Kiddushin 9b — the Talmud in English

What— ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location") as with

departure,

we require that the bill of divorce be written for the sake of the woman who is being divorced, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 24], “And he shall write for her,” and the Sages expounded: “for her”—for her sake!

So too marriage

kiddushin],

we require it to be for her sake.

Or perhaps,

perhaps we should say that

we compare the forms of marriage to one another.

We compare and equate all the acquisitions of marriage [kiddushin] with one another (277a)—

Just as the marriage of

kiddushei

money—

we do not require

we do not need to stamp the form of the coin with which the woman is betrothed

for her sake,

for the sake of the woman being betrothed—

so too the marriage by document—

we do not require

that the document be written

for her sake!

After he raised the question,

he then resolved it.

After Reish Lakish was uncertain about this, he himself returned and resolved the uncertainty:

We compare marriage to departure.

For from where did we learn marriage by document in the first place?—

For the verse says

Deuteronomy 24], “

And she shall depart and become.”

From the fact that marriage was compared to departure, we learned that just as a woman is divorced by means of a document, so too she is betrothed by means of a document.

And therefore, also with regard to writing the document for her sake, marriage must be compared to departure. The document of marriage must also be written for her sake, like the bill of divorce.

And the Gemara continues to discuss another matter connected with the comparison of marriage to departure:

It was stated:

a document of marriage that

he wrote for her sake,

for the sake of the marriage of a certain woman,

but not with her knowledge,

without asking the woman before writing the document whether she agreed to be betrothed to him by means of the document. And after he had already written the document, he informed her, and she agreed to it and received the document from him — the amoraim disagreed as to what the law is in this case:

Rava and Ravina say—

she is betrothed.

Rav Pappa and Rav Sharya say—

she is not betrothed.

And Rav Pappa explains what their disagreement depends upon:

Rav Pappa said: Let me state their reason,

I shall explain the reason for the words of Rava and Ravina, who hold that she is betrothed,

and let me state my reason,

and I shall also explain the reason for my words, for I hold that the woman is not betrothed:

Let me state their reason,

I shall explain the reason for the words of Rava and Ravina, who hold that the woman is betrothed.

Because

it is written, “

And she shall depart and become”—

the verse compares

the

marriage to departure—

Just as departure,

which is effected by means of a bill of divorce, requires that the bill of divorce be written

for her sake,

so

however, even if the bill of divorce was written

not with her knowledge

without her consent], it is valid.

so too marriage,

which is effected by means of a document of marriage,

also—

the document of marriage must be written

for her sake.

But

however, even if it was written

not with her knowledge,

it is valid.

And therefore Rava and Ravina said that a document of marriage that was written for her sake but not with her knowledge is valid.

And let me state my reason,

and I shall explain the reason for my words, for I hold that a document of marriage that was written for her sake but not with her knowledge is invalid.

Because it is stated, “

And she shall depart and become”—

the verse compares

the

marriage to departure:

Just as

in the matter of

departure

by a bill of divorce,

we require

that the document be written according to the

knowledge of the

the

transferor.

That is, we must write the bill of divorce with the husband’s knowledge, as it is stated, “And he shall write for her” [and it is not enough that the scribe write the bill of divorce for her sake], since it is the husband who transfers to the woman herself the ability to marry whomever she wishes—

so too marriage,

also a document of marriage,

we require

that the document be written according to the

knowledge of the

the

transferor.

And in marriage, the woman is the one who transfers herself to the husband. Therefore, a document of marriage must be written with the woman’s knowledge, and if it was written not with her knowledge, it is invalid.

An objection

a contradiction to the words of Rava and Ravina, who hold that a document of marriage written without the woman’s knowledge is valid:

For we learned in tractate Bava Batra [167b]: One may not

write documents of betrothal and marriage except with the knowledge of both,

the husband and the woman.

What

is being discussed there?

Is it not

documents of

betrothal and marriage ממש?!

And we learned that one may not write a document of betrothal [kiddushin] and marriage except with the knowledge of both, and it is proven from there that the woman’s knowledge is required for writing a document of marriage!

But this is a contradiction to the words of Rava and Ravina!

And we reject this:

No.

It is not referring there to actual documents of betrothal! Rather, it is referring to

documents of stipulation,

which are documents in which the commitments between the two parties—the father of the groom and the father of the bride—and the money that they stipulated for one another are written.

And in accordance with what Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav:

For Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav:

when, before the betrothal, the father of the bride asks the father of the groom:

How much are you giving for your son?

And the father of the groom says to him:

Such and such.

And the father of the groom then asks the father of the bride: How much are you giving

for your daughter?

And he says to him:

Such and such.

If

the

father of the groom and the father of the bride

arose

from this agreement and betrothed their children [the groom the bride], without the father of the groom and the father of the bride performing any act of acquisition between themselves concerning the commitments that they had undertaken toward one another,

then, even though they did not perform an act of acquisition, nevertheless they

acquired!

Each one acquired the commitment from the other, and neither one can retract.

And no act of acquisition is necessary for this commitment, since

these are—

the things acquired through a statement

without an act of acquisition.

And the betrothal is the completion of the matter, because they derive benefit from being bound to one another through the bond of betrothal, and that benefit causes them to resolve in their minds to transfer their commitments to one another; an act of acquisition is not necessary.

And concerning those stipulations the Mishna said [in Bava Batra] that the witnesses are not permitted to write a document about them except with the knowledge of both. But if the witnesses did not ask both of them, they are not permitted to write a document, because it is possible that they prefer that the commitment be only an oral loan, and not a loan documented in writing.

We learned in the Mishna: A woman is acquired

also through intercourse.

And we raised a question about it:

From where do we know this,

from where do we know that a woman is acquired through intercourse?

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: For the verse says

Deuteronomy 22]: “When a man finds a woman lying with

a man’s wife”—

the verse teaches

the

that she is made

her husband a

husband, through

acquiring her by means of

intercourse.

And therefore it says, “a man’s wife.”

He said to him,

he expressed his astonishment to

Rabbi Zeira to Rabbi Abbahu,

who had brought this statement of Rabbi Yohanan—

And some say,

there are those who say that

Reish Lakish

was the one who expressed his astonishment

to Rabbi Yohanan:

Why do you trouble yourself and seek to derive marriage through intercourse from this verse?

For is

ugly

disgraceful] this beraita

that

in it

Rabbi

taught the source for marriage through intercourse?!

As it was taught: [Deuteronomy 24] “When a man takes a woman,

and cohabits with her”—

the verse teaches

that

a woman

is acquired through intercourse.

And is this beraita not acceptable to you?!

Rabbi Abbahu, or Rabbi Yohanan, answered them:

If from there,

if we were to learn from the verse “and cohabits with her” that a woman is betrothed through intercourse,

I would have thought

I would say that the woman is not acquired by her husband, but rather

until he betroths her, and then cohabits with her.

That is, one might have said that the woman is not betrothed through intercourse alone; rather, he must first betroth her with money,

and afterward cohabit with her, because the meaning of this verse is: “When a man takes a woman,” acquiring her first through betrothal with money [as explained above, 2a], and afterward, “and cohabits with her.”

It teaches us this,

therefore it was necessary to learn from the verse “a man’s wife,” to teach us that intercourse acquires on its own.

Rabbi Abba bar Memel challenged him

with a difficulty:

But could it have been possible to say that betrothal takes effect only if he betroths the woman with money and then cohabits with her, so that Rabbi Yohanan needed to learn from the verse “a man’s wife” that the woman is acquired through the act of intercourse alone?!

But

if

you

say so—

a maiden

a virgin

who is betrothed,

who committed adultery during her betrothal,

for the Merciful One said

to punish her

by stoning—

how can you find this case?!

How could you find such a possibility, to punish her by stoning for having committed adultery while she was a betrothed virgin maiden?

For the punishment of stoning for the adultery of a married woman was stated only for a betrothed virgin maiden, whereas the rest of a married woman [a betrothed woman who is not a maiden, or a maiden who is not a virgin, or a married woman] who committed adultery while with her husband is punished by strangulation.

For thus the Torah said [Deuteronomy 22:22]: “When a man is found lying with a man’s wife, then both of them shall die,” and this means death by strangulation.

And it is stated [in the following verse]: “If there be a maiden, a virgin, betrothed to a man, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her. Then you shall stone them with stones.” And the Sages expounded: “If there be a maiden, a virgin”—a virgin and not one who has been penetrated. The verse teaches that a betrothed maiden who has been penetrated is punished by strangulation, like a married woman [Ketubot 48b].

And if it is as you say—that it might have been possible to say that a woman is betrothed only through betrothal with money and intercourse together—how could the adultery of a betrothed virgin maiden, whose law is stoning, be possible? For once she has been penetrated at the time of her betrothal, she is no longer a virgin but one who has been penetrated; and if she commits adultery with another while married to him, her law is strangulation, like the law of a married woman who has been penetrated, and not stoning, like the law of a virgin maiden!

And Rabbi Abba bar Memel explains his difficulty:

If he betrothed her and then had intercourse with her,

if he betrothed the woman with money and afterward had intercourse with her, then

she is a woman who has had intercourse,

and her judgment is strangulation!

And

if he betrothed her and did not have intercourse with her—

it is nothing!

If he betrothed her with money and did not have intercourse with her, then according to your words, there would be room to say that these are not betrothals, and she is considered unmarried; and if she has intercourse with another man, she is not liable for any punishment at all!

Rather, necessarily we would understand that “when a man takes a woman” is an acquisition in itself, with money, and the continuation of the verse, “and has intercourse with her,” is an acquisition in itself, through intercourse; and there would have been no room to entertain the thought that from this verse we would say that a woman is acquired by her husband only if he betrothed her and had intercourse with her!

And the Gemara brings an answer to the attack of Rabbi Abba bar Memel—

The Sages said,

the students sitting

before Abaye:

Even if we were to interpret the verse, “When a man takes a woman and has intercourse with her,” as meaning that a woman is acquired only through money and intercourse together, still

you can find it,

you can find a betrothed virgin girl who is liable to death by stoning if she commits adultery while betrothed—

For example, when

he betrothed her with money, and afterward

had intercourse with her

the

betrothed man

through intercourse

in an unnatural manner,

that is, he did not have intercourse with her in the place of virginity, but in the place of the exit of excrement.

And through such intercourse she becomes betrothed to him, but she still remains a virgin; and therefore, if she commits adultery while married to him, her judgment is stoning, for she is a betrothed virgin girl.

He said to them

Abaye, to his students: It would not be possible to establish the law of stoning for a betrothed virgin girl as you said, in the case of one who was betrothed with money and had intercourse with her husband through intercourse in an unnatural manner.

For we find below that Rabbi and the Sages disagreed concerning a woman who had intercourse in an unnatural manner [by a man who is not her husband], whether through this she becomes a woman who has had intercourse, as will be explained in the Gemara below.

According to Rabbi, she is considered a woman who has had intercourse, whereas according to the Sages she is still considered a virgin.

And according to Rabbi, it is clear that if the betrothed man had intercourse with her in an unnatural manner, she becomes a woman who has had intercourse. From this point onward, if she commits adultery, her judgment is strangulation and not stoning.

But even the Sages agree that intercourse by the betrothed man through intercourse in an unnatural manner makes her considered a woman who has had intercourse, and she is no longer considered a virgin.

For

Rabbi and the Sages disagreed only up to this point

as to whether she becomes a woman who has had intercourse through intercourse in an unnatural manner,

but

only

with

a man

other

than the betrothed man who had intercourse with her in an unnatural manner.

But when he had intercourse [the

betrothed man]—

everyone agrees that if he had intercourse with her

even

in an unnatural manner, he made her

thereby a

woman who has had intercourse. [And this matter is learned below from the verse “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband.”]

And this matter is derived below from the verse, “A woman who has had intercourse with a husband.”]

And now the Gemara explains which beraita Abaye learned from concerning the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages:

What is it,

the beraita upon which Abaye relied?

For it was taught: They had intercourse with her,

with a betrothed virgin girl,

ten men,

through intercourse in an unnatural manner,

and she was still

remaining a

virgin—

all of them

are judged

by stoning.

These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi

disagrees and

says: I say, the first

is judged

by stoning,

because he had intercourse with her while she was a virgin,

and all of them,

all those who had intercourse with her after him, are judged

by strangulation,

because she became a woman who had had intercourse through the first man, despite the fact that he had intercourse with her in an unnatural manner.

And Abaye said about this that even the Sages agree that if the betrothed man had intercourse with her first, she becomes a woman who has had intercourse.

And Abaye challenged them: According to this, the question returns: how could we have said that a woman is acquired by her husband only through money and intercourse? For if you say so, you will not find a betrothed virgin girl whose judgment is stoning!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: You can find it,

you will find this

for example, when he betrothed her

the betrothed man

with a document.

And a document certainly acquires in itself, even without intercourse.

And the reason for the matter is:

since

a document

completes and removes

the woman from her husband without any additional thing, therefore also with regard to betrothals, the document

completes and brings in

without intercourse.

And therefore, if only “When a man takes a woman and has intercourse with her” had been stated in the Torah, and “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband” had not been stated, I would say that money and intercourse acquire only when both are performed together, whereas a document acquires in itself. And the betrothed virgin girl who is stoned is in the case where she was betrothed with a document, and she has still not had intercourse with her husband, remaining a virgin, and she committed adultery while married to him.

And therefore Rabbi Yoḥanan needed—needed to expound from the verse “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband” that intercourse acquires in itself.

And from this point onward, the verse “When a man takes a woman and has intercourse with her” must be explained as follows: “when he takes” is an acquisition in itself, with money; and “and has intercourse with her” is an acquisition in itself, through intercourse.

And from here it is proven that money acquires without intercourse, and intercourse acquires without money.

Up to this point it has been explained why Rabbi Yoḥanan needed to learn that intercourse acquires a woman from the verse “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband,” and did not learn it from the verse “and has intercourse with her.”

But the question is asked:

And Rabbi Yoḥanan, this “

and has intercourse with her”—

what does he do with it?

What will Rabbi Yoḥanan do with the verse “and has intercourse with her”? Why was it written?

And we answer: The verse,

that—

is needed by him,

it is needed to teach that specifically

this [a

woman]

is acquired

by her husband

through intercourse.

And

however,

the

Hebrew

maidservant is not acquired

by her master

through intercourse.

For had the verse not said, “When a man takes a woman and has intercourse with her,”

it might have entered your mind

that

it should be derived by a kal va-chomer from a yevama,

that it should be learned that a Hebrew maidservant is acquired through intercourse, by a kal va-chomer from a yevama—

And if a yevama, who is not acquired with money,

nevertheless

is acquired

by her yavam

through intercourse,

this one,

the Hebrew maidservant,

who

is easier to acquire, for

she is acquired with money—

is it not the law

to say

that she is acquired

also

through intercourse?!

And therefore it was said concerning a woman, “When a man takes a woman and has intercourse with her,” to teach that only a woman is acquired by her husband through intercourse, whereas a Hebrew maidservant is not acquired by her master through intercourse.

And we challenge: How could it enter our minds to say that the maidservant is acquired by her master through intercourse, by a kal va-chomer from the acquisition of the yevama by the yavam?

For the kal va-chomer should be rejected, and one should say:

What is there concerning a yevama

who is acquired through intercourse? This is because

she is thereby destined and standing

for levirate intercourse on account of the betrothals of his deceased brother, and it follows that the intercourse of the yavam with her comes only to complete the acquisition.

But as for the Hebrew maidservant, who is not destined and standing for her master, from where do we have room to entertain that his intercourse with her is effective to make a complete acquisition of her from beginning to end?

And on the basis of this question, the Gemara says that for another reason it might enter our minds to say that the maidservant is acquired through intercourse:

It might have entered your mind,

it might have entered your mind to say,

since the verse wrote

concerning a Hebrew maidservant [whom the master designates to be a wife for himself or for his son]— [Exodus 21]: “

[Exodus 21]: “

If

a woman

else he takes for himself [the master], her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights [of the Hebrew maidservant whom he designated for himself as a wife] he shall not diminish.”

the master—her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights [of the Hebrew maidservant whom he designated as a wife for himself] he shall not diminish.”

The verse equated

the Hebrew maidservant [whom he designated as a wife]

with

a

different

woman.

And since the verse equated the Hebrew maidservant with a woman, I would say on the basis of this equation:

Just as a different [a

woman]

is acquired

by her husband

through intercourse—

so too the Hebrew maidservant is acquired

by her master

through intercourse.

Therefore,

it teaches us,

the verse “When a man takes a woman and has intercourse with her” teaches us that only the woman is acquired by her husband through intercourse, and the Hebrew maidservant is not acquired by her master through intercourse.

Up to this point the Gemara has explained the view of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who learned betrothals through intercourse from the verse “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband.”

And now the Gemara explains the view of Rabbi, who learned betrothals through intercourse from the verse “and has intercourse with her.”

And

one must ask:

Rabbi—

this reasoning, from where does he derive it?

From where will Rabbi learn that a Hebrew maidservant is not acquired through intercourse? For according to him, the word “and has intercourse with her” is needed to teach the very matter of betrothals through intercourse, and not to exclude the acquisition of a Hebrew maidservant through intercourse!

And we answer: Rabbi holds that

if so,

if indeed the verse was written only to teach about the very matter of betrothals through intercourse, and no more—

let the Merciful One write “

and he has intercourse”

without the addition of the letter heh!

What is “

and has intercourse with her”?

Why did the verse say “and has intercourse with her,” with the addition of the letter heh?

Learn from it two things,

two things are learned from this verse: [ A] The very betrothals through intercourse are learned from “and he has intercourse.” [ B] It excludes that the maidservant is acquired by her master through intercourse, from the superfluous letter heh.

a. The very institution of betrothal through intercourse is learned from “and has intercourse.”

b. The additional letter heh excludes the Hebrew maidservant from being acquired by her master through intercourse.

But the Gemara challenges this answer:

For below [51a] Abaye and Rava disagreed about the law of “betrothals that are not fit for intercourse,” that is, betrothals performed in a manner in which it is forbidden for the husband to have intercourse with the woman,

for example: one who says to the father of two young women or minors, “One of your two daughters is betrothed to me,” and does not specify which of them is betrothed to him.

For if his betrothals take effect in one of them, without determining which one is betrothed to him, intercourse with both becomes forbidden to him. For with regard to each of them, there is concern lest the betrothals took effect in her sister, and she is therefore his wife’s sister, and it is forbidden for a man to have intercourse with his wife’s sister.

According to Abaye: the betrothals take effect, and both of them become forbidden to him.

Whereas according to Rava: betrothals that are not available for intercourse are not betrothals, and he is permitted with both of them; likewise, they are permitted to marry another man without a bill of divorce from the betrother.

And bar Ahina brought a source for Rava’s words from the words of the verse, which says: “When a man takes a woman and has intercourse with her.”

“When he takes” means betrothals with money [learned through the gzera shava “taking”–“taking” from the field of Ephron]. And this verse teaches that only taking with money that is fit for intercourse has the power to effect betrothals.

And from this point onward, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who expounded one exposition from “and has intercourse with her” [that a Hebrew maidservant is not acquired through intercourse], it is understandable that one can expound an additional exposition—that betrothals not available for intercourse are not betrothals—for the addition of the letter heh in the word “and has intercourse with her” is superfluous for the purpose of an additional exposition.

But

according to

the words of

Rava, who said: bar Ahina [the

name of an amora]

explained it to me,

he explained to me that I can bring a source for my view that betrothals not available for intercourse are not betrothals from the exposition of the verse [Deuteronomy 24]: “

When a man takes a woman—

and has intercourse with her,”

from here, specifically

betrothals available for intercourse are betrothals,

but

betrothals not available for intercourse [in which I cannot read, “When a man takes a woman and has intercourse with her”]—

in which it is impossible to read, “When a man takes a woman, and has intercourse with her”]—

are not betrothals.

And if Rabbi indeed expounded two expositions from the word “and has intercourse with her,” as we said above [that a woman is acquired through intercourse, and that a Hebrew maidservant is not acquired through intercourse], this is difficult:

what can be said?

How did Rava learn from this verse that betrothals not available for intercourse are not betrothals? For he has no superfluity in this verse through which he would have the possibility of expounding it as a third exposition?

And we answer: According to Rava, there is an additional superfluity in this verse:

If so,

if indeed the verse had been written only to teach us these two expositions,

let the verse write “

when a man takes a woman

or has intercourse with her!”

For intercourse is an independent acquisition in itself!

What is “

and has intercourse with her”?—

Why was “and has intercourse with her” written with a conjunctive vav?

Therefore,

learn from it all of them,

learn from here all three expositions—

a. “He has intercourse”—it teaches that she is acquired through intercourse.

b. The letter heh excludes that the Hebrew maidservant is acquired by her master through intercourse.

c. The conjunctive vav teaches that betrothals with money are required, through which the woman will be fit for intercourse.

But there is still an additional question concerning Rabbi —

Rabbi Yoḥanan learned from the verse “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband” that she becomes a wife through intercourse, whereas Rabbi learned this from “and has intercourse with her.”

And if so,

Rabbi, this “

a woman who has had intercourse with a husband”—

what does he do with it?

What does Rabbi expound from the verse “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband”?

And we answer:

This is needed by him,

this verse is needed to teach us that only

the husband makes her a woman who has had intercourse

through intercourse

in an unnatural manner, and another does not make her a woman who has had intercourse through intercourse in an unnatural manner,

as long as she is still a virgin [and in accordance with Abaye’s reasoning above].

And we ask:

Does Rabbi indeed hold this reasoning?!

Does Rabbi hold that there is a difference between the husband and another man concerning intercourse in an unnatural manner?!

But it was taught,

for we learned in a beraita:

They had intercourse with her,

with the betrothed girl,

ten men

through intercourse in an unnatural manner,

and she was still a virgin—

all of them

are judged

by stoning,

according to the law of one who has intercourse with a betrothed virgin girl. These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi says: I say,

only

the first

is judged

by stoning,

because he had intercourse with her while she was still a virgin.

And

if

all of them,

all those who had intercourse with her after him, are judged

by strangulation,

according to the law of one who has intercourse with a married woman who has had intercourse.

And from here it follows that according to Rabbi, even another man who is not the husband makes the girl a “woman who has had intercourse” through intercourse in an unnatural manner!