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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 20, 2016 | 讬壮 讘讗讚专 讘壮 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 9

A woman asks a man for something and he says: “If I give it to you will you marry me?” 聽If she accepts it from him is she married? 聽Does it depend on what her response is? 聽How do you do kiddushin with a document? 聽In what ways is it similar to a document of sale and in what ways to a divorce document? From where does Rabbi Yochanan derive kiddushin聽via sexual relations? 聽Why doesn’t he derive it from the source Rebbi used (from the verse about marriage in the Torah)?

讞讜诪专讬 驻转讻讬讬转讗 讗转讗讬 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讞讚 砖讜讻讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讬讱 诪讬拽讚砖转 诇讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讘讛 诪讬讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讻诇 讛讘讛 诪讬讛讘讛 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

beads [岣mrei]of glass [petakhyata]. A certain woman came and said to him: Give me one string. He said to her: If I give you this string will you be betrothed to me with it? She said to him: Give, give. Rav 岣ma said: Any use of the expression: Give, give, is nothing. Although she said: Give, give, she did not agree to the condition, as she was mocking him and had no intention of actually becoming betrothed.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 砖转讬 讞诪专讗 讘讞谞讜转讗 讗转讗讬 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讞讚 讻住讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讱 诪讬拽讚砖转 诇讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗砖拽讜讬讬 讗砖拽讬讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讻诇 讗砖拽讜讬讬 讗砖拽讬讬谉 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who was drinking wine in a store. A woman came in and said to him: Give me one cup of wine. He said to her: If I give you a cup of wine will you be betrothed to me with it? She said to him: Give to drink, give it to me to drink. Rav 岣ma said that any use of the expression: Give to drink, give it to me to drink, is nothing, i.e., she certainly did not intend to accept the condition and she is not betrothed.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 砖讚讬 转诪专讬 诪讚拽诇讗 讗转讗讬 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 砖讚讬 诇讬 转专转讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 砖讚讬谞讗 诇讬讱 诪讬拽讚砖转 诇讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 砖讚讬 诪讬砖讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讻诇 砖讚讬 诪讬砖讚讗 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara further relates: There was a certain man who was picking dates from a date tree. A certain woman came and said to him: Throw me two. He said to her: If I throw two dates to you will you be betrothed to me with them? She said to him: Throw, throw. Rav Zevid said: Any use of the expression: Throw, throw, is nothing, and she is not betrothed.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讘 讗砖拽讬 讜砖讚讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘 住诪讗 讘专 专拽转讗 讗诪专 转讙讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If she said: Give, or: Give to drink, or: Throw, without the additional emphasis of the repetition, what is the halakha? Does this straightforward statement indicate that she actually meant him to give it to her in accordance with his stated condition, or does she not agree to betrothal even here? Ravina said: She is betrothed. Rav Sama bar Rakta said in the form of an oath: By the king鈥檚 crown! She is not betrothed. The Gemara states: And the halakha is that she is not betrothed.

讜讛诇讻转讗 砖讬专讗讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 砖讜诪讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara issues further rulings concerning the previous cases. And the halakha is: With regard to silk garments that are worth more than one peruta, appraisal is not necessary before a woman can be betrothed with them. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, that if a man promised a woman one hundred dinars as betrothal money and gave her only a dinar, she is betrothed. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who said that Rav Na岣an said that if he promised one hundred dinars and gave her only collateral, this is not a valid betrothal.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖讟专 讻讬爪讚 讻转讘 诇讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讘转讱 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讘转讱 诪讗讜专住转 诇讬 讘转讱 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转

The Sages taught: How is betrothal performed with a document? If he wrote the following for a young woman鈥檚 father on paper or earthenware, despite the fact that the paper or earthenware is not worth one peruta: Your daughter is betrothed [mekuddeshet] to me, or: Your daughter is betrothed [me鈥檕reset] to me, or: Your daughter is to me as a wife, then she is betrothed. There is no requirement for the paper or earthenware to be worth one peruta, as she is not betrothed through the value of the paper or earthenware.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 诇砖讟专 讝讘讬谞讬 讛转诐 诪讜讻专 讻讜转讘 诇讜 砖讚讬 诪讻讜专讛 诇讱 讛讻讗 讘注诇 讻讜转讘 讘转讱 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬

Rabbi Zeira bar Memel objects to this description of the writing of the document: But this document is not comparable to a bill of sale. There, in the case of a bill of sale, the seller is the one who writes to the buyer: My field is sold to you. Here, the husband, who is akin to a buyer, is the one who writes: Your daughter is betrothed to me.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛转诐 诪注谞讬讬谞讗 讚拽专讗 讜讛讻讗 诪注谞讬讬谞讗 讚拽专讗 讛转诐 讻转讬讘 讜诪讻专 诪讗讞讝转讜 讘诪讜讻专 转诇讛 专讞诪谞讗 讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬拽讞 讘讘注诇 转诇讛 专讞诪谞讗

Rava said: There, in the case of a sale, the formulation of the document is taken from the context of the verse, and here, in the case of betrothal, the formulation of the document is likewise taken from the context of the verse. Rava elaborates: There, with regard to a sale, it is written: 鈥淎nd sells of his ancestral land鈥 (Leviticus 25:25), which indicates that the Merciful One renders the transaction dependent on the seller. Here, it is written: 鈥淚f a man takes a woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:13), meaning that the Merciful One renders the betrothal dependent on the husband.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 砖讚讜转 讘讻住祝 讬拽谞讜 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讬拽谞讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽专讬转 讘讬讛 讬拽谞讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讻专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讻讬 讬拽讞 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 讘转讬 谞转转讬 诇讗讬砖 讛讝讛

The Gemara asks: There, in the case of a sale, it is also written: 鈥淢en shall buy [yiknu] fields for money鈥 (Jeremiah 32:44), which indicates that the matter depends upon the buyer. The Gemara answers: Read into the verse: Shall sell [yikkanu]. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that you read it as yikkanu; because it is written in the verse in Leviticus: 鈥淎nd sells,鈥 and there is a preference to have the verse from the Prophets accord with that of the Torah? So too, instead of: 鈥淚f a man takes [ki yika岣]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:13), read into the verse: When he is given [ki yakia岣], as it is written: 鈥淚 gave my daughter to this man鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:16), so that the verses will accord with each other.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住诪讻讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗拽专讗讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讗拽讞 讗转 住驻专 讛诪拽谞讛

Rather, Rava said: There is no proof from the verses for these rulings, as they are a halakha received through tradition, and the Sages based them on the verses. And if you wish, say: There too, in the case in Jeremiah, it is written with regard to the buyer: 鈥淎nd I took the deed of purchase鈥 (Jeremiah 32:11), thereby indicating that it is the seller who writes the document.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻转讘 诇讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讘转讱 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讘转讱 诪讗讜专住转 诇讬 讘转讱 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讘讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讘讬讛 讘讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讚注转讜 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讘讙专讛

And Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: If he wrote the following for him on paper or earthenware, despite the fact that the paper or earthenware is not worth one peruta: Your daughter is betrothed [mekuddeshet] to me, or: Your daughter is betrothed [me鈥檕reset] to me, or: Your daughter is to me as a wife, whether he gave it to her father or whether he gave it directly to her, she is betrothed with the consent of her father. And this is the halakha provided that she has not yet reached her majority, before which her father alone has the authority to betroth her.

讻转讘 诇讛 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讛专讬 讗转 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讛专讬 讗转 诪讗讜专住转 诇讬 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讘讬讛 讘讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讛 诪讚注转讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讘讙专讛

If he wrote for her on paper or earthenware, despite the fact that the paper or earthenware is not worth one peruta: You are hereby betrothed [mekuddeshet] to me, or: You are hereby to me as a wife, or: You are hereby betrothed [me鈥檕reset] to me, then she is betrothed whether he gave it to her father or to her, as long as this was with her consent. And this is the halakha provided that she has reached her majority and is under her own authority.

讘注讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖讟专 讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讻转讘讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 诪讛讜 讛讜讬讜转 诇讬爪讬讗讜转 诪拽砖讬谞谉 诪讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raises a dilemma: With regard to a document of betrothal that was written not for her sake, i.e., not for this particular woman, what is the halakha? Do we juxtapose the halakhot of the modes of becoming betrothed to the halakhot of the modes of leaving a marriage, i.e., divorce? If so, one should say: Just as

讬爪讬讗讛 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛 讗祝 讛讜讬讬讛 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讬讜转 诇讛讚讚讬 诪拽砖讬谞谉 诪讛 讛讜讬讬讛 讚讻住祝 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛 讗祝 讛讜讬讬讛 讚砖讟专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛

we require that the document of leaving, i.e., a bill of divorce, must be written specifically for her sake, so too, we require that the document of becoming betrothed be written for her sake. Or perhaps we juxtapose the different modes of becoming betrothed to each other and say: Just as we do not require that becoming betrothed with money must be carried out with coins minted for her sake, so too, we do not require that becoming betrothed with a document must be with a document written for her sake.

讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讛讜讬讬讛 诇讬爪讬讗讛 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讬转讛

After he raised the dilemma, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish then resolved it. We juxtapose becoming betrothed to leaving a marriage, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2). This shows that the halakhot of a betrothal document are derived from those of a bill of divorce, and therefore a document of betrothal must also be written for her sake.

讗讬转诪专 讻转讘讜 诇砖诪讛 讜砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛 专讘讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪拽讬砖 讛讜讬讬讛 诇讬爪讬讗讛 诪讛 讬爪讬讗讛 诇砖诪讛 讜砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛 讗祝 讛讜讬讬讛 谞诪讬 诇砖诪讛 讜砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the following issue: If a man wrote a document of betrothal for her sake but without her consent, i.e., she did not know at the time that they were writing it but accepted it afterward, Rava and Ravina say: She is betrothed. Rav Pappa and Rav Sherevya say: She is not betrothed. Rav Pappa said: I will say their reason and I will say my reason. I will state their reason, as it is written: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes,鈥 by which the verse juxtaposes becoming betrothed to leaving a marriage. Just as a bill of divorce, written for leaving a marriage must be written for her own sake but can be written without her consent, so too, a document written for becoming betrothed must be written for her own sake and can even be without her consent.

讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪拽讬砖 讛讜讬讬讛 诇讬爪讬讗讛 诪讛 讬爪讬讗讛 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 诪拽谞讛 讗祝 讛讜讬讬讛 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 诪拽谞讛

And I will say my reason: The verse says: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes.鈥 The verse juxtaposes becoming betrothed to leaving a marriage. Just as with regard to a bill of divorce, written for leaving a marriage, we require the consent of the one transferring ownership, i.e., the man, as he divorces and transfers authority of the woman to herself, so too, with regard to a document written for becoming betrothed, we require the consent of the one transferring ownership, which in this case is the woman, who must agree to the marriage.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专讬 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讟专讬 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪诪砖 诇讗 砖讟专讬 驻住讬拽转讗 讜讻讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Bava Batra 167b) against the opinion that she is betrothed if the document was written without her consent. One writes documents of betrothal and marriage only with the consent of both the man and woman. What, is the mishna not referring to actual documents of betrothal and marriage, which indicates that the document must be written with the woman鈥檚 consent? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, this is referring to documents of stipulation, which contain the details of the dowry. And this statement is in accordance with that which Rav Giddel says that Rav says.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讻诪讛 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讘谞讱 讻讱 讜讻讱 诇讘转讱 讻讱 讜讻讱 注诪讚讜 讜拽讚砖讜 拽谞讜 讛谉 讛谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛谞拽谞讬诐 讘讗诪讬专讛

As Rav Giddel says that Rav says: If the father of one member of the couple says to the father of the other: How much are you giving to your son? And he answers: Such and such, and adds: How much are you giving to your daughter? And the other responds: Such and such, then if they, the couple, subsequently arose and became betrothed, they acquire everything that was promised. These are the matters that are acquired through speech, and they do not require an act of acquisition. The documents of betrothal mentioned here that require the woman鈥檚 consent are those which contain this type of monetary obligation, not actual documents of betrothal.

讜讘讘讬讗讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘注诇转 讘注诇 诪诇诪讚 砖谞注砖讛 诇讛 讘注诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讘注讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻注讜专讛 讝讜 砖砖谞讛 专讘讬 讜讘注诇讛 诪诇诪讚 砖谞拽谞讬转 讘讘讬讗讛

搂 The mishna teaches that a woman can be betrothed through sexual intercourse. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the verse states: 鈥淚f a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba鈥檃l]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:22). This teaches that he becomes her husband [ba鈥檃l] by means of sexual intercourse [be鈥檌la]. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu, and some say it was Reish Lakish who said this to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Is this other proof, taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, unacceptable: 鈥淲hen a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1)? This verse teaches that she can be acquired through intercourse.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚诪拽讚砖 讜讛讚专 讘注讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers that the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is insufficient proof that a woman can be betrothed via intercourse, as, if this halakha were derived only from there, I would say that she is not considered his wife unless he first betroths her through money, indicated by the phrase 鈥渢akes a woman,鈥 and then engages in intercourse with her. This is the only valid mode of betrothal, and intercourse alone is not enough. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁 married woman [beulat ba鈥檃l]鈥 and teaches us that intercourse by itself is a valid means of betrothal.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诐 讻谉 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

Rabbi Abba bar Memel objects to this: The above suggestion, that both money and sexual intercourse are required for betrothal, cannot be the correct interpretation of the verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her.鈥 This is because, if it is so, that a woman can be acquired only through both betrothal money and intercourse, the case of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, concerning which the Merciful One states in the Torah that he is punished by stoning (see Deuteronomy 22:23鈥24), how can you find a case where he is liable to be punished in this manner?

讗讬 讚讗拽讚讬砖 讜讛讚专 讘注讬诇 讘注讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讗讬 讚讗拽讚讬砖 讜诇讗 讘注讬诇 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗专讜住 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛

Rabbi Abba bar Memel elaborates: If this is referring to a case where he betrothed her with money and then engaged in sexual intercourse with her, she is a non-virgin, and the punishment of stoning applies only to one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young virgin. If it is referring to a case where he betrothed her with money and did not engage in intercourse with her, this is nothing, as the betrothal has not been completed. The Rabbis said before Abaye: You find it in a case where he betrothed her with money and then the betrothed man engaged in intercourse with her in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse. Despite the fact that she is still a virgin, the betrothal has taken effect by means of this type of sexual intercourse.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讘讗讞专 讗讘诇 讘注诇 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 注砖讗讛 讘注讜诇讛

Abaye said to those Sages: The verse cannot be explained in that manner, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to another man, i.e., whether a woman is considered to be a virgin after engaging in anal intercourse with another man. But with regard to her husband, everyone agrees that if he engages in intercourse in an atypical manner with her he has rendered her a non-virgin. If so, she is no longer considered a virgin with regard to the halakha of a betrothed young woman.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讗讜 注诇讬讛 注砖专讛 讗谞砖讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讻讜诇谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讻讜诇谉 讘讞谞拽

The Gemara clarifies: What is the dispute to which Abaye refers? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 10:4): If ten men engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and she is still a virgin, as they engaged in anal intercourse with her, they are all punished by stoning. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that the first one is punished by stoning, as he engaged in intercourse with a virgin young woman, but all the others are punished by strangulation. Once the first man engages in intercourse with her she is no longer considered a virgin, even if he engaged in anal intercourse with her.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚砖讛 讘砖讟专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙讜诪专 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讙讜诪专 讜诪讻谞讬住

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said a different answer to Rabbi Abba bar Memel鈥檚 question: You find a situation where a man who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman is punished by stoning in a case where he betrothed her with a document. Everyone agrees that since a document, i.e., a bill of divorce, completely removes a woman from her husband, without the need for an additional act, it also completely brings her into the state of betrothal. If a young woman is betrothed by means of a document, she can be a betrothed young woman while remaining a virgin.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讘注诇讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讝讜 谞拽谞讬转 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘讘讬讗讛

The Gemara returns to the different derivations of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yo岣nan. And Rabbi Yo岣nan, who maintains that the mode of betrothal through intercourse is derived from the verse: 鈥淚f a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba鈥檃l]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:22), what does he do with this verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1)? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for a different halakha, as he maintains that it teaches that this woman can be acquired through intercourse, but a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired through intercourse.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讘诪讛 讜诪讛 讬讘诪讛 砖讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬转 讘讻住祝 谞拽谞讬转 讘讘讬讗讛 讝讜 砖谞拽谞讬转 讘讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞拽谞讬转 讘讘讬讗讛

As it might enter your mind to say: Let the halakha of a Hebrew maidservant be derived through an a fortiori inference from the halakha of a yevama: Just as a yevama, who cannot be acquired through money at all, nevertheless can be acquired through intercourse, which indicates that the ability of an act of sexual intercourse to effect acquisition is greater than that of money, is it not logical that this Hebrew maidservant, who can be acquired through money, can also be acquired through intercourse?

诪讛 诇讬讘诪讛 砖讻谉 讝拽讜拽讛 讜注讜诪讚转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讘 讗诐 讗讞专转 讬拽讞 诇讜 讛拽讬砖讛 讛讻转讜讘 诇讗讞专转 诪讛 讗讞专转 诪讬拽谞讬讗 讘讘讬讗讛 讗祝 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 诪讬拽谞讬讗 讘讘讬讗讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this opinion: What is unique about a yevama is that she is bound and standing waiting for the yavam, i.e., there is already a connection between them. Perhaps it is for this reason that intercourse enables a yavam to acquire a yevama, and the same cannot be said of a maidservant. Rather, it might enter your mind to say a different claim: Since it is written with regard to a the master of a Hebrew maidservant: 鈥淚f he take himself another wife鈥 (Exodus 21:10), this verse juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant with another woman that a master marries: Just as another woman that a master marries can be acquired through intercourse, so too, a Hebrew maidservant can be acquired through intercourse. Therefore, the verse teaches us, with the phrase 鈥渁nd engages in sexual intercourse with her,鈥 that this is not the case.

讜专讘讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注诇 诪讗讬 讜讘注诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who learns that betrothal can be effected through sexual intercourse from this verse, from where does he derive this conclusion that a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired through intercourse? The Gemara answers: If so, that this verse is teaching only one halakha, let the Merciful One write simply: And he engages in sexual intercourse. What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥淎nd he engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥? Learn two halakhot from it. One can learn from this verse both that a woman can be acquired through intercourse, and that an ordinary woman can be betrothed through intercourse but a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired through intercourse.

讜诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘专 讗讛讬谞讗 讗住讘专讛 诇讬 讻讬 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讛诪住讜专讬谉 诇讘讬讗讛 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪住讜专讬谉 诇讘讬讗讛 诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said: Bar Ahina explained this to me by citing a proof from the following verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), which teaches that betrothal that is given to consummation, i.e., betrothal when it is permitted for the man and woman to engage in intercourse, is a betrothal, but betrothal that is not given to consummation is not a valid betrothal, what is there to say? Since he uses this verse for a different purpose, from where does Rava derive that a woman can be betrothed through intercourse and that a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired in this manner?

讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讗讜 讘注诇讛 诪讗讬 讜讘注诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讜诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: If so, that a woman cannot be betrothed through intercourse, let the verse write: When a man takes a woman or engages in intercourse with her. What is indicated by the phrase: 鈥淎nd engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥? One can learn from the verse all these halakhot, that intercourse is a valid mode of betrothing a woman but not acquiring a maidservant, and betrothal is effective only when it is given to consummation.

讜专讘讬 讛讗讬 讘注诇转 讘注诇 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘注诇 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讛 讘注讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讛 讘注讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what does he do with this verse: 鈥淚f a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba鈥檃l]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:22), from which Rabbi Yo岣nan derives that intercourse is a valid means of betrothal? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi requires this verse for the halakha that the husband renders her a non-virgin even if he engages in intercourse with her in an atypical manner, but no other man renders her a non-virgin by engaging in intercourse with her in an atypical manner.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讗讜 注诇讬讛 注砖专讛 讗谞砖讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讻讜诇诐 讘住拽讬诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讻讜诇诐 讘讞谞拽

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accept this opinion? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If ten men engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and she is still a virgin, they are all punished by stoning. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that the first one is punished by stoning, but the others are all punished by strangulation. This proves that in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, even one who is not her husband can render a woman a non-virgin by engaging in anal intercourse with her.

  • 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 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 9

讞讜诪专讬 驻转讻讬讬转讗 讗转讗讬 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讞讚 砖讜讻讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讬讱 诪讬拽讚砖转 诇讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讘讛 诪讬讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讻诇 讛讘讛 诪讬讛讘讛 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

beads [岣mrei]of glass [petakhyata]. A certain woman came and said to him: Give me one string. He said to her: If I give you this string will you be betrothed to me with it? She said to him: Give, give. Rav 岣ma said: Any use of the expression: Give, give, is nothing. Although she said: Give, give, she did not agree to the condition, as she was mocking him and had no intention of actually becoming betrothed.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 砖转讬 讞诪专讗 讘讞谞讜转讗 讗转讗讬 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讞讚 讻住讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讱 诪讬拽讚砖转 诇讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗砖拽讜讬讬 讗砖拽讬讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讻诇 讗砖拽讜讬讬 讗砖拽讬讬谉 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who was drinking wine in a store. A woman came in and said to him: Give me one cup of wine. He said to her: If I give you a cup of wine will you be betrothed to me with it? She said to him: Give to drink, give it to me to drink. Rav 岣ma said that any use of the expression: Give to drink, give it to me to drink, is nothing, i.e., she certainly did not intend to accept the condition and she is not betrothed.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 砖讚讬 转诪专讬 诪讚拽诇讗 讗转讗讬 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 砖讚讬 诇讬 转专转讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 砖讚讬谞讗 诇讬讱 诪讬拽讚砖转 诇讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 砖讚讬 诪讬砖讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讻诇 砖讚讬 诪讬砖讚讗 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara further relates: There was a certain man who was picking dates from a date tree. A certain woman came and said to him: Throw me two. He said to her: If I throw two dates to you will you be betrothed to me with them? She said to him: Throw, throw. Rav Zevid said: Any use of the expression: Throw, throw, is nothing, and she is not betrothed.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讘 讗砖拽讬 讜砖讚讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘 住诪讗 讘专 专拽转讗 讗诪专 转讙讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If she said: Give, or: Give to drink, or: Throw, without the additional emphasis of the repetition, what is the halakha? Does this straightforward statement indicate that she actually meant him to give it to her in accordance with his stated condition, or does she not agree to betrothal even here? Ravina said: She is betrothed. Rav Sama bar Rakta said in the form of an oath: By the king鈥檚 crown! She is not betrothed. The Gemara states: And the halakha is that she is not betrothed.

讜讛诇讻转讗 砖讬专讗讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 砖讜诪讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara issues further rulings concerning the previous cases. And the halakha is: With regard to silk garments that are worth more than one peruta, appraisal is not necessary before a woman can be betrothed with them. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, that if a man promised a woman one hundred dinars as betrothal money and gave her only a dinar, she is betrothed. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who said that Rav Na岣an said that if he promised one hundred dinars and gave her only collateral, this is not a valid betrothal.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖讟专 讻讬爪讚 讻转讘 诇讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讘转讱 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讘转讱 诪讗讜专住转 诇讬 讘转讱 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转

The Sages taught: How is betrothal performed with a document? If he wrote the following for a young woman鈥檚 father on paper or earthenware, despite the fact that the paper or earthenware is not worth one peruta: Your daughter is betrothed [mekuddeshet] to me, or: Your daughter is betrothed [me鈥檕reset] to me, or: Your daughter is to me as a wife, then she is betrothed. There is no requirement for the paper or earthenware to be worth one peruta, as she is not betrothed through the value of the paper or earthenware.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 诇砖讟专 讝讘讬谞讬 讛转诐 诪讜讻专 讻讜转讘 诇讜 砖讚讬 诪讻讜专讛 诇讱 讛讻讗 讘注诇 讻讜转讘 讘转讱 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬

Rabbi Zeira bar Memel objects to this description of the writing of the document: But this document is not comparable to a bill of sale. There, in the case of a bill of sale, the seller is the one who writes to the buyer: My field is sold to you. Here, the husband, who is akin to a buyer, is the one who writes: Your daughter is betrothed to me.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛转诐 诪注谞讬讬谞讗 讚拽专讗 讜讛讻讗 诪注谞讬讬谞讗 讚拽专讗 讛转诐 讻转讬讘 讜诪讻专 诪讗讞讝转讜 讘诪讜讻专 转诇讛 专讞诪谞讗 讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬拽讞 讘讘注诇 转诇讛 专讞诪谞讗

Rava said: There, in the case of a sale, the formulation of the document is taken from the context of the verse, and here, in the case of betrothal, the formulation of the document is likewise taken from the context of the verse. Rava elaborates: There, with regard to a sale, it is written: 鈥淎nd sells of his ancestral land鈥 (Leviticus 25:25), which indicates that the Merciful One renders the transaction dependent on the seller. Here, it is written: 鈥淚f a man takes a woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:13), meaning that the Merciful One renders the betrothal dependent on the husband.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 砖讚讜转 讘讻住祝 讬拽谞讜 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讬拽谞讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽专讬转 讘讬讛 讬拽谞讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讻专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讻讬 讬拽讞 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 讘转讬 谞转转讬 诇讗讬砖 讛讝讛

The Gemara asks: There, in the case of a sale, it is also written: 鈥淢en shall buy [yiknu] fields for money鈥 (Jeremiah 32:44), which indicates that the matter depends upon the buyer. The Gemara answers: Read into the verse: Shall sell [yikkanu]. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that you read it as yikkanu; because it is written in the verse in Leviticus: 鈥淎nd sells,鈥 and there is a preference to have the verse from the Prophets accord with that of the Torah? So too, instead of: 鈥淚f a man takes [ki yika岣]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:13), read into the verse: When he is given [ki yakia岣], as it is written: 鈥淚 gave my daughter to this man鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:16), so that the verses will accord with each other.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住诪讻讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗拽专讗讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讗拽讞 讗转 住驻专 讛诪拽谞讛

Rather, Rava said: There is no proof from the verses for these rulings, as they are a halakha received through tradition, and the Sages based them on the verses. And if you wish, say: There too, in the case in Jeremiah, it is written with regard to the buyer: 鈥淎nd I took the deed of purchase鈥 (Jeremiah 32:11), thereby indicating that it is the seller who writes the document.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻转讘 诇讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讘转讱 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讘转讱 诪讗讜专住转 诇讬 讘转讱 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讘讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讘讬讛 讘讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讚注转讜 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讘讙专讛

And Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: If he wrote the following for him on paper or earthenware, despite the fact that the paper or earthenware is not worth one peruta: Your daughter is betrothed [mekuddeshet] to me, or: Your daughter is betrothed [me鈥檕reset] to me, or: Your daughter is to me as a wife, whether he gave it to her father or whether he gave it directly to her, she is betrothed with the consent of her father. And this is the halakha provided that she has not yet reached her majority, before which her father alone has the authority to betroth her.

讻转讘 诇讛 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讛专讬 讗转 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讛专讬 讗转 诪讗讜专住转 诇讬 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讘讬讛 讘讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讛 诪讚注转讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讘讙专讛

If he wrote for her on paper or earthenware, despite the fact that the paper or earthenware is not worth one peruta: You are hereby betrothed [mekuddeshet] to me, or: You are hereby to me as a wife, or: You are hereby betrothed [me鈥檕reset] to me, then she is betrothed whether he gave it to her father or to her, as long as this was with her consent. And this is the halakha provided that she has reached her majority and is under her own authority.

讘注讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖讟专 讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讻转讘讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 诪讛讜 讛讜讬讜转 诇讬爪讬讗讜转 诪拽砖讬谞谉 诪讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raises a dilemma: With regard to a document of betrothal that was written not for her sake, i.e., not for this particular woman, what is the halakha? Do we juxtapose the halakhot of the modes of becoming betrothed to the halakhot of the modes of leaving a marriage, i.e., divorce? If so, one should say: Just as

讬爪讬讗讛 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛 讗祝 讛讜讬讬讛 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讬讜转 诇讛讚讚讬 诪拽砖讬谞谉 诪讛 讛讜讬讬讛 讚讻住祝 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛 讗祝 讛讜讬讬讛 讚砖讟专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛

we require that the document of leaving, i.e., a bill of divorce, must be written specifically for her sake, so too, we require that the document of becoming betrothed be written for her sake. Or perhaps we juxtapose the different modes of becoming betrothed to each other and say: Just as we do not require that becoming betrothed with money must be carried out with coins minted for her sake, so too, we do not require that becoming betrothed with a document must be with a document written for her sake.

讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讛讜讬讬讛 诇讬爪讬讗讛 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讬转讛

After he raised the dilemma, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish then resolved it. We juxtapose becoming betrothed to leaving a marriage, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2). This shows that the halakhot of a betrothal document are derived from those of a bill of divorce, and therefore a document of betrothal must also be written for her sake.

讗讬转诪专 讻转讘讜 诇砖诪讛 讜砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛 专讘讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪拽讬砖 讛讜讬讬讛 诇讬爪讬讗讛 诪讛 讬爪讬讗讛 诇砖诪讛 讜砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛 讗祝 讛讜讬讬讛 谞诪讬 诇砖诪讛 讜砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the following issue: If a man wrote a document of betrothal for her sake but without her consent, i.e., she did not know at the time that they were writing it but accepted it afterward, Rava and Ravina say: She is betrothed. Rav Pappa and Rav Sherevya say: She is not betrothed. Rav Pappa said: I will say their reason and I will say my reason. I will state their reason, as it is written: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes,鈥 by which the verse juxtaposes becoming betrothed to leaving a marriage. Just as a bill of divorce, written for leaving a marriage must be written for her own sake but can be written without her consent, so too, a document written for becoming betrothed must be written for her own sake and can even be without her consent.

讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪拽讬砖 讛讜讬讬讛 诇讬爪讬讗讛 诪讛 讬爪讬讗讛 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 诪拽谞讛 讗祝 讛讜讬讬讛 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 诪拽谞讛

And I will say my reason: The verse says: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes.鈥 The verse juxtaposes becoming betrothed to leaving a marriage. Just as with regard to a bill of divorce, written for leaving a marriage, we require the consent of the one transferring ownership, i.e., the man, as he divorces and transfers authority of the woman to herself, so too, with regard to a document written for becoming betrothed, we require the consent of the one transferring ownership, which in this case is the woman, who must agree to the marriage.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专讬 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讟专讬 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪诪砖 诇讗 砖讟专讬 驻住讬拽转讗 讜讻讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Bava Batra 167b) against the opinion that she is betrothed if the document was written without her consent. One writes documents of betrothal and marriage only with the consent of both the man and woman. What, is the mishna not referring to actual documents of betrothal and marriage, which indicates that the document must be written with the woman鈥檚 consent? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, this is referring to documents of stipulation, which contain the details of the dowry. And this statement is in accordance with that which Rav Giddel says that Rav says.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讻诪讛 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讘谞讱 讻讱 讜讻讱 诇讘转讱 讻讱 讜讻讱 注诪讚讜 讜拽讚砖讜 拽谞讜 讛谉 讛谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛谞拽谞讬诐 讘讗诪讬专讛

As Rav Giddel says that Rav says: If the father of one member of the couple says to the father of the other: How much are you giving to your son? And he answers: Such and such, and adds: How much are you giving to your daughter? And the other responds: Such and such, then if they, the couple, subsequently arose and became betrothed, they acquire everything that was promised. These are the matters that are acquired through speech, and they do not require an act of acquisition. The documents of betrothal mentioned here that require the woman鈥檚 consent are those which contain this type of monetary obligation, not actual documents of betrothal.

讜讘讘讬讗讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘注诇转 讘注诇 诪诇诪讚 砖谞注砖讛 诇讛 讘注诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讘注讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻注讜专讛 讝讜 砖砖谞讛 专讘讬 讜讘注诇讛 诪诇诪讚 砖谞拽谞讬转 讘讘讬讗讛

搂 The mishna teaches that a woman can be betrothed through sexual intercourse. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the verse states: 鈥淚f a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba鈥檃l]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:22). This teaches that he becomes her husband [ba鈥檃l] by means of sexual intercourse [be鈥檌la]. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu, and some say it was Reish Lakish who said this to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Is this other proof, taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, unacceptable: 鈥淲hen a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1)? This verse teaches that she can be acquired through intercourse.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚诪拽讚砖 讜讛讚专 讘注讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers that the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is insufficient proof that a woman can be betrothed via intercourse, as, if this halakha were derived only from there, I would say that she is not considered his wife unless he first betroths her through money, indicated by the phrase 鈥渢akes a woman,鈥 and then engages in intercourse with her. This is the only valid mode of betrothal, and intercourse alone is not enough. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁 married woman [beulat ba鈥檃l]鈥 and teaches us that intercourse by itself is a valid means of betrothal.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诐 讻谉 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

Rabbi Abba bar Memel objects to this: The above suggestion, that both money and sexual intercourse are required for betrothal, cannot be the correct interpretation of the verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her.鈥 This is because, if it is so, that a woman can be acquired only through both betrothal money and intercourse, the case of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, concerning which the Merciful One states in the Torah that he is punished by stoning (see Deuteronomy 22:23鈥24), how can you find a case where he is liable to be punished in this manner?

讗讬 讚讗拽讚讬砖 讜讛讚专 讘注讬诇 讘注讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讗讬 讚讗拽讚讬砖 讜诇讗 讘注讬诇 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗专讜住 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛

Rabbi Abba bar Memel elaborates: If this is referring to a case where he betrothed her with money and then engaged in sexual intercourse with her, she is a non-virgin, and the punishment of stoning applies only to one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young virgin. If it is referring to a case where he betrothed her with money and did not engage in intercourse with her, this is nothing, as the betrothal has not been completed. The Rabbis said before Abaye: You find it in a case where he betrothed her with money and then the betrothed man engaged in intercourse with her in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse. Despite the fact that she is still a virgin, the betrothal has taken effect by means of this type of sexual intercourse.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讘讗讞专 讗讘诇 讘注诇 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 注砖讗讛 讘注讜诇讛

Abaye said to those Sages: The verse cannot be explained in that manner, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to another man, i.e., whether a woman is considered to be a virgin after engaging in anal intercourse with another man. But with regard to her husband, everyone agrees that if he engages in intercourse in an atypical manner with her he has rendered her a non-virgin. If so, she is no longer considered a virgin with regard to the halakha of a betrothed young woman.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讗讜 注诇讬讛 注砖专讛 讗谞砖讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讻讜诇谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讻讜诇谉 讘讞谞拽

The Gemara clarifies: What is the dispute to which Abaye refers? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 10:4): If ten men engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and she is still a virgin, as they engaged in anal intercourse with her, they are all punished by stoning. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that the first one is punished by stoning, as he engaged in intercourse with a virgin young woman, but all the others are punished by strangulation. Once the first man engages in intercourse with her she is no longer considered a virgin, even if he engaged in anal intercourse with her.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚砖讛 讘砖讟专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙讜诪专 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讙讜诪专 讜诪讻谞讬住

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said a different answer to Rabbi Abba bar Memel鈥檚 question: You find a situation where a man who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman is punished by stoning in a case where he betrothed her with a document. Everyone agrees that since a document, i.e., a bill of divorce, completely removes a woman from her husband, without the need for an additional act, it also completely brings her into the state of betrothal. If a young woman is betrothed by means of a document, she can be a betrothed young woman while remaining a virgin.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讘注诇讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讝讜 谞拽谞讬转 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘讘讬讗讛

The Gemara returns to the different derivations of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yo岣nan. And Rabbi Yo岣nan, who maintains that the mode of betrothal through intercourse is derived from the verse: 鈥淚f a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba鈥檃l]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:22), what does he do with this verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1)? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for a different halakha, as he maintains that it teaches that this woman can be acquired through intercourse, but a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired through intercourse.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讘诪讛 讜诪讛 讬讘诪讛 砖讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬转 讘讻住祝 谞拽谞讬转 讘讘讬讗讛 讝讜 砖谞拽谞讬转 讘讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞拽谞讬转 讘讘讬讗讛

As it might enter your mind to say: Let the halakha of a Hebrew maidservant be derived through an a fortiori inference from the halakha of a yevama: Just as a yevama, who cannot be acquired through money at all, nevertheless can be acquired through intercourse, which indicates that the ability of an act of sexual intercourse to effect acquisition is greater than that of money, is it not logical that this Hebrew maidservant, who can be acquired through money, can also be acquired through intercourse?

诪讛 诇讬讘诪讛 砖讻谉 讝拽讜拽讛 讜注讜诪讚转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讘 讗诐 讗讞专转 讬拽讞 诇讜 讛拽讬砖讛 讛讻转讜讘 诇讗讞专转 诪讛 讗讞专转 诪讬拽谞讬讗 讘讘讬讗讛 讗祝 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 诪讬拽谞讬讗 讘讘讬讗讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this opinion: What is unique about a yevama is that she is bound and standing waiting for the yavam, i.e., there is already a connection between them. Perhaps it is for this reason that intercourse enables a yavam to acquire a yevama, and the same cannot be said of a maidservant. Rather, it might enter your mind to say a different claim: Since it is written with regard to a the master of a Hebrew maidservant: 鈥淚f he take himself another wife鈥 (Exodus 21:10), this verse juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant with another woman that a master marries: Just as another woman that a master marries can be acquired through intercourse, so too, a Hebrew maidservant can be acquired through intercourse. Therefore, the verse teaches us, with the phrase 鈥渁nd engages in sexual intercourse with her,鈥 that this is not the case.

讜专讘讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注诇 诪讗讬 讜讘注诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who learns that betrothal can be effected through sexual intercourse from this verse, from where does he derive this conclusion that a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired through intercourse? The Gemara answers: If so, that this verse is teaching only one halakha, let the Merciful One write simply: And he engages in sexual intercourse. What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥淎nd he engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥? Learn two halakhot from it. One can learn from this verse both that a woman can be acquired through intercourse, and that an ordinary woman can be betrothed through intercourse but a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired through intercourse.

讜诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘专 讗讛讬谞讗 讗住讘专讛 诇讬 讻讬 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讛诪住讜专讬谉 诇讘讬讗讛 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪住讜专讬谉 诇讘讬讗讛 诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said: Bar Ahina explained this to me by citing a proof from the following verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), which teaches that betrothal that is given to consummation, i.e., betrothal when it is permitted for the man and woman to engage in intercourse, is a betrothal, but betrothal that is not given to consummation is not a valid betrothal, what is there to say? Since he uses this verse for a different purpose, from where does Rava derive that a woman can be betrothed through intercourse and that a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired in this manner?

讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讗讜 讘注诇讛 诪讗讬 讜讘注诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讜诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: If so, that a woman cannot be betrothed through intercourse, let the verse write: When a man takes a woman or engages in intercourse with her. What is indicated by the phrase: 鈥淎nd engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥? One can learn from the verse all these halakhot, that intercourse is a valid mode of betrothing a woman but not acquiring a maidservant, and betrothal is effective only when it is given to consummation.

讜专讘讬 讛讗讬 讘注诇转 讘注诇 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘注诇 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讛 讘注讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讛 讘注讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what does he do with this verse: 鈥淚f a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba鈥檃l]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:22), from which Rabbi Yo岣nan derives that intercourse is a valid means of betrothal? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi requires this verse for the halakha that the husband renders her a non-virgin even if he engages in intercourse with her in an atypical manner, but no other man renders her a non-virgin by engaging in intercourse with her in an atypical manner.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讗讜 注诇讬讛 注砖专讛 讗谞砖讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讻讜诇诐 讘住拽讬诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讻讜诇诐 讘讞谞拽

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accept this opinion? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If ten men engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and she is still a virgin, they are all punished by stoning. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that the first one is punished by stoning, but the others are all punished by strangulation. This proves that in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, even one who is not her husband can render a woman a non-virgin by engaging in anal intercourse with her.

Scroll To Top