Kiddushin 9

חומרי פתכייתא אתאי ההיא איתתא אמרה ליה הב לי חד שוכא אמר לה אי יהבינא ליך מיקדשת לי אמרה ליה הבה מיהבה אמר רב חמא כל הבה מיהבה לאו כלום הוא

beads [ḥumrei]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 Ḥama 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.

ההוא גברא דהוה קא שתי חמרא בחנותא אתאי ההיא איתתא אמרה ליה הב לי חד כסא אמר לה אי יהיבנא ליך מיקדשת לי אמרה ליה אשקויי אשקיין אמר רב חמא כל אשקויי אשקיין לאו כלום הוא

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 Ḥama 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.

ההוא גברא דהוה קא שדי תמרי מדקלא אתאי ההיא איתתא אמרה ליה שדי לי תרתי אמר לה אי שדינא ליך מיקדשת לי אמרה ליה שדי מישדא אמר רב זביד כל שדי מישדא לאו כלום הוא

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.

איבעיא להו הב אשקי ושדי מהו אמר רבינא מקודשת רב סמא בר רקתא אמר תגא דמלכא אינה מקודשת והלכתא אינה מקודשת

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’s crown! She is not betrothed. The Gemara states: And the halakha is that she is not betrothed.

והלכתא שיראי לא צריכי שומא והלכתא כרבי אלעזר והלכתא כרבא אמר רב נחמן:

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 Naḥman said that if he promised one hundred dinars and gave her only collateral, this is not a valid betrothal.

תנו רבנן בשטר כיצד כתב לו על הנייר או על החרס אף על פי שאין בו שוה פרוטה בתך מקודשת לי בתך מאורסת לי בתך לי לאינתו הרי זו מקודשת

§ The Sages taught: How is betrothal performed with a document? If he wrote the following for a young woman’s 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’oreset] 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.

מתקיף לה רבי זירא בר ממל הא לא דמי האי שטרא לשטר זביני התם מוכר כותב לו שדי מכורה לך הכא בעל כותב בתך מקודשת לי

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.

אמר רבא התם מעניינא דקרא והכא מעניינא דקרא התם כתיב ומכר מאחזתו במוכר תלה רחמנא הכא כתיב כי יקח בבעל תלה רחמנא

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: “And sells of his ancestral land” (Leviticus 25:25), which indicates that the Merciful One renders the transaction dependent on the seller. Here, it is written: “If a man takes a woman” (Deuteronomy 22:13), meaning that the Merciful One renders the betrothal dependent on the husband.

התם נמי כתיב שדות בכסף יקנו קרי ביה יקנו מאי טעמא קרית ביה יקנו משום דכתיב ומכר הכי נמי קרי ביה כי יקח דכתיב את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה

The Gemara asks: There, in the case of a sale, it is also written: “Men shall buy [yiknu] fields for money” (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: “And sells,” and there is a preference to have the verse from the Prophets accord with that of the Torah? So too, instead of: “If a man takes [ki yikaḥ]” (Deuteronomy 22:13), read into the verse: When he is given [ki yakiaḥ], as it is written: “I gave my daughter to this man” (Deuteronomy 22:16), so that the verses will accord with each other.

אלא אמר רבא הלכתא נינהו ואסמכינהו רבנן אקראי ואיבעית אימא התם נמי כתיב ואקח את ספר המקנה

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: “And I took the deed of purchase” (Jeremiah 32:11), thereby indicating that it is the seller who writes the document.

ואמר רבא אמר רב נחמן כתב לו על הנייר או על החרס אף על פי שאין בו שוה פרוטה בתך מקודשת לי בתך מאורסת לי בתך לי לאינתו בין על ידי אביה בין על ידי עצמה מקודשת מדעתו והוא שלא בגרה

And Rava says that Rav Naḥman 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’oreset] 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.

כתב לה על הנייר או על החרס אף על פי שאין בו שוה פרוטה הרי את מקודשת לי הרי את לי לאינתו הרי את מאורסת לי מקודשת בין על ידי אביה בין על ידי עצמה מדעתה והוא שבגרה:

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’oreset] 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.

בעי רבי שמעון בן לקיש שטר אירוסין שכתבו שלא לשמה מהו הויות ליציאות מקשינן מה

§ 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

יציאה בעינן לשמה אף הוייה בעינן לשמה או דלמא הויות להדדי מקשינן מה הוייה דכסף לא בעינן לשמה אף הוייה דשטר לא בעינן לשמה

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.

בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה הוייה ליציאה מקשינן דאמר קרא ויצאה והיתה:

After he raised the dilemma, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish then resolved it. We juxtapose becoming betrothed to leaving a marriage, as the verse states: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes” (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.

איתמר כתבו לשמה ושלא מדעתה רבא ורבינא אמרי מקודשת רב פפא ורב שרביא אמרי אינה מקודשת אמר רב פפא אימא טעמא דידהו ואימא טעמא דידי אימא טעמא דידהו דכתיב ויצאה והיתה מקיש הוייה ליציאה מה יציאה לשמה ושלא מדעתה אף הוייה נמי לשמה ושלא מדעתה

It was stated that amora’im 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: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes,” 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.

ואימא טעמא דידי ויצאה והיתה מקיש הוייה ליציאה מה יציאה בעינן דעת מקנה אף הוייה בעינן דעת מקנה

And I will say my reason: The verse says: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes.” 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.

מיתיבי אין כותבין שטרי אירוסין ונשואין אלא מדעת שניהן מאי לאו שטרי אירוסין ונשואין ממש לא שטרי פסיקתא וכדרב גידל אמר רב

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’s 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.

דאמר רב גידל אמר רב כמה אתה נותן לבנך כך וכך לבתך כך וכך עמדו וקדשו קנו הן הן הדברים הנקנים באמירה:

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’s consent are those which contain this type of monetary obligation, not actual documents of betrothal.

ובביאה: מנא לן אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן דאמר קרא בעלת בעל מלמד שנעשה לה בעל על ידי בעילה אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי אבהו ואמרי לה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן כעורה זו ששנה רבי ובעלה מלמד שנקנית בביאה

§ 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 Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “If a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba’al]” (Deuteronomy 22:22). This teaches that he becomes her husband [ba’al] by means of sexual intercourse [be’ila]. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu, and some say it was Reish Lakish who said this to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Is this other proof, taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, unacceptable: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 24:1)? This verse teaches that she can be acquired through intercourse.

אי מהתם הוה אמינא עד דמקדש והדר בעיל קא משמע לן

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 “takes a woman,” 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 “a married woman [beulat ba’al]” and teaches us that intercourse by itself is a valid means of betrothal.

מתקיף לה רבי אבא בר ממל אם כן נערה המאורסה דאמר רחמנא בסקילה היכי משכחת לה

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: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her.” 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 22:23–24), how can you find a case where he is liable to be punished in this manner?

אי דאקדיש והדר בעיל בעולה היא אי דאקדיש ולא בעיל לאו כלום הוא אמרוה רבנן קמיה דאביי משכחת לה כגון שבא עליה ארוס שלא כדרכה

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.

אמר להו אביי עד כאן לא פליגי רבי ורבנן אלא באחר אבל בעל דברי הכל אם בא עליה שלא כדרכה עשאה בעולה

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.

מאי היא דתניא באו עליה עשרה אנשים ועדיין היא בתולה כולן בסקילה רבי אומר אומר אני הראשון בסקילה וכולן בחנק

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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק משכחת לה כגון שקדשה בשטר הואיל וגומר ומוציא גומר ומכניס

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said a different answer to Rabbi Abba bar Memel’s 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.

ורבי יוחנן האי ובעלה מאי עביד ליה ההוא מיבעי ליה זו נקנית בביאה ואין אמה העבריה נקנית בביאה

The Gemara returns to the different derivations of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yoḥanan. And Rabbi Yoḥanan, who maintains that the mode of betrothal through intercourse is derived from the verse: “If a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba’al]” (Deuteronomy 22:22), what does he do with this verse: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (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.

סלקא דעתך אמינא תיתי בקל וחומר מיבמה ומה יבמה שאין נקנית בכסף נקנית בביאה זו שנקנית בכסף אינו דין שנקנית בביאה

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?

מה ליבמה שכן זקוקה ועומדת סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתב אם אחרת יקח לו הקישה הכתוב לאחרת מה אחרת מיקניא בביאה אף אמה העבריה מיקניא בביאה קא משמע לן

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: “If he take himself another wife” (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 “and engages in sexual intercourse with her,” that this is not the case.

ורבי האי סברא מנא ליה אם כן לכתוב רחמנא ובעל מאי ובעלה שמע מינה תרתי

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 “And he engages in sexual intercourse with her”? 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.

ולרבא דאמר בר אהינא אסברה לי כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה קידושין המסורין לביאה הוו קידושין קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה לא הוו קידושין מאי איכא למימר

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: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (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?

אם כן נכתוב קרא או בעלה מאי ובעלה שמע מינה כולהו

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: “And engages in sexual intercourse with her”? 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.

ורבי האי בעלת בעל מאי עביד ליה האי מיבעי ליה בעל עושה אותה בעולה שלא כדרכה ואין אחר עושה אותה בעולה שלא כדרכה

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what does he do with this verse: “If a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba’al]” (Deuteronomy 22:22), from which Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

ומי אית ליה לרבי האי סברא והתניא באו עליה עשרה אנשים ועדיין היא בתולה כולם בסקילה רבי אומר אומר אני הראשון בסקילה וכולם בחנק

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accept this opinion? But isn’t 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.