Kiddushin 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

1.

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

Exact page location")

glass beads,

and he wore them strung together around his neck.

A certain woman came,

and

said to him: Give me one string,

give me one necklace.

He said to her: If I give it to you,

will you

be betrothed to me?

If I give you a necklace, will you agree to become betrothed to me with it?

She said to him: Give it, give it,

I.e., “You shall indeed give it.”

The Gemara considers: Did the woman intend to say: “Give it, as you said, for the sake of betrothal,” in which case she is betrothed?

Or perhaps she intended to say: “Give it, as I told you to give it to me as a gift, and do not mock me.” In that case, she is not betrothed.

Rav Ḥama said: Every

expression of

“Give it, give it”

(i.e., “You shall indeed give it”)

is of no consequence,

and she is not betrothed.

2.

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.

A certain woman came,

a woman came, and

said to him: Give me one cup!

Give me one cup of wine.

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

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

She said to him: Pour me a drink, pour me a drink!

Pour me a drink; you shall certainly pour me a drink.

Rav Ḥama said: Every

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

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

A certain woman came,

a certain woman came, and said to him: Give me one cup! Give me one cup of wine. He said to her: If I give it to you, will you be betrothed to me with it? If I give you a cup of wine, will you agree to become betrothed to me with it? She said to him: Pour for me, pour for me! Pour for me; you shall indeed pour for me. Rav Ḥama said: Every “ Pour for me, pour for me” is of no consequence.

The woman did not agree to the betrothal, and therefore she is not betrothed.

3.

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

A certain man was throwing dates from a palm tree onto the ground.

A certain woman came,

a woman came,

and said to him: Throw me two,

throw me two dates.

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

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

She said to him: Throw them, throw them!

Throw them; you shall certainly throw them.

Rav Zevid said: Every

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

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

A certain woman came,

a certain woman came, and said to him: Throw me two, throw me two dates. He said to her: If I throw them for you, will you be betrothed to me with them? If I throw them for you, will you agree to become betrothed to me with them? She said to him: Throw them, throw them! Throw them; you shall indeed throw them. Rav Zevid said: Every “ Throw them, throw them” is of no consequence,

and she is not betrothed.

They raised a dilemma

and posed the following question to the members of the academy:

If, in one of these three incidents, the woman had responded without repeating the expression—for example, if she had answered him: “

“Give,”

or

“Pour me a drink,”

Give,”

or “

Pour

and” “ throw,”

and had not repeated her words—“Give it, give it,” “Pour for me, pour for me,” or “Throw them, throw them”—

what is the law

in this case?

When the woman says “Give me” only once, do we likewise say that she intended to say, “Give me as I said, and do not mock me”? Or does specifically the repetition of the expression indicate, “Give me as I said,” whereas if she says “Give me” only once, her intention is, “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.

Since we have ruled halakha here, the Gemara rules halakha here as well in several additional forms of betrothal with money mentioned in our discussion:

a.

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

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

One who betroths a woman with silk garments need not have their value appraised before the betrothal [and not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef above, 7b].

b.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

who said [above, 8a] that if one says to a woman, “You are betrothed to me with one hundred dinars,” and gives her only one dinar, she is betrothed immediately, provided that he subsequently completes the one hundred dinars for her.

c.

And the halakha is in accordance with what Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman [above, at the end of 8a], that if he says to a woman, “You are betrothed to me with one hundred dinars,” and places collateral for it, she is not betrothed, since there is neither the one hundred dinars nor the collateral.

[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 this point, the Gemara explained the law of betrothal through money.

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

The Sages taught in a beraita:

The Sages taught:

Betrothal of a woman

through a document—

through a document—

how is it done?

When one betroths a minor or a young woman through betrothal money that he gives to her father—if

he writes for him

the man betrothing the minor or young woman writes to her father

on paper or on earthenware,

how is it effected?

When one betroths a minor or a na’ara through betrothal given to her father—if

[the paper or earthenware]

the value of one peruta:

he wrote for him

the man betrothing her wrote for the father of the minor or na’ara on paper or on earthenware, even though it does not contain any item on the paper or earthenware worth a peruta:

“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 my wife”

(i.e., “for a wife”)—

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

she is betrothed.

Rabbi Zeira bar Memel raised an objection

to the words of the beraita:

How can it be that a document effects acquisition in this manner?

This document is not similar to a deed of sale,

for the wording of this document is not similar to the wording of a deed 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

the buyer: “

the buyer: “My field is sold to you.”

My field is sold to you.”

But

here,

here the

husband,

who is acquiring the woman,

writes

for the father [who transfers his daughter to him]: “

“Your daughter is betrothed to me.”

Your daughter is betrothed to me.”

And from where do we know that acquisition can be effected through a document worded in this manner?

Rava said: There,

in a deed of sale, we determine the manner in which the document effects acquisition

from the context of the verse,

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

And here,

also here, with regard to betrothal, we determine the manner in which the document effects acquisition

from the context of the verse,

from the meaning of the verse concerning betrothal—

There,

with regard to a sale,

it is written [Leviticus 25]: “ And he sells some of his ancestral land.”

“And he sells some of his ancestral property.”

with regard to a sale, it is written [Leviticus 25]: “And he sells some of his ancestral land.”

This indicates that

the Merciful One made the seller the determinant of the act of acquisition, and therefore he is the one who writes the document. Thus, he writes in it, “My field is sold to you,” and gives it to the buyer.

for carrying out the acquisition, and therefore he is the one who writes the document. He consequently writes in it, “My field is sold to you,” and gives it to the buyer.

But

here,

with regard to betrothal,

it is written [Deuteronomy 22]: “ When a man takes

[Deuteronomy 22]: "When a man taketh a woman." And it implies that

“When a man takes

a woman.” This indicates that

the Merciful One made the husband the determinant of the act of betrothal. Therefore, the husband is the one who writes the betrothal document; he writes in it, “Your daughter is betrothed to me,” and gives it to her father, who transfers her to him.

for carrying out the act of betrothal. Therefore, the husband is the one who writes his document of betrothal. He consequently writes in it, “Your daughter is betrothed to me,” and gives it to her father, who transfers her to him.

And we raise an objection:

There,

with regard to a sale,

it is also written [Jeremiah 32]: “ Fields shall be purchased for money.” That is, the buyers shall purchase fields with money, indicating that the act of acquiring the field is performed by the buyer, and not by the seller’s sale. If so, why is the seller the one who writes the document?

[Jeremiah 32] "They shall buy fields for money."

“Fields shall be purchased for money.”

That is, the buyers shall purchase fields with money, indicating that the act of acquiring the field is performed 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, with regard to a field, it is written, “and he sells some of his ancestral land,” and it is evident from here that the Torah made the seller the determinant of the act of acquisition, therefore, necessarily, in the second verse

read it as

you should read the statement in the verse “Fields shall be purchased for money” as though it said yiknu with a pataḥ beneath the yod. That is, the sellers are the ones who shall sell their fields to the buyers.

We reject this answer:

What is the reason that you read it as

Why do you read it as “

yiknu”?

Why do you read yiknu with a pataḥ beneath the yod? It is

because it is written

with regard to a field: “

and he sells some of his ancestral land,” from which it is evident that the verse made the seller the determinant of the acquisition!

If so, this is difficult:

If so, there is a difficulty:

Here too,

with regard to betrothal,

read it as

you should read the verse “When a man takes” as though it said “When he

takes” with a pataḥ beneath the yod!

The meaning of the verse would then be: “When a man takes a woman”—that is, when the father of a na’ara takes his daughter and gives her to a husband.

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 defames his wife, in which the father of the na’ara whose husband defamed her [claiming that she had committed adultery during their betrothal] comes to the court and says to them:

“This is my daughter; I gave her to this man,

[Deuteronomy 22] in the passage concerning motzi shem ra — that the father of the girl whose husband has uttered slanderous words against her [that she committed adultery during her betrothal], came before the court and said to them

“This is

my daughter; I gave her to this man,”

and he fabricated accusations against her.”

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

By force of this objection, the answer is rejected that the verse should be read as though it said “Fields shall be purchased” with a pataḥ, and the original difficulty returns: Although with regard to a sale it says, “and he sells some of his ancestral land,” it also says, “Fields shall be purchased for money,” indicating that the acquisition of the land depends on the buyer and not on the seller! Why, then, does the seller write the document?

Rather, Rava said,

another answer:

They are established laws!

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

And the Sages supported them—

Rather, Rava said

with verses.

The Sages supported and reinforced these laws, which were transmitted to Moses at Sinai, on the basis of the verses “And he sells some of his ancestral property” and “When a man takes,” even though these verses are not a complete proof, since we find verses that indicate otherwise.

And if you wish, say

another resolution:

They are halakhot! This is the halakha transmitted 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 deed of sale. And the Sages supported them— with verses. The Sages supported and reinforced these halakhot, which were transmitted to Moses at Sinai, on the basis of the verses “and he sells some of his ancestral land” and “when a man takes,” although these verses are not conclusive proofs, since we find verses that indicate otherwise. And if you wish, say another resolution: There too,

also there, in the verse “Fields shall be purchased for money,” which we cited as proof that the buyer performs the act of acquisition and therefore should be the one to write the document, the verses prove that it is not the buyer who writes the document; rather, the seller is the one who writes it.

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

And indeed, Jeremiah purchased the field from him.

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

“And I took the deed

[document]

of purchase.”

of purchase.”

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

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

But with regard to betrothal it says, “When a man takes,” and therefore the husband is the buyer, and he writes in the document, “Your daughter is betrothed to me,” and gives it to the father. Now the Gemara cites a statement of Rav Naḥman concerning betrothal through a document:

Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: If the husband wrote to

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

on paper or on earthenware, even though it is not worth a peruta:

“Your daughter is betrothed to me.”

Or he wrote to him:

“Your daughter is betrothed to me.”

Or:

“Your daughter is my wife”

[as a wife]—

then, whether the bill of betrothal was received

by her father,

meaning that the father received the document from the husband,

or

whether

the document was received

by

the woman

herself,

meaning that she received the document from the husband with her father’s consent—

she is

betrothed.

Provided that the betrothal was

with the consent

of her father.

That is, although the daughter may receive the document, the betrothal is effective only if it was performed with the father’s consent.

And this

all applies to a daughter

who

has not yet

come of age,

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

In what case is this said—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 consent? When the daughter is a minor or a na'ara.

But once she has come of age, and her father no longer has any rights regarding her betrothal, the document must be written for her, and not for her father. Therefore, if—

he wrote to her

a woman who had come of age,

on paper or on earthenware, even though it is not worth a peruta: “Behold, you are betrothed to me”—

she is betrothed.

Whether

the document was received

by her father

on her behalf, or

whether

the document was received

by

the woman

herself.

Her father’s receipt of the document on her behalf is effective only if the betrothal was performed

with her consent,

that of the woman.

That is, although the father may receive the bill of betrothal, the betrothal is effective only if it was performed with the woman’s own consent, meaning that she instructed him to receive it.

And this

all applies after she

has come of age,

when the daughter is entitled to her own betrothal; therefore, the betrothal must be performed with her consent. But before she comes of age, the betrothal is performed with the father’s consent, even against the daughter’s will.

The Gemara now discusses whether the bill of betrothal must be written for the sake of the particular woman—

He raised

[he asked]

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: A bill of betrothal that he wrote not for her sake

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

what

is its legal status?

Does it have to be the man’s intention at the time of writing to write this document in order to betroth this particular woman with it? Or, even if at the time he wrote the document he intended to betroth another woman, and then reconsidered and decided not to betroth her, may he now give it to this woman if she has a similar name?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Whether

we derive the forms of betrothal from the forms of divorce.

That is, whether it is appropriate to compare and equate the law of the forms of betrothal [kiddushin] with the law of the forms of divorce [gittin], and say—