Kiddushin 50b — the Talmud in English

She is not betrothed, and we do not say that he knew that his betrothals were not betrothals and sent the betrothal gifts for the purpose of betrothal; rather, we attribute it

to the fact that

he sent them on account of the initial betrothals, since he was mistaken and thought that his betrothals were betrothals, and he sent betrothal gifts in the manner of every groom who sends to his betrothed.

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 he was a minor, and sent betrothal gifts after he became an adult, she is not betrothed, for he too sent them on account of the initial betrothals.

Gemara:

And it is necessary for our Mishna to inform us that the betrothal gifts were not sent for the purpose of betrothal in all three cases mentioned in our Mishna; and because of:

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 informed us

only concerning one who betroths two women with

the value of a peruta,

I would have said:

Since money is going out from him, he

is mistaken,

since a peruta went out from him, he is mistaken in thinking that he can betroth even two women with it—

But

with regard to one who betroths a woman with

less than the value of a peruta, say:

A person

knows that betrothals do not take effect with less than the value of a peruta, and when he sends, he sends the betrothal gifts with the intention of betrothal

and when he sent the betrothal gifts, he sent them for the purpose of betrothal—and she would be betrothed.

And if it had informed us

only with regard to

these two

cases—that of two women with a peruta, and that of one woman with less than a peruta—that he sent them on account of the initial betrothals, I would have said: In the case of two women with a peruta, he is mistaken because a peruta went out from him, and in the case of betrothal with less than a peruta, he is mistaken

because people are not familiar with the distinction between a peruta and less than the value of a peruta

people are not expert in distinguishing between the value of a peruta and less than it, and he thought that he had given her the value of a peruta, and his betrothals were betrothals.

But when a minor betrothed,

behold,

everyone knows that the betrothal of a minor is nothing, and

so

say: When he sends the betrothal gifts, he sends them with the intention of betrothal.

It teaches us

that our Mishna teaches that in all these cases we attribute it to error, and we do not say that he sent the betrothal gifts for the purpose of betrothal.

It was stated:

Rav Huna said:

One who was matched with a woman but had not yet betrothed her, and sent betrothal gifts in the presence of witnesses to his intended,

we are concerned

as a stringency

with the betrothal gifts

that he sent, that he sent them for the purpose 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 the second, for perhaps she is betrothed to him.

And likewise Rabba said: We are concerned with betrothal gifts.

Rabba said: And we raised an objection against our teaching

we challenged our teaching, that we are concerned with betrothal gifts, from our Mishna, where we learned: One who betroths two women with a peruta,

even though he sent betrothal gifts afterward, she is not betrothed;

behold, we are not concerned lest he sent the betrothal gifts for the purpose of betrothal!?

He said

he answered

him, Abaye:

There,

in our Mishna, therefore we are not concerned with them,

as the reason is taught: He sent them on account of the initial betrothals,

for he relies on them, that she has already become betrothed to him; but when he has not yet betrothed her at all, we are indeed concerned lest he sent the betrothal gifts for the purpose of betrothal.

There are those who say that

thus

Rabba said,

and thus Abaye answered him:

From where do I say it

that we are concerned with betrothal gifts?

As the reason is taught

in our Mishna, that we are not concerned with them because

he sent them on account of the initial betrothals;

behold, it follows:

Here,

in our Mishna,

he is mistaken,

thinking that his betrothals are betrothals, and he sent them on their account;

but elsewhere,

when he did not betroth her at all,

they are betrothals.

And Abaye

thus rejected his words:

“It is not necessary”—

he is saying, “It is not necessary elsewhere”

that the betrothal gifts are not for the purpose of betrothal,

for

he

did not enter at all into the realm of betrothal

he did not perform an act of betrothal, nor did he bring the thought of betrothal to mind—

Rather, even here,

in our Mishna,

where he entered into the realm of betrothal

he already performed an act of betrothal and brought the thought of betrothal to mind, and if so,

say:

Since it entered his mind, he remembered that his betrothals were not betrothals, and he sent them for the purpose of betrothal, and

they are betrothals—

it teaches us,

that even in such a case we are not concerned with betrothal.

The Gemara asks:

What has become of it—

what is the law concerning “we are concerned with betrothal gifts,” in law and in practice?

Rav Pappa said:

In a place where they betroth and afterward send betrothal gifts

in places where they are accustomed to send gifts only after the betrothal,

we are concerned

that he sent these for the purpose of betrothal, and did not depart from the custom of the place.

And in a place where they

send betrothal gifts and afterward betroth

in places where it is customary to send betrothal gifts before the betrothal,

we are not concerned.

And we ask: In a place where they

betroth and afterward send betrothal gifts,

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

it is obvious,

and what need was there for Rav Pappa to inform us of this!?

And we answer:

It is necessary for Rav Pappa to inform us that we are concerned with betrothal, not in the ordinary case, but in a place

where

the majority

indeed

betroth and afterward send betrothal gifts, but

nevertheless

a minority send betrothal gifts and afterward betroth

the majority betroth first, while a minority send betrothal gifts first—

And this is a novel point: we are concerned that he sent the betrothal gifts for the purpose of betrothal, because

it might enter your mind to say: Let us be concerned

for the minority,

that is, we should have said that he certainly did not intend betrothal, and therefore sent betrothal gifts because he was among the minority who send betrothal gifts before the betrothal—

It teaches us

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

Since the Gemara ruled that the law of betrothal gifts with regard to betrothal depends on the places and on the custom of the place, the Gemara brings another law in betrothal that depends on the custom of the places.

Rav Aha bar Rav Huna asked Rava

Rav Aha asked Rava:

If

a marriage contract document has become established in the marketplace,

that is, if we saw a prepared marriage contract document on which the name of a certain man and a certain woman were written,

what

is the law: should we be concerned as a stringency and say that perhaps he betrothed her, for 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 Aha bar Huna:

And merely because

he holds

that a marriage contract document has become established in the marketplace, shall we establish her as a married woman!?

should we treat her as a married woman!?

And the Gemara asks:

What has become of it,

are we concerned with the betrothal or not?

Rav Ashi said:

In a place where they betroth and afterward write a marriage contract

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

we are concerned

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

And in a place where they

write and afterward betroth, we are not concerned

in a place where it is customary to prepare the marriage contract document before the betrothal, we are not concerned lest he betrothed her.

And we ask:

They betroth and afterward write,

where we are concerned lest he betrothed her—and

it is obvious,

so why does Rav Ashi need to inform us of this!?

And we answer:

It is necessary for Rav Ashi to inform us that we are concerned with betrothal, but in a place

where

a scribe is not commonly available

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

it might enter your mind to say

that we should not be concerned with betrothal, but rather say:

It happened that a scribe came his way

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

It teaches us

that we are concerned as a stringency lest 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, and betrothals do not take effect for him with them.

And 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, and betrothals do not take effect for him with her.

Mishna:

One who betroths a woman and her daughter

at once,

or

who betroths

a woman and her sister at once,

behold, 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; and one man gathered a basket of figs, and

from a field

that belonged to them, and it was of the seventh year

and the produce was 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.

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 once, they are not betrothed:

And we explain:

From where are these matters?

Rami bar Hama said:

Because

the verse says: “

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

to uncover her nakedness beside the other 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 betrothed them at once,

he shall have no taking even of one of them,

for the verse says, “You shall not take.”

he shall have no acquisition in even one of them, since the verse says, “You shall not take.”

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 of forbidden sexual relations: “

And the persons who perform them shall be cut off from the midst of their people”—

raise this difficulty:

For

if betrothals do not take effect with her, is he liable for karet

if he has intercourse with them, that the Torah should make him liable for karet if he has intercourse with those whom he married at once!? They are unmarried women, and there is no prohibition of a wife’s sister here!?

Rather, Rava said:

The verse

is not speaking when he betrothed them at one time, but when he betrothed them

one after the other,

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

and the reason for

the Mishna

is based on logical reasoning,

and

in accordance with Rabba! For Rabba said:

Anything that cannot take effect one after the other does not take effect even at one time,

and therefore, when he betrothed a woman and her sister at once, since he cannot betroth one after the other—for she is his wife’s sister—and likewise with a woman and her daughter, he cannot betroth one after the other, for she is either his mother-in-law or his wife’s daughter; therefore, even when he betroths them at once, the betrothals do not take effect at all.

[Gufa, Rabbah said: Anything that is not [valid] one after the other,,

is not [valid] even simultaneously:

Abaye raised an objection

to Rabbah from that which is taught: