede that there was a betrothal.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 拽讚砖转讬讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 拽讚砖转谞讬 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from the mishna: With regard to one who says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she says: You did not betroth me, he is forbidden to her relatives and she is permitted to his relatives. Rava proceeds to analyze the exact circumstances of this case. If the case is one where there are witnesses, why is she permitted to his relatives? It is a full-fledged betrothal performed in the presence of witnesses. And if there are no witnesses at all, why is he forbidden to her relatives without any testimony to that effect? Rather, is it not referring to a case where there was one witness?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 拽讬讚砖转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where he said to her: I betrothed you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, i.e., there were two witnesses, but they went overseas and there is no way of clarifying what really occurred. Consequently, there are only the conflicting accounts of the man and woman, and therefore he is prohibited from marrying her relatives while she is permitted to marry his.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诇谞讛 注诪讜 讘驻讜谞讚拽讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from a mishna (Eduyyot 4:7): If one divorces his wife, and she subsequently lodged with him in an inn, Beit Shammai say: She does not require a second bill of divorce from him, and Beit Hillel say: She requires a second bill of divorce from him. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this case? If there are witnesses who saw them engage in sexual inter-course for the purpose of betrothal, what is the reason that Beit Shammai do not require a second bill of divorce? If there are no witnesses, what is the reason that Beit Hillel require a second bill of divorce? Rather, is it not referring to a case where there was one witness who saw them engage in intercourse for the purpose of betrothal?

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讚 讗讞讚 诪讛讬诪谉 诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉

Rav Na岣an responds: And according to your reasoning, that there was one witness, say the latter clause of that mishna: And Beit Hillel concede with regard to a woman who was divorced after betrothal that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, due to the fact that he is not accustomed to her. Since he had not previously been intimate with her, there is no concern that they engaged in intercourse, even though they lodged together at the inn. And if it enters your mind that one witness is deemed credible in this case, what difference is it to me whether it was after her betrothal, and what difference is it to me if it occurred after her marriage?

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讜诇讬讻讗 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讗

Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not referring to when there is one witness, and here we are dealing with a case where there are witnesses to their seclusion, but there are no witnesses to their engaging in intercourse. The dispute is based on the implications of this seclusion. Beit Shammai hold: One does not

讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讘谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛

say: These are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse. According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in intercourse. And Beit Hillel hold: We do say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse. Since it is assumed that they engaged in intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him. And Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai that certainly in the case of a woman divorced from betrothal, that we do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse, because he is not accustomed to her.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 专讘讛 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 诪讗谉 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 专讘讛 专讘 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 专讘讛 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 诪讗谉 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 专讘讛 专讘讬

Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect, and this is the halakha even if the man and woman both concede that there was a betrothal. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, the Great Court says that one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. The Gemara asks: Who is the Great Court? Rav. And there are those who say a different version of this discussion. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, the Great Court says that one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. Who is the Great Court? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讘讗讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖讛 注诪讛诐 讜讞讘讬诇讛 注诪讛诐 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讗砖转讬 讜讝讛 注讘讚讬 讜讝讜 讞讘讬诇转讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讗砖转讬 讜讝讛 注讘讚讬 讜讝讜 讞讘讬诇转讬 讜讗砖讛 讗讜诪专转 讗诇讜 砖谞讬 注讘讚讬 讜讞讘讬诇讛 砖诇讬 爪专讬讻讛 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讜讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谉 讛讞讘讬诇讛

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami raises an objection from the following baraita: There were two men who came from overseas and a woman was with them, and they had a bundle with them. This man says: This is my wife, and this other man is my slave, and this is my bundle. And this second man says: This is my wife, and this other man is my slave, and this is my bundle. And the woman says: These are my two slaves and this is my bundle. In this case she requires two bills of divorce, as with each of them there is uncertainty concerning whether she is married to him, and she collects payment of her marriage contract from the bundle. Even according to their claims that she is married to one of them, now that they have each divorced her she is at least entitled to payment of her marriage contract from the bundle.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 住讛讚讬 诇讛讗讬 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 住讛讚讬 诇讛讗讬 诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专讛 讗诇讜 砖谞讬 注讘讚讬 讜讞讘讬诇讛 砖诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚

Rav A岣dvoi鈥檚 objection is as follows: What are the circumstances of this case? If the baraita is referring to a case where this man has two witnesses supporting his claim and that man has two witnesses supporting his claim, can the woman say: These are my two slaves, and this is my bundle? After all, there are two witnesses that one of the men is her husband. Rather, is it not referring to a case where each of the men has only one witness? This proves that a betrothal performed in the presence of a single witness is effective, as she requires a bill of divorce from each of them.

讜转住讘专讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讘讛讻讞砖讛 诪讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 诇注诇诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖专讬

The Gemara rejects this opinion: And how can you understand it that way? In a situation involving one witness in the face of contradicting testimony, as in the case here, where another witness claims she is betrothed to the second man, is a single witness deemed credible at all? Rather, one must understand this case as follows: Everyone agrees that with regard to permitting her to marry all other people, she is permitted even without a bill of divorce.

讜讛讻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讻讚讬 诇讙讘讜转 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谉 讛讞讘讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诪砖转注讘讚讬 诇讻转讜讘讛

And here, this is what the baraita is saying: She requires two bills of divorce in order to collect payment of her marriage contract from the bundle. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Even movable property, not only land, is subject to a lien for payment of a marriage contract. Consequently, to collect from this bundle, which has three claimants, the woman must receive a bill of divorce from both men, thereby obligating them to give her payment of a marriage contract.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讚讜砖讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讚讬诇驻转 讚讘专 讚讘专 诪诪诪讜谉

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about the case of one who betroths another in the presence of one witness? Rav Kahana said: One need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. Rav Pappa said: One need be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: What is your opinion that leads you to claim that there is no concern that his betrothal has taken effect? It must be that you derive it by means of a verbal analogy from the word 鈥渕atter鈥 written with regard to forbidden sexual intercourse and the word matter written with regard to monetary matters. The Torah states concerning one who desires to divorce his wife: 鈥淏ecause he has found some unseemly matter in her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), a reference to adulterous intercourse, and with regard to monetary matters it states: 鈥淎t the mouths of two witnesses, or at the mouths of three witnesses, shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15).

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讻诪讗讛 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬 讗祝 讻讗谉 讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讻诪讗讛 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讛讻讗 拽讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬谞讬

Rav Ashi asks: But if so, just as there, with regard to monetary matters, the legal status of the admission of a litigant is similar to that of one hundred witnesses and it renders him liable, so too here, the admission of a litigant should be similar to that of one hundred witnesses. This would mean that if the man and woman both admit to the betrothal, they should be liable to bear the consequences of this claim. Rav Kahana said to him: There is a difference between the two cases. There, with regard to one who admits that he owes money, he does not act to the detriment of another, whereas here, he acts to the detriment of another, as their confessions render them forbidden to each other鈥檚 relatives, which means that their claims affect others as well.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜专讘 讗讚讗 住讘讗 讘谞讬 讚专讘 诪专讬 讘专 讗讬住讜专 驻诇讬讙 谞讬讻住讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬讛讚专 诇讗 诪爪讬 讛讚专讬 讘讛讜 讜讗谞谉 诇讗 讛讚专讬

The Gemara relates: Mar Zutra and Rav Adda the Elder, the sons of Rav Mari bar Issur, divided their shared property between them. They came before Rav Ashi and said to him that they had the following dilemma. The Merciful One states: 鈥淎t the mouths of two witnesses, or at the mouths of three witnesses, shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15). Why do we say that two witnesses are required? So that if the parties involved wish to retract from their agreement and say that it never happened, they cannot retract from their agreement. And as we will not retract from our agreement, we do not require witnesses to establish our division of the property.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 诪拽讬讬诪讗 诪诇转讗 讗诇讗 讘住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗讬讘专讜 住讛讚讬 讗诇讗 诇砖拽专讬

Or perhaps the matter is established only through witnesses. In other words, perhaps the witnesses do not merely provide proof that the division occurred, but they are a constitutive factor in its establishment from a legal perspective. Rav Ashi said to them: Witnesses were created only for liars, and they are not needed to establish the matter. If no one denies the transaction, it remains in effect.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讜 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讻诇转 讞诇讘 讜讛诇讛 砖讜转拽 谞讗诪谉 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讜 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讻诇转 讞诇讘 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 驻讟讜专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讛讗 讗讬砖转讬拽 诪讛讬诪谉

搂 With regard to a related issue, Abaye says: If one witness says to someone: You ate forbidden fat, and that one, the subject of the testimony, remains silent and does not deny it, the witness is deemed credible and the person in question must bring a sin-offering for his sin. And the tanna of the mishna also taught (Karetot 11b): If one witness said to someone: You ate forbidden fat, and that person says: I did not eat it, he is exempt from bringing an offering. One can infer from this that the reason he is exempt is only because he said definitively: I did not eat, which indicates that if he was silent, the witness is deemed credible.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讜 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讟诪讗讜 讟讛专讜转讬讱 讜讛诇讛 砖讜转拽 谞讗诪谉 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞讟诪讗讜 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讟诪讗讜 驻讟讜专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讛讗 讗讬砖转讬拽 诪讛讬诪谉

And Abaye says that if one witness says to someone: Your ritually pure food was rendered impure, and that person remained silent, the witness is deemed credible. And the tanna of the mishna also taught (Karetot 12a): If one witness said to someone: Your ritually pure food was rendered impure, and that person says: It was not rendered impure, he is exempt. The reason he is exempt is only because he said definitively that his food was not rendered ritually impure, which indicates that if he was silent, the witness is deemed credible.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讜 注讚 讗讞讚

And Abaye further says that if one witness says to someone:

Scroll To Top