Kiddushin 9a — the Talmud in English

a.

There was a certain man who was selling ![](pamud.bmp "

Precise page location")

glass beads,

one man was selling glass beads [see Rashi, another explanation], and he was carrying them on strings around his neck.

That woman came,

one woman came,

and said to him: Give me one string of beads,

give me one string.

He said to her: If I give you

whether

will you be betrothed to me?

If I give you a string, will you agree to be betrothed to me with it?

She said to him: Giving, you shall give,

you shall give it.

And the Gemara discussed: Did the woman intend to say: “Giving, you shall give, as you said, for the sake of betrothal”? And she is betrothed.

Or perhaps she intended to say: “Give, you shall give me, as I said to you, to give it to me as a gift, and do not mock me.” And she is not betrothed.

Rav Hama said: Every

utterance

“giving, you shall give” [

you shall give it ]—

is nothing,

and she is not betrothed.

b.

There was a certain man who was drinking wine in a shop.

An incident occurred involving a certain man who was drinking wine in a shop.

That woman came,

one woman came, and

said to him: Give me one cup!

give me one cup of wine.

He said to her: If I give you, will you be betrothed to me?

If I give you a cup of wine, will you agree to be betrothed to me with it?

She said to him: Give me to drink, give me to drink!

give me to drink.

Rav Hama said: Every

There was a certain man who was drinking wine in a store.

“give me to drink, give me to drink”—

A certain woman came,

is nothing.

And the woman did not consent to betrothal, and therefore she is not betrothed.

c.

There was a certain man who was throwing dates from a palm tree.

A certain man threw dates from the palm tree to the ground.

That woman came,

one woman came,

and said to him: Throw me two,

throw me two dates.

He said to her: If I throw for you, will you be betrothed to me?

If I throw them for you, will you agree to be betrothed to me with them?

She said to him: Throw, you shall throw!

throw, you shall throw.

Rav Zevid said: Every

There was a certain man who was throwing dates from a palm tree.

“throw, you shall throw”—

A certain woman came,

is nothing,

and she is not betrothed.

They raised a question,

a question was asked of the members of the academy:

If in one of these three incidents the woman answered without repeating the expression, for example, if she answered him

“Give,”

or

“Give me to drink,”

Give,”

or

Pour

“Throw,”

and she did not repeat her words [“give, you shall give,” “give me to drink, give me to drink,” “throw, you shall throw”]

what is the law

in this case?

Do we also say, when the woman said once, “Give me,” that she intended to say, “Give me as I said, and do not mock me”? Or perhaps specifically a repeated expression means, “Give me as I said,” but if she said “Give me” once, her intention was to say, “Give me as you said, for the sake of betrothal”?

Ravina said: She is betrothed.

Rav Sama bar Rekhta said: By the king’s crown!

I swear by the king’s crown:

she is not betrothed.

And the halakha is: She is not betrothed.

And since we ruled a halakha here, the Gemara rules additional halakhot here, concerning several forms of betrothal with money mentioned in our discussion:

a.

And the halakha is: Silks do not require appraisal.

And the halakha is: Silk garments do not require appraisal.

One who betroths a woman with silks does not need to appraise their value before the betrothal [and not in accordance with the words of Rav Yosef above, 7b].

b.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

who said [above, 8a]: If he said, “Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars,” and gave her only one dinar, she is betrothed immediately, provided that he later completes the one hundred dinars for her.

c.

And the halakha is in accordance with what Rava said in the name of Rav Nahman [above, at the end of 8a], that if he said to the woman, “Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars,” and placed a pledge upon it, she is not betrothed, since there is no one hundred dinars here, and there is no pledge here.

[above, at the end of 8a]: If he said to the woman, “Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars,” and placed collateral against it, she is not betrothed, since there is no one hundred dinars here, and there is no collateral here.

We learned in the Mishna: A woman is acquired through money, through a document, and through intercourse.

Until now the Gemara explained the law of betrothal through money.

And now the Gemara comes to explain the law of betrothal through a document:

The Sages taught:

The Sages taught:

Betrothal of a woman

through a document—

through a document—

how?

One who betroths a minor or a na'ara, through betrothal that he gives to her father—if he

wrote for him

the one betrothing [her], to the father of the minor or the na'ara,

on paper or on earthenware,

how is it effected?

even though there is not in it [

in the paper or earthenware ]

the value of a peruta:

he wrote for him

“Your daughter is betrothed to me.”

“Your daughter is betrothed to me.”

Or if he wrote for him:

“Your daughter is betrothed to me.”

“Your daughter is betrothed to me.”

Or if he wrote for him:

“Your daughter is mine for a wife” [

for a wife ]—

and he gave the document to the father of the minor or the na'ara—

she is betrothed.

Rabbi Zeira bar Memel challenged it

with a difficulty concerning the words of the beraita:

How is it possible that a document acquires in such a manner?

This document is not similar to a sale document,

for the wording of this document is not similar to the wording of a document of sale for a field—

for

there,

in the acquisition of a field, the

seller is the one who

writes for him

writes for him

“My field is sold to you,”

to the buyer.

My field is sold to you.”

But

here,

here the

husband,

who is acquiring the woman,

writes

for the father [who transfers his daughter]

“Your daughter is betrothed to me.”

Your daughter is betrothed to me.”

And from where do we know that with such wording it is possible to acquire through a document?

Rava said: There

in a sale document, we interpret the manner of acquisition through the document

from the subject matter of the verse,

from the meaning of the verse concerning a sale [as will be explained below].

And here,

also here, concerning betrothal, we interpret the manner of acquisition through the document

from the subject matter of the verse,

from the meaning of the verse concerning betrothal—

There,

in a sale,

it is written [Leviticus 25]:

“

And he shall sell from his ancestral holding.”

And it indicates that

the Merciful One made the seller the basis

of the performance of the acquisition, and therefore he is the one who writes the document. And therefore he writes in it, “My field is sold to you,” and gives it to the buyer.

But

here,

concerning betrothal,

it is written [Deuteronomy 22]:

“When a man takes

a woman.” And it indicates that

the Merciful One made the husband the basis

of the performance of the act of betrothal. Therefore, the husband is the one who writes his betrothal document, and therefore he writes in it, “Your daughter is betrothed to me,” and gives it to her father, who transfers her to him.

And we raise a difficulty:

there,

in a sale,

it is also written [Jeremiah 32]:

“Fields shall be purchased with money.”

That is, the buyers shall purchase fields with money, and it indicates that the act of acquiring the field is through the buyer’s acquisition, and not through the seller’s sale. If so, why is the seller the one who writes the document?

And we answer: Since it is written concerning a field, “and he shall sell from his ancestral holding,” and it is proven from here that concerning a field the Torah made the seller the basis of the act of acquisition, therefore necessarily, in the second verse,

read it as,

you must read what is stated in the verse “fields shall be purchased with money” as though it said “they shall cause to be purchased,” with a patah under the letter yod. That is, the sellers are the ones who shall cause their fields to be purchased for the buyers.

And we reject the answer:

What is the reason you read it as

Why do you read it as “

“they shall cause to be purchased”?

Why do you read yiknu with a patah under the letter yod? It is

because it is written

concerning a field

“and he shall sell

from his ancestral holding,” from which it is proven that the verse made the seller the basis of the acquisition!

If so, this too is difficult:

so too,

also concerning betrothal,

read it as,

read the verse “when he takes” as though it said “when he

causes to be taken”

with a patah under the letter yod!

And the meaning of the verse would be: “When a man causes a woman [the father of the na'ara causes his daughter] to be taken [by him] as a wife.”

And the proof that the father of the na'ara performs the act of betrothal is from that which

is written [Deuteronomy 22] in the section concerning one who brings out an evil name, where the father of the na'ara about whom her husband brought out an evil name [that she committed adultery during her betrothal] comes to the court and says to them:

“This

is my daughter; I gave her to this man,”

and he placed accusations of words against her.

And since the verse said, “I gave my daughter,” it is proven that the father is the one who transfers his daughter to the husband!

And by virtue of this difficulty, the answer that one should read the verse as though it said “fields shall cause to be purchased,” with a patah, is rejected, and the difficulty returns: Indeed, concerning a sale it says “and he shall sell from his ancestral holding,” but it also says “fields shall be purchased with money,” indicating that the acquisition of the land depends on the buyer and not on the seller! Why does the seller write the document?

Rather, Rava said

another answer:

They are halakhot!

This is a halakha stated to Moses at Sinai, that in the betrothal of a woman the husband is the one who writes the betrothal document, whereas in the sale of a field the seller is the one who writes the document of sale.

And the Sages supported them—

Rather, Rava said

with verses.

The Sages supported and strengthened these halakhot, which were stated to Moses at Sinai, on the basis of the verses “and he shall sell from his ancestral holding” and “when he takes,” even though these verses are not a complete proof, since we find verses that indicate otherwise.

And if you wish, say

another answer:

There too,

also there, in the verse “fields shall be purchased with money,” which we brought as proof that the buyer is the one who performs the act of acquisition, and accordingly he is the one who should write the document—it can be proven from the verses that the buyer does not write the document; rather, the seller is the one who writes it.

For in the Book of Jeremiah [chapter 32, from verse 6 onward] it is related that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Jeremiah to purchase the field of his cousin, Hanamel son of Shalum, which was in Anatot.

And indeed Jeremiah purchased the field from him.

And so it is stated there: “And I purchased the field from Hanamel, my cousin.”

“And I took the document” [

deed ]

“of acquisition.”

of purchase.”

That is, Jeremiah, who was the buyer, received the document of sale from Hanamel, who was the seller.

And it is proven that also in this verse, the seller is the one who writes in the document, “My field is sold to you,” and gives it to the buyer.

But concerning betrothal it says “when he takes,” and therefore the husband is the buyer, and he is the one who writes in the document, “Your daughter is betrothed to me,” and gives it to the father. And now the Gemara brings a statement of Rav Nahman concerning betrothal through a document:

Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: If the husband wrote for him

the father of the minor girl or the na'ara,

on paper or on earthenware, even though it has no value of a peruta:

“Your daughter is betrothed to me.”

Or he wrote for him:

“Your daughter is engaged to me.”

Or:

“Your daughter is to me as a wife”

[as a wife]”—

then, whether the receipt of the document was carried out

by her father,

the father having received the document from the husband,

or

whether

the receipt of the document was carried out

by

the woman

herself,

she having received the document from the husband, with the father’s knowledge—

she is

betrothed.

Provided that the betrothal was

with his knowledge,

that of the father.

That is, even though the daughter may receive the document, the betrothal is effective only if it was carried out with the father’s knowledge.

And this,

and all this is speaking of a daughter

who

has still

not reached majority,

and the father is entitled to her betrothal. Therefore, the betrothal must be with the father’s knowledge.

In what circumstances does this apply, that a document in which it is written, “Your daughter is betrothed to me,” is a valid document even if the daughter received it, with her father’s knowledge? When the daughter is a minor girl or a na'ara.

But once she has reached majority, and her father no longer has any right to her betrothal, the document must be written for her, and not for her father. Therefore, if—

he wrote for her

a woman who had reached majority

on paper or on earthenware, even though it has no value of a peruta: “Behold, you are engaged to me”—

she is betrothed.

Whether

the receipt of the document was carried out

by her father

on her behalf,

or whether

the receipt of the document was carried out

by

the woman

herself.

The receipt of the document by her father on her behalf is effective only if the betrothal was carried out

with her knowledge,

that of the woman.

That is, even though the father can receive the betrothal document, the betrothal is effective only if it was carried out with the knowledge of the woman herself, who told him to receive it.

And this,

and all this is speaking after

she has reached majority,

when the daughter is entitled to her betrothal; therefore, the betrothal must be with her knowledge. But before she has reached majority, the betrothal is carried out with the father’s knowledge, even against the daughter’s will.

And now the Gemara discusses the question of whether the betrothal document must be written for her sake—

He inquired

[he asked]

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: A betrothal document that he wrote not for the sake

of the woman being betrothed, but for the sake of another woman with a similar name, and the betrother reconsidered and did not betroth her, and now wishes to give this document to this woman—

what

is its law?

Does it have to be that at the time of the writing it was in the husband’s mind to write this document in order to betroth this woman? Or, even if at the time of writing the document his intention was to betroth another woman, and he reconsidered and did not betroth her, may he now give it to this woman, if she has a similar name?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Whether

we compare the forms of being to the acts of departure.

Is it proper to compare and equate the law of the forms of being [betrothal] with the law of the acts of departure [divorce], and say—