Kiddushin 79

שניהם נותנים גט ואם רצו אחד נותן גט ואחד כונס

both men who might have betrothed her give her a bill of divorce in order to render her permitted to marry someone else. And if they wish and agree between them, one gives a bill of divorce and the other marries her.

וכן האשה שנתנה רשות לשלוחה לקדשה והלכה וקדשה את עצמה אם שלה קדמו קדושיה קידושין ואם של שלוחה קדמו קידושיו קידושין ואם אינן יודעין שניהם נותנים לה גט ואם רצו אחד נותן לה גט ואחד כונס

And similarly, with regard to a woman who authorized her agent to betroth her and she then went and betrothed herself to someone else, if her own betrothal preceded that of the agent, her betrothal is a valid betrothal, and if that of her agent preceded hers, the agent’s betrothal is a valid betrothal. And if they do not know whose betrothal came first, both men who may have betrothed her give her a bill of divorce. And if they wish, one may give a bill of divorce and the other marries her.

גמ׳ וצריכא דאי אשמעינן גבי דידיה משום דגברא קים ליה ביוחסין אבל איתתא דלא קים לה ביוחסין אימא לא ניהוו קידושיה קידושין

GEMARA: And it is necessary to state this halakha with regard to one who betroths his daughter as well as with regard to a woman who betroths herself. As had the mishna taught us this halakha only with regard to the father himself, one might say that it is because a man is expert with regard to lineage, and his decision to betroth his daughter on his own after having appointed an agent must have been due to the superior lineage of the man that he found willing to marry her. But with regard to a woman, who is not expert with regard to lineage, one might say her betrothal should not be considered a valid betrothal, as she still intends for her agent to be able to accept betrothal for her from a man with superior lineage.

ואי אשמעינן גבי דידה משום דאיתתא דייקא ומינסבא אבל איהו אימא לא איכפת ליה צריכא

And conversely, had the mishna taught us this halakha only with regard to the woman herself, one might say that it is because a woman is particular about whom she marries, i.e., she is careful when selecting a husband for herself. Therefore, she would have chosen the partner she deems most suitable and would not want the agent to act on her behalf after she had found someone on her own. But with regard to the father, one might say that he does not care to the same extent, and he may authorize the agent to act in any case. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to include both cases.

איתמר קידשה אביה בדרך וקידשה עצמה בעיר והרי היא בוגרת רב אמר הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו ושמואל אמר חיישינן לקידושי שניהם

§ It was stated that the amora’im discussed the following question: If her father betrothed her on the way, when he was traveling, and in the meantime she betrothed herself in the city, and she is now a grown woman, Rav said: She is a grown woman at present, and her father cannot currently betroth her. Therefore, even if he did betroth her at some point, his betrothal is assumed not to have taken effect. And Shmuel said: We are concerned with regard to the betrothal of both of them.

אימת אילימא בתוך ששה בהא נימא רב הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו השתא הוא דבגרה אלא לאחר ששה בהא נימא שמואל חיישינן לקידושי שניהם והא אמר שמואל אין בין נערות לבגרות אלא ששה חדשים בלבד

The Gemara clarifies the case: When did the father’s betrothal occur? If we say it occurred during the six months when the daughter was no longer a minor and had the status of a young woman, in that case would Rav say: She is a grown woman at present? It is reasonable to say that it is only now that she has reached her majority, i.e., assumed the status of a grown woman, and in that case her father’s betrothal should take effect, since a father can betroth his daughter when she is a young woman. Rav would not rule that the father’s betrothal is disregarded. Rather, perhaps it occurred after the six months had elapsed since she became a young woman. In that case would Shmuel say: We are concerned with regard to the betrothal of both of them? But doesn’t Shmuel say: The difference between the status of a young woman and the status of a grown woman is six months alone, after which the girl has the status of a grown woman, which means her father can no longer betroth her?

לא צריכא דקדיש בההוא יומא דמשלים ששה רב אמר הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו מדהשתא בוגרת בצפרא נמי בוגרת ושמואל אמר השתא הוא דאייתי סימנים

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he betrothed her on the day that these six months were completed. Rav said: She is a grown woman at present. There is therefore a presumption that since she is now a grown woman, she was also a grown woman when her father betrothed her in the morning. And Shmuel said: Perhaps it is only now that her signs indicating puberty came, but she might have still been a young woman when her father betrothed her.

ושמואל מאי שנא ממקוה דתנן מקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר כל טהרות שנעשו על גביו למפרע בין ברשות היחיד בין ברשות הרבים טמאות

The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, in what way is this case different from the case of a ritual bath? As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 2:2): With regard to a ritual bath that was known to have contained the requisite forty se’a of water, which was then measured and found deficient in its quantity of water, what is the halakha? All pure items whose purification had been performed in it, i.e., any impure items that had been purified through immersion in this ritual bath, retroactive to when the ritual bath was last measured, whether this ritual bath is found in the private domain or in the public domain, are impure. This indicates that the current situation, i.e., the deficient ritual bath, is presumed to extend back until when it was known with certainty to have contained the requisite amount of water. In this case too, the woman should be considered a grown woman at the time of the first betrothal, and the second betrothal should not take effect.

שאני התם דאיכא למימר העמד טמא על חזקתו ואימר לא טבל

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a ritual bath, it is different, since it can be said: Maintain an impure item in its presumptive status and say that it was not properly immersed. There, the presumptive status of the item being ritually impure is supported by the current state of the ritual bath, which is now deficient.

אדרבה העמד מקוה על חזקתו ואימר לא חסר הרי חסר לפניך הכא נמי הרי בוגרת לפניך השתא הוא דבגרה התם נמי השתא הוא דחסר

The Gemara continues to compare the two cases: On the contrary, it could be said: Maintain the ritual bath in its presumptive status, that it was known to have previously contained the requisite forty se’a, and say that it was not deficient at the time of the immersion and that the items should be considered ritually pure. The Gemara answers: There is a deficient ritual bath at present, which counteracts the presumptive status that it contained the requisite forty se’a. The Gemara asks: Here too, there is a grown woman before you, which should counteract the fact that she was previously a young woman. The Gemara answers: In this case, it is only now that she has reached her majority. The Gemara asks: There too, in the case of a ritual bath, one can also say it is only now that it has become deficient. Perhaps it contained the requisite forty se’a shortly beforehand.

התם תרתי לריעותא הכא חדא לריעותא

The Gemara responds: There, in the case of the ritual bath, there are two reasons to weaken the possibility that the items are ritually pure: First, there is a deficient ritual bath at present; second, the item has a presumptive status of impurity. Here, by contrast, there is only one reason to weaken the possibility that she was a young woman at the time of the betrothal, i.e., the fact that she is now a grown woman. Shmuel therefore maintains that her earlier status of young woman is not nullified, and both betrothals must be taken into account.

ושמואל מאי שנא מחבית דתניא היה בודק את החבית להפריש עליה תרומה והולך ואחר כך נמצאת חומץ כל שלשה ימים ודאי מיכן ואילך ספק

The Gemara poses another question: And according to Shmuel, in what way is this case different from the case of a barrel? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:8): If one would inspect the contents of a barrel to see if it still contained enough wine to continually mentally separate teruma from it to exempt other untithed wine he had, until all the wine in that barrel would be teruma and would be given to a priest, and afterward the contents of the barrel were found to be vinegar, which cannot be set aside as teruma for untithed wine, then all three days after he had last inspected it is definitely viewed as having been wine, and any untithed wine for which teruma was separated during those days is tithed. From then onward, more than three days after the previous inspection, it is uncertain as to whether it had already turned to vinegar, and any untithed wine for which teruma was separated during those days is not tithed.

ורמינן חבית אמקוה מאי שנא דהכא ודאי ומאי שנא דהכא ספק

Before stating the difficulty with Shmuel’s opinion, the Gemara first clarifies the baraita. And we raised a contradiction between the halakha of the barrel and that of the ritual bath: What is different in that here, with regard to the ritual bath, the halakha is that the items are definitely impure, and what is different in that there, with regard to the barrel, it is only uncertain whether the produce remains untithed? In both cases the situation at present, the ritual bath being deficient and the contents of the barrel having turned to vinegar, should lead to a definite conclusion.

ואמר רב חנינא מסוריא מאן תנא חבית רבי שמעון היא דגבי מקוה נמי ספיקא משוי

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita: And Rav Ḥanina from Syria says: Who is the tanna that taught the halakha of the barrel? It is Rabbi Shimon, who with regard to a ritual bath also considers it as a matter of uncertainty rather than as definitively impure. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the baraita and the mishna.

דתניא כל טהרות שנעשו על גביו למפרע בין ברשות היחיד בין ברשות הרבים טמאות ורבי שמעון אומר ברשות הרבים טהורות ברשות היחיד תולין

As it is taught in a baraita: All pure items whose purification had been performed in it, i.e., any impure items that had been purified through immersion in the ritual bath that was found to be deficient, retroactive to when the ritual bath was last measured, whether this ritual bath is found in the private domain or in the public domain, are impure. And Rabbi Shimon says they are impure due to the uncertainty, and therefore, if the ritual bath was located in the public domain, they are pure, in accordance with the principle that uncertain cases of impurity in the public domain are deemed pure. But if the ritual bath was located in the private domain, the decision is suspended, i.e., if the impure items came into contact with teruma, one may not partake of the teruma due to the uncertainty, but it is also not burned as though it were definitely impure.

אבל לרבנן טבל למפרע שאני התם דאיכא למימר העמד טבל על חזקתו ואימר לא ניתקן

The Gemara returns to complete the difficulty with Shmuel’s opinion: But according to the Rabbis, who hold that in the case of the ritual bath the items are definitely impure, with regard to the wine that had been exempted from teruma by means of separating teruma from the contents of the barrel, that wine will be untithed produce retroactively, since they hold that the current status extends to the past. This is unlike the ruling of Shmuel, who ruled that in the case of the woman who was betrothed to two men it is uncertain to whom she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the barrel, it is different, as it can be said: Maintain the untithed produce in its presumptive status, as when it first grew it was definitely untithed, and say it was not fixed, i.e., exempted.

אדרבה העמד יין על חזקתו ואימר לא החמיץ הרי החמיץ לפניך הכא נמי הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו השתא הוא דבגרה הכא נמי השתא הוא דאחמיץ

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, why not maintain the wine in its presumptive status, and say it had not turned to vinegar? The Gemara rejects this: That is impossible, as it is turned to vinegar at present. The Gemara replies: In the case of the betrothal, here too, she is a grown woman at present; what is the difference? The Gemara rejects this claim: With regard to the woman, it is possible that only now has she reached her majority. The Gemara challenges: Here too, it could be that it is only now that it has turned to vinegar, but not earlier.

התם תרתי לריעותא הכא חדא לריעותא הוא דאיכא

The Gemara explains: There, in the case of the barrel, there are two reasons to weaken the possibility that the wine is tithed: First, it is vinegar at present; second, the wine has a presumptive status of being untithed. Here, by contrast, there is only one reason to weaken the possibility that she was a young woman at the time of the betrothal, i.e., the fact that she is now a grown woman. Shmuel therefore maintains that her earlier status of a young woman is not nullified, and both betrothals must be taken into account.

נימא כתנאי

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im:

מי מוציא מיד מי

The halakha is that a moribund person who transfers all of his property to others without leaving anything for himself can retract his bequest upon regaining his health. This is due to the assumption that one would give away all his possessions only if he believes he is going to die, and the bequest was therefore made in error. By contrast, if a healthy person gave all his property to others, he cannot later retract his bequest. The tanna’im discuss the case of one who gave away all his property and later, seeking to retrieve his property, claims that he was moribund at the time, while the recipients of the bequest maintain that he was healthy. Who is able to remove the property from the possession of whom?

הוא מוציא מידם בלא ראיה והן אין מוציאים מידו בלא ראיה דברי רבי יעקב רבי נתן אומר אם בריא הוא עליו להביא ראיה שהיה שכיב מרע ואם שכיב מרע הוא עליהם להביא ראיה שבריא היה

He is able to remove his property held by others from their possession without needing to bring proof that he was moribund at the time, and they may not remove the property from his possession, if he still is in possession of the property, without proof that he was healthy. This is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov. Rabbi Natan says: If he is currently healthy, the obligation is upon him to bring proof that he was on his deathbed at the time of the bequest, and if he is now on his deathbed, the obligation is upon them to bring proof that he was healthy at the time of the bequest.

נימא רב דאמר כרבי נתן ושמואל דאמר כרבי יעקב אמר לך רב אנא דאמרי אפילו כרבי יעקב עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יעקב התם דאיכא למימר העמד ממון על חזקתו אבל הכא מי נימא העמד גוף על חזקתו

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that one’s current status is paramount, and Shmuel spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who holds that the question of whether he was moribund remains a matter of uncertainty, and they may not claim the property from him even if he is now healthy. The Gemara rejects this: Rav could have said to you: I spoke even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, as Rabbi Ya’akov states his opinion only there, because it can be said that the principle of: Leave the property in its previous status, applies, so the property should remain where it is. But here, with regard to the question of when a young woman became a grown woman, shall we say: Establish the body according to its previous status? It is obvious that her body was due to mature.

ושמואל אמר אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבי נתן עד כאן לא קאמר רבי נתן התם דכולי עלמא בחזקת בריאים קיימי מאן דקא מפיק נפשיה מחזקה הוי עליה לאיתויי ראיה אבל הכא מי קא מפקא נפשה מחזקה דקמיה

And Shmuel could have said: I spoke even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, since Rabbi Natan states his opinion that the current state is paramount only there, as everyone has a presumptive status of being healthy. Consequently, if a person removes himself from this presumption by claiming he was moribund, the obligation falls upon him to bring proof. But here, does she remove herself from a presumption that was present? There is no presumption that she was a grown woman in the morning.

נימא כהני תנאי קידשה אביה בדרך וקידשה עצמה בעיר והרי היא בוגרת תנא חדא הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו ותניא אידך חיישינן לקידושי שניהם מאי לאו חד כרב וחד כשמואל

The Gemara further suggests: Let us say that this dispute between Rav and Shmuel is parallel to a dispute between these tanna’im: With regard to a case where her father betrothed her on the way, when he was traveling, and in the meantime she betrothed herself in the city, and she is now a grown woman, one baraita taught: She is a grown woman at present, and her father cannot currently betroth her; therefore, his betrothal does not take effect. And it is taught in another baraita: We are concerned with regard to the betrothal of both of them. What, is it not the case that one baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and one baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel?

לא אידי ואידי כשמואל כאן במכחשתו כאן בשאין מכחשתו

The Gemara rejects this: No; it is possible that both this and that are in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. Here, in this baraita, it is referring to a case where she denies his right to betroth her, as she claims that she was a grown woman before his betrothal. There, it is referring to a situation where she does not deny his right to betroth her, and therefore it is uncertain which betrothal takes effect.

ונימא מדמתניתא לא פליגי אמוראי נמי לא פליגי ותסברא הא רב יוסף בריה דרב מנשיא מדוויל עבד עובדא כוותיה דרב ואיקפיד שמואל ואמר כולי עלמא כיילי ליה בקבא זוטא והאי מדרבנן כיילי ליה בקבא רבה ואי סלקא דעתך לא פליגי אמאי קא מקפיד

The Gemara asks: If so, let us also say that since the baraitot do not disagree, the opinions of the amora’im, Rav and Shmuel, do not disagree either. One is referring to a case where she denies her father’s right to betroth her, while the other is referring to a case where she does not. The Gemara rejects this: And how can you understand it that way? But Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya of Dabil, performed an action in this case in accordance with the opinion of Rav and did not take the father’s betrothal into account, and Shmuel took offense at this and said sarcastically: Is wisdom measured out to everyone in a small measure, and measured out to this member of the Sages in a large measure? He was angered that Rav Yosef had the audacity to rule against him in this case. Now, if it enters your mind that they did not disagree at all, why did Shmuel take offense?

דילמא כי עבד עובדא במכחשתו

Perhaps when Rav Yosef performed an action, he did so in an instance where she denied her father’s right to betroth her, in which case even Shmuel would agree that the father’s betrothal does not take effect. Rather, it must be that Rav and Shmuel did disagree, and Rav Yosef must have ruled in the case of a woman who did not deny her father’s right to betroth her, which explains why Shmuel took exception to his ruling.

אמר ליה מר זוטרא לרב אשי הכי אמר אמימר הילכתא כוותיה דשמואל ורב אשי אמר הילכתא כוותיה דרב והילכתא כוותיה דרב

Mar Zutra said to Rav Ashi: This is what Ameimar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. And Rav Ashi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

מתני׳ מי שיצא הוא ואשתו למדינת הים ובא הוא ואשתו ובניו ואמר אשה שיצאת עמי למדינת הים הרי היא זו ואלו בניה אין צריך להביא ראיה לא על האשה ולא על הבנים מתה ואלו בניה מביא ראיה על הבנים ואינו מביא ראיה על האשה

MISHNA: With regard to one who went overseas with his wife, and returned with his wife and children, and said: This is the woman who went overseas with me and these are her children, he is not required to bring proof with regard to the lineage of the woman, since her lineage was already investigated at the time of their marriage, nor with regard to the lineage of the children. If he returned without the woman and said: My wife died and these are her children, he must bring proof that the children were born to his wife, but he does not need to bring proof with regard to the lineage of the woman.

אשה נשאתי במדינת הים הרי היא זו ואלו בניה מביא ראיה על האשה ואין צריך להביא ראיה על הבנים מתה ואלו בניה צריך להביא ראיה על האשה ועל הבנים

If he left when he was unmarried and said upon his return: I married a woman overseas, and this is she, and these are her children, he must bring proof with regard to the lineage of the woman, but he is not required to bring proof with regard to the lineage of the children. If he said: I married a woman overseas and she died, and these are her children, he is required to bring proof with regard to both the lineage of the woman and the children.

גמ׳ אמר רבה בר רב הונא וכולן בכרוכים אחריה

GEMARA: Rabba bar Rav Huna says: And all of the statements that he is not required to bring proof with regard to the lineage of the children are said in a case where they cling to her and treat the woman like their mother.

תנו רבנן אשה נשאתי במדינת הים מביא ראיה על האשה ואין צריך להביא ראיה על הבנים ומביא ראיה על הגדולים ואין צריך להביא ראיה על הקטנים במה דברים אמורים באשה אחת אבל בשתי נשים מביא ראיה על האשה ועל הבנים על הגדולים ועל הקטנים

The Sages taught that if a man says: I married a woman overseas, he must bring proof with regard to the lineage of the woman, but he is not required to bring proof with regard to the lineage of the children. And he must bring proof with regard to the lineage of the adult children, but he is not required to bring proof with regard to the lineage of the minor children. Since their attachment to their mother is apparent, it can be assumed they are her offspring. In what case is this statement said? It is in the case of one who said he married one woman, but when it is the case of one who said he married two women overseas, he must bring proof with regard to the lineage of both the woman and the children, with regard to the adult ones and with regard to the minor ones. Even if they cling to the woman whose lineage has been found to be unflawed, they might be the children of the other wife and are merely being raised by this one.

אמר ריש לקיש

Reish Lakish said: