Kiddushin

that even if she said ‘no,’ it is [valid] kiddushin. But why, seeing that she said ‘no’? Hence surely, ‘she consented’ means that she said ‘yes’, whilst ‘she did not consent, that she kept silence; thus proving that silence after receipt of money has no significance. A difficulty was raised thereon at Pum Nehara1 in the name of R. Huna, son of R. Joshua. How compare? There it was given her as a deposit: [therefore] she thought, ‘If I throw it away and it is broken, I am liable for it.’ But here he gave it to her as kiddushin: if she did not want it [as such], she should have thrown it away! — R. Ahai retorted: Do then all women know the law? Here too she might have thought, ‘If I throw it away and it is broken, I will be held responsible for it.’ R. Aha b. Rab sent [an inquiry]2 to Rabina: What is the ruling in such a case? He sent back: We have not heard this [objection] of R. Huna, son of R. Joshua;3 but you, who have heard it,4 must have regard to it.5 A certain woman was selling silk skeins,6 when a man came and snatched one away from her. ‘Give it back to me,’ she exclaimed. ‘If I give it to you,’ he queried, ‘will you become betrothed to me?’ She took it and was silent. Thereupon R. Nahman ruled: She can say: ‘Indeed, I took it, and ‘twas my own I took’.7 Raba objected before R. Nahman: If he betroths her with [an article] of robbery, violence, or theft,8 or if he snatches a sela’ from her hand and betroths her, she is [validly] betrothed? — There it means that he had discussed the preliminaries [of marriage].9 And how do you know that we draw a distinction between one who discussed the preliminaries and one who did not? — Because it was taught: If one says to a woman,10 ‘Take this sela’ which I owe thee,’ and then he says: ‘Be thou betrothed unto me therewith’: [if he said this] when giving the money and she consented, she is betrothed; if she did not consent , she is not betrothed; after giving the money, even if she consented, she is not betrothed. Now, what is the meaning of ‘she consented,’ ‘she did not consent’? Shall we say: ‘she consented’ means that she said ‘yes’, ‘she did not consent’, that she said ‘no’: but if she remained silent, the kiddushin is valid? Then it should simply have been taught: ‘she is betrothed’,just as there.11 But [we must say,] ‘she consented’ means that she said ‘yes,’ whilst ‘she did not consent,’ that she was silent, and it was taught that she is not betrothed. What is the reason? Because she can say: ‘Indeed, I took it, and ‘twas mine I took.’ But in that case, this [Baraitha], ‘If he betroths her with robbery, violence, or theft, or if he snatches a sela’ from her hand and betroths her, she is betrothed,’ presents a difficulty. Hence it must surely be inferred that in the one case he had discussed the preliminaries,12 whereas in the other he had not. When R. Assi died, the Rabbis went up to assemble his legal traditions. Said one of the Rabbis, R. Jacob by name, to them: Thus did R. Assi say in R. Mani's name: Just as a woman cannot be acquired by less than a perutah's worth, so can real estate not be acquired with less than a perutah's worth. But, they protested to him, it was taught: Although a woman cannot be acquired for less than a perutah's worth, land can be acquired for less than a perutah's worth? — That was taught only in respect to barter, he answered them. For it was taught: Acquisition can be effected through an article, even if it is not worth a perutah.13 Again they sat and related: In reference to Rab Judah's statement in Rab's name, [that] one who does not know the peculiar nature of divorce and betrothal should have no business with them,14 R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: And they15 are more harmful to the world than the generation of the flood, for it is written: By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they spread forth, and blood toucheth blood.16 How does this imply [it]? — As R. Joseph translated:17 They beget children by their neighbour's wives,18 thus piling evil upon evil.19 And it is written: Therefore shall the land mourn and everyone that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven: yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.20 Whereas in the case of the generation of the flood nought was decreed against the fish of the sea, for it is written, of all that was in the dry land, died:21 [implying] but not the fish in the sea, whilst here even the fish of the sea [are to be destroyed]. But perhaps that is only when all these are perpetrated?22 — You cannot think so, for it is written, for because of swearing the land mourneth.23 Yet perhaps swearing stands alone, and these others [combined] alone? another, not far from Humanya on the Tigris. It had an all-Jewish population. Obermeyer, pp. 194 et seqq. that they were evidently aware of it, whoever their informant was. Kaplan, Redaction of the Talmud, p. 138 translates: We have not found the view of R. Huna the son of R. Joshua as logically correct. assumes that R. Aha b. Rab, Rabina and R. Ahai, otherwise known as the Sabora R. Ahai of Hatim, appear here as contemporaries. On the strength of this he identifies Rabina with Rabina b. R. Huna, the last president of Sura, and not Rabina, the colleague of R. Ashi. Actually however, there is nothing here to indicate that they were contemporaries, the reply of R. Ahai possibly having been made at a later date. representing the larger article or the money which is actually the purchase price: consequently it may be worth less than a perutah. But when acquisition is effected through money itself, or an article valued as money, what is not worth a perutah does not rank as such. and spread forth. marriage and divorce likewise cause this, married women often being declared free illegally.