Kiddushin 50b (נ:) — the Talmud in English

She is not betrothed,

and we do not say that he knew that his betrothal was not a betrothal and sent the sivlonot with the intent of betrothal; rather, we attribute it

to the fact that he sent them on account of the initial betrothal,

as he was mistaken and thought that his betrothal was valid, and sent the sivlonot in the manner of every groom who sends gifts to his betrothed.

And likewise a minor—

who is not fit for betrothal—

who betrothed

while a minor, and sent sivlonot after reaching majority, she is not betrothed, as he too sent them on account of the initial betrothal.

Gemara:

And it is necessary

for our Mishna to teach that the sivlonot were not sent with the intent of betrothal in all three cases mentioned in the Mishna; and the reason is:

For if it had taught us

only with regard to one who betroths two women with

a peruta,

I would have said:

Since money is leaving his possession,

he is mistaken,

as, since a peruta left his possession, he mistakenly thinks that he can betroth even two women with it—

but

with regard to one who betroths a woman with

less than a peruta, say:

A person

knows that betrothal does not take effect with less than a peruta, and when he sends, he sends the sivlonot with the intent of betrothal

[and when he sent the sivlonot, he sent them for the purpose of betrothal], and she should therefore be betrothed.

And if it had taught us

only with regard to

these two

[two women with a peruta, and one woman with less than a peruta], that he sent them on account of the initial betrothal, I would have said: In the case of two women with a peruta, he is mistaken because a peruta left his possession; and in the case of betrothal with less than a peruta, he is mistaken

because people are not knowledgeable about the difference between a peruta and less than a peruta

[people are not expert in distinguishing between a peruta and less than that], and he thought that he had given her a peruta, so that his betrothal was valid.

But in the case of a minor who betrothed,

indeed

everyone knows that a minor’s betrothal is nothing,

and

say: When he sends sivlonot, he sends them with the intent of betrothal.

It teaches us

that our Mishna attributes all these cases to error, and does not say that he sent the sivlonot with the intent of betrothal.

It was stated:

Rav Huna said:

One who arranged a match [with a woman but had not yet betrothed her, and sent sivlonot in the presence of witnesses] to his intended bride,

is concerned

as a stringency

with regard to the sivlonot

that he sent, as he sent them with the intent of betrothal, and if she becomes betrothed to another, she requires a bill of divorce from the first man in order to permit her to marry the second, as perhaps she is betrothed to the first.

And likewise Rabba said: We are concerned with regard to sivlonot.

Rabba said: And we raise an objection from our teaching

[we challenged our teaching that there is concern for sivlonot] from our Mishna, where we learned: One who betroths two women with a peruta,

even though he sent sivlonot afterward, she is not betrothed;

so apparently we are not concerned that perhaps he sent the sivlonot for the purpose of betrothal!?

He said

he answered

him, Abaye:

There,

in our Mishna, there is therefore no concern for them,

as it states the reason: “He sent them on account of the initial betrothal,”

as he relies on them, since she has already become betrothed to him; but when he has not yet betrothed her at all, there is indeed concern that perhaps he sent the sivlonot for the purpose of betrothal.

Some say that

this is what

Rabba said,

[and this is how Abaye answered him]:

From where do I say it

that there is concern for sivlonot?

As it states the reason

in our Mishna that there is no concern for them, because

“he sent them on account of the initial betrothal,”

and it follows that

here,

in our Mishna,

he is mistaken

in thinking that his betrothal was valid, and sent them on its account;

but in general,

when he had not betrothed her at all,

it is betrothal.

And Abaye

thus rejected his statement:

“It is not necessary,”

he said, “it is not necessary in general”

that the sivlonot were sent for the purpose of betrothal,

for

he

did not enter the domain of betrothal at all

[he performed no act of betrothal and did not entertain the thought of betrothal]—

rather, even here,

in our Mishna,

where he entered the domain of betrothal

[he had already performed an act of betrothal and entertained the thought of betrothal], nevertheless

say:

Since the matter of betrothal entered his mind, he remembered that his betrothal was invalid, and sent the sivlonot for the purpose of betrothal, and

it is betrothal—

it teaches us

that even in such a case there is no concern for betrothal.

The Gemara asks:

What has been established

with regard to “we are concerned for sivlonot,” in terms of halakha and practical application?

Rav Pappa said:

In a place where they betroth and then send gifts

[in places where the custom is to send gifts only after betrothal],

we are concerned

that he sent these for the purpose of betrothal and did not deviate from the local custom.

And in a place where they

send gifts and then betroth

[in places where the practice is to send sivlonot before betrothal],

we are not concerned.

And we ask: In a place where they

betroth and then send gifts,

and we are concerned that he sent them for the purpose of betrothal,

it is obvious

and what did Rav Pappa need to teach us by stating this!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for Rav Pappa to teach that there is concern for betrothal in a place

where the majority

indeed

betroth and then send gifts, but

nevertheless

a minority send gifts and then betroth

[the majority betroth first, while a minority send sivlonot first]—

and this is the novelty: We are concerned that he sent the sivlonot for the purpose of betrothal, because

one might have said: Let us be concerned

for the minority,

that is, we might have said that we should certainly assume that he did not intend betrothal, and sent sivlonot because he belongs to the minority who send sivlonot before betrothal—

It teaches us

that nevertheless we are concerned that perhaps he sent them for the purpose of betrothal!

Since the Gemara has established that the law of sivlonot with regard to betrothal depends on the locality and on the local custom, the Gemara cites another law of betrothal that likewise depends on local custom.

Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna asked Rava

[Rav Aḥa asked Rava]:

If

a marriage contract was displayed in the marketplace,

that is, if we saw a prepared marriage contract bearing the names of a certain man and a certain woman,

what is the law

: Should we be stringent and say that perhaps he betrothed her, since otherwise he would not have written a marriage contract, and say that she requires a bill of divorce from the first man in order to marry another?

He said to him,

Rava said to Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna:

And merely because

he holds

that a marriage contract was displayed in the marketplace, shall we presume her to be a married woman!?

!?

And the Gemara asks:

What has been established,

is there concern for betrothal or not?

Rav Ashi said:

In a place where they betroth and then write a marriage contract,

in a place where they prepare the marriage contract only after betrothal,

we are concerned

that perhaps he first betrothed her in the presence of witnesses, and we did not know of it.

And in a place where they

write the marriage contract and then betroth, we are not concerned

[in a place where the practice is to prepare the marriage contract before betrothal, we are not concerned that he betrothed her].

And we ask:

They betroth and then write

and we are concerned that perhaps he betrothed her, but

it is obvious,

so why did Rav Ashi need to teach us this!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for Rav Ashi to teach that there is concern for betrothal only in a place

where a scribe is not readily available

[there is no scribe available to write a marriage contract], and

one might have said

that we should not be concerned for betrothal, but should say:

A scribe happened to be available

to him [a scribe happened to come to that place] and gave him a marriage contract to have written, but he did not betroth her.

It teaches us

that we are concerned as a stringency that perhaps he first betrothed her.

His mother-in-law and his wife’s daughter are forbidden to him, and he is liable to karet for them; betrothal does not take effect with them.

Likewise, his wife’s sister is forbidden to him during his wife’s lifetime, even if he divorced her, and he is liable to karet for her; betrothal does not take effect with her.

Mishna:

One who betroths a woman and her daughter

at the same time,

or

who betroths

a woman and her sister at the same time,

both of them

are not betrothed,

and the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And there was an incident involving five women, among them two sisters; one man gathered a basket of figs, and

it was from

their field, and it was produce of the Sabbatical year

and the fruits were ownerless,

and

the man who was betrothing said: “

Behold, all of you are betrothed to me with this basket,”

and one of them accepted it on behalf of them all

[as the agent of them all],

and the Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed,

and the interpretation of our Mishna will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who betroths a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her sister, at the same time, they are not betrothed:

And we explain:

From where are these matters?

Rami bar Ḥama said:

It is because

the verse says: “

And

you shall not take a woman together with her sister, to make them rivals

to uncover her nakedness during her lifetime”;

the Torah said

in its statement, “to make them rivals”:

when they become rivals to one another,

as, for example, when he betroths them at the same time,

he shall have no acquisition even in one of them,

as the verse says, “you shall not take.”

He said

he challenged

him, Rava:

If so,

as you say,

this is what is written

at the end of that section concerning forbidden sexual relationships: “

And the souls who perform them shall be cut off from among their people”—

raise the following difficulty:

But

if betrothal does not take effect with her, is one liable to karet

if he has intercourse with them, such that the Torah makes him liable to karet if he has intercourse with those whom he married simultaneously!? They are unmarried women, and there is no prohibition of a wife’s sister here!?

Rather, Rava said:

The verse

is not speaking of a case where he betrothed them simultaneously, but where he betrothed them

one after the other,

and the first betrothal took effect; if he has intercourse with the second, he is liable to karet.

And

the reason for

the Mishna

is based on logic,

and it is in accordance with Rabba’s [teaching],

who said: Anything that cannot take effect one after the other does not take effect even simultaneously,

and therefore, when he betroths a woman and her sister simultaneously, since he cannot betroth one after the other—for she would be his wife’s sister—and likewise with a woman and her daughter, since he cannot betroth one after the other, as one would be his mother-in-law or his wife’s daughter, therefore, even when he betroths them simultaneously, the betrothal does not take effect at all.

With regard to the aforementioned matter, Rava said: Anything that cannot take effect one after another,,

cannot take effect even simultaneously:

Abaye raised an objection to Rava

from that which was taught in a beraita: