Kiddushin 79a — the Talmud in English

And if it is not known

who preceded whom,

both give her a bill of divorce

out of doubt. Both the one to whom she was betrothed through her father and the one to whom she was betrothed through the agent, because it is uncertain to which of them she was betrothed.

And if they wished, one

of them

gives

her

a bill of divorce, and

afterward

one takes

her. For whichever way you look at it, if he betrothed her first, the betrothal of the second is nothing. And if his fellow betrothed her first, he has already divorced her, and she is permitted to everyone.

And likewise, a woman who gave permission to her agent to betroth her, and went

she too

and betrothed

herself, if

her betrothal preceded

his,

her betrothal is a betrothal.

And the betrothal of the agent is nothing.

And if

the betrothal

of her agent preceded, his betrothal is a betrothal.

And if they do not know

which of them preceded,

both give her a bill of divorce

out of doubt.

And if they wished, one

of them

gives

her

a bill of divorce, and one

of them

takes

her.

Gemara:

Our Mishna teaches the same law both in the case of a minor or a maiden, who is betrothed through her father, and in the case of an adult woman, who is betrothed by herself.

And we explain:

And it is necessary

to inform us of this law in both cases.

For if it had informed us

only

with regard to his case,

with regard to a father who sent an agent, I might have said that specifically in this case, if his betrothal preceded the betrothal of the agent, his betrothal takes effect,

because the man is expert

the man is knowledgeable

in genealogy,

and since he found a man of more distinguished lineage for his daughter, he canceled the agency and betrothed her to him.

But a woman,

the woman, when she herself sent an agent, even though she preceded him and betrothed herself, does not have complete resolve regarding her own betrothal, and it is not her intention to cancel the agency, since

she is not expert in genealogy

she is not knowledgeable in genealogy, and she relies more on the agent to find her someone of distinguished lineage; and if he indeed finds him, it is her intention that her own betrothal should not take effect. Therefore,

I might say that her betrothal should not be a betrothal,

but the betrothal of the agent should take effect. Therefore the Mishna informs us that if her betrothal preceded, it is a betrothal.

And if it had informed us

only

with regard to her case,

I might have said that specifically when she betrothed herself before the agent betrothed her, her betrothal is a betrothal,

because a woman examines and marries.

And she examines the nature of the man more closely before she marries him. And she relies upon herself more than upon the agent, and therefore she canceled his agency.

But he

the father, if he sent an agent to betroth her,

I might say, it does not matter to him

that the betrothal of the agent should take effect and not his own betrothal; and even though he betrothed her first, it is not his intention to betroth her except on the condition that the agent will not ultimately betroth her.

Therefore

it is necessary

for our Mishna to inform us of this law in both cases.

Once the daughter has reached twelve years and one day and has brought the signs of maidenhood, she is a maiden. Yet she is still betrothed also through her father. But once six months have passed from the time she became a maiden, or when she brings the signs of adulthood during these six months, she is an adult woman and leaves her father’s authority. From now on her father no longer betroths her; rather, she is betrothed only through herself.

It was stated: If her father betrothed her on the road, and she betrothed

herself also

in the city

on that same day,

and behold

now, at the end of the day, she was examined and found that

she is an adult woman,

but it was not known whether at the time of the betrothal she had already become an adult woman or not—

Rav said: She is an adult woman before us.

And because of this, we attribute that at the beginning of the day as well she had already become an adult woman. Therefore her betrothal takes effect, and not the betrothal of the father, as is the law of an adult woman.

And Shmuel said: We are concerned for the betrothal of both of them,

because it is uncertain whether at the time of the betrothal she was still a maiden, and the betrothal of the father takes effect; or whether she had already become an adult woman, and his betrothal did not take effect, but her betrothal took effect.

And we inquire:

When

did this case occur?

If you say, within the six

months between maidenhood and adulthood, this is impossible:

For would

Rav say in this case: She is an adult woman before us?!

After all, during those six months she has the presumptive status of a maiden, and from where shall we come to say with certainty that already at the beginning of the day she had become an adult woman? Perhaps only

now

at the time she was examined

is it that she became an adult woman,

and not earlier.

Rather,

necessarily, Rav and Shmuel disagreed concerning a case in which she was betrothed

after the six

months.

But if so, the opposite difficulty arises:

And would

Shmuel say in this case

that

we are concerned for the betrothal of both of them?!

But Shmuel said: There are only six months between maidenhood and adulthood.

And if so, she was certainly an adult woman at the time of the betrothal, and her betrothal is a betrothal.

And we answer:

It is not necessary,

rather, they must be understood to have disagreed in a case such as

she was betrothed

she was betrothed through her father and through herself

on the very day on which the six are completed.

On the day on which six months from the day she became a maiden were completed, and by evening she had reached twelve years, six months, and one day. And her presumptive status was that on this day she would bring the signs of adulthood, and in the evening she was examined and the signs of an adult woman were found in her.

Rav said: She is an adult woman before us.

And

from the fact that now

now, in the evening, she

is an adult woman,

we attribute that already

in the morning as well,

also in the morning she had already been

an adult woman.

For the entire day she has the presumptive status that she would become an adult woman.

And Shmuel said:

Even if we found her in the evening with the signs of an adult woman, the entire day remains a state of uncertainty, because perhaps only

now

in the evening

is it that she brought the signs.

And we challenge:

And

to

Shmuel, what is different

this law

from

the law of the

ritual bath?

As we learned: A ritual bath

that had the presumptive status of fitness as a complete ritual bath, containing forty seahs of water,

which

now

was measured and found

unfit, because

it was lacking

forty seahs, and it is not known from when it became lacking and unfit—

behold,

all the

ritual

purities performed upon it retroactively, whether in a private domain or in a public domain,

behold, they are

impure.

That is, all the impure people who immersed in this ritual bath in the past, at the time when its fitness is uncertain, remained with the presumptive status of impurity, and the foods or liquids that touched them are impure.

And although we hold that uncertainty concerning impurity in a public domain is pure, in this case all the purities that were touched by the impure people [who immersed in this ritual bath] are impure even if they touched them in a public domain. For their impurity is not merely an uncertainty of impurity; rather, we attribute that the ritual bath was certainly unfit at the time of their immersion, and consequently they are certainly impure.

And this is only because whenever it is uncertain to us what its state was in the past, we attribute that just as its state is now, so it was in the past.

And if so, there is a difficulty for Shmuel: Why are we concerned that she was a maiden at the beginning of the day? After all, she is now an adult woman, and one may say that she was so earlier as well.

And we answer:

That there is different

in that case, concerning the ritual bath, whose law is not because we establish a matter according to its present presumptive status. Rather, we establish it according to its original presumptive status, and render it impure because

it can be said: Establish the impure person according to his presumptive status

that he is impure,

and

therefore

say that he did not immerse

properly, but in a deficient ritual bath, and he still remains with his original presumptive status of impurity. For it is an established principle for us: whenever uncertainty arises whether a matter changed from what it was in the past, we establish it according to its original presumptive status and attribute that it did not change.

But the Gemara challenges:

On the contrary!

If we take account of the original presumptive status, we should say:

Establish the ritual bath according to its presumptive status, and say that it did not become lacking,

as it was at the beginning. And what have you seen to rely upon the original presumptive status of the impure person more than upon the original presumptive status of the ritual bath?!

And we answer: Even from the side of the ritual bath, it is possible to attribute that it became lacking before the immersion, because

behold

it is

lacking before you,

and we establish it according to its present presumptive status.

And we challenge again: If so,

here too, concerning the girl who became an adult woman, let us say:

She is

Behold

she is

an adult woman before you!

And we answer: There is still no proof that at the time of the betrothal she was an adult woman. For perhaps

only now is it that she became an adult woman.

And we challenge again: If so,

there,

in the ritual bath,

too,

let us say:

Only now is it that it became lacking!

And why do we render it certainly unfit retroactively?

And we answer:

There,

there is

two factors of disqualification

two deficiencies, against the presumptive status of the ritual bath’s fitness:

The presumptive status of impurity of the one who immersed, and the presumptive status of the ritual bath was weakened, since now it is lacking before us. And through the combination of these two, we decide with certainty to render it impure.

But

here, there is only one factor of disqualification

alone. That is, “she is an adult woman before us.” This reasoning by itself is insufficient to decide the uncertainty.

And

we challenge further: To

Shmuel, what is different

the law of this girl

from

the law of

the barrel?!

For it was taught:

If

there was

a person

checking

regularly

the barrel

of wine, to see that it had not turned to vinegar, so that he could

separate teruma from it and continue,

that is, continually separate from it teruma for other wine of untithed produce, each time he came to drink from it—

And afterward it was found

that the barrel had become

vinegar,

and it was no longer fit to separate from it for wine, since one may not separate from one species for another species, and it is not known when it turned sour—

All three

days

from the time of his last inspection, it has the presumptive status of

certainty

that it had not yet turned sour, and all the untithed produce for which he separated teruma from it is presumed to have been prepared.

From then onward

until it was found to be vinegar, it is in a state of

uncertainty,

and all the untithed produce for which he separated teruma from it is doubtful untithed produce.

This is one method in the Gemara for explaining this beraita. And there is one who disagrees and explains it differently.

And we raise

a contradiction from the law of

the barrel to the ritual bath: What is different that here,

in the ritual bath, we hold it to be

certainly

unfit from the first time at which we are uncertain concerning it?

And what is different that here,

with the barrel, from the first three days it stands in a state of

uncertain

souring?!

And he said

to answer

Rav Hanina of Sura: Who

is the

Tanna

who taught the law of

the barrel?

It is Rabbi Shimon.

For

he also disagrees

with regard to the ritual bath,

and there too

he makes it an uncertainty

he makes it so.

For it was taught:

A ritual bath that was measured and found lacking,

all purities performed upon it retroactively

everything touched by a person who immersed in the ritual bath from his impurity,

whether in a private domain or in a public domain, are impure.

And Rabbi Shimon says:

The ritual bath is not retroactively unfit as a matter of certainty; rather, it is only of uncertain fitness at the time when the impure people immersed in it.

Therefore, purities performed upon it

in a public domain are pure,

because uncertainty concerning impurity in a public domain has a ruling of purity.

And if the purities were performed upon it

in a private domain,

they are of uncertain impurity, for Rabbi Shimon holds: uncertainty concerning impurity in a private domain is impure only as an uncertainty.

And if they are purities of teruma,

they are suspended

from being eaten or burned. And it is not like impure teruma, whose law is that it must be burned, because one does not burn teruma on account of uncertainty. For if it is pure, it is forbidden to destroy it, as it is written: “The safeguard of My teruma.”

It follows that Rabbi Shimon follows his own view, and he properly says also regarding the barrel that throughout that entire time it remains in a state of uncertainty.

But according to the Rabbis,

since now it is vinegar before us, we attribute with certainty that throughout that entire time it was vinegar, and it follows that all the wine for which he separated teruma from it

is untithed produce

it is

retroactively,

for it is impossible to separate from wine for vinegar.

And this is difficult for Shmuel: Why, regarding the girl who is now found to be an adult woman, was he concerned that perhaps she became an adult only now, and did not attribute that she had already become an adult at the beginning of the day?

And we answer:

That there is different there

with the barrel,

for it can be said: Establish the untithed produce according to its

original

presumptive status, and say that it was not prepared.

And we challenge again:

On the contrary, establish the wine according to its presumptive status

original

and say that it did not turn sour.

And we answer: Even from the side of the wine, it is possible to attribute that it turned sour long ago, for

behold

now it

has turned sour before you.

And we challenge again:

Here too

regarding the girl, let us say:

Behold, she is an adult woman before us.

And on account of this let us attribute that she had already become an adult at the beginning of the day.

And we answer: In any event it is uncertain, for perhaps only

now is it that she became an adult woman.

And we challenge again: If so,

there too

let us say:

Only now is it that it turned sour.

And not earlier.

And we answer:

There,

with the barrel,

there are two factors of disqualification.

There is the presumptive status of untithed produce in the wine for which he separated teruma, and the barrel itself is now vinegar before us. It is specifically through the combination of these two that we decide with certainty that it had turned sour at the beginning.

But

here,

with the girl,

there is only one factor of disqualification

alone

that there is.

And the reasoning of “she is an adult woman before us” by itself does not have the power to decide the uncertainty.

And we inquire: Shall we

say,

say that the disagreement between Rav and Shmuel is

like

the disagreement of

the Tannaim

this one?