Kiddushin

[Hence] the disciple's view1 is preferable. Raba said: What is R. Huna's reason? Because she was treated as an orphan during her father's lifetime.2 It was stated: If a minor became betrothed without her father's knowledge: Rab said: Both she and her father can repudiate [it]. R. Assi said: Her father, but not she herself. R. Huna — others state, Hiyya b. Rab-raised an objection to R. Assi: [If a man entice a virgin . . . she shall surely . . . be his wife]. If her father utterly refuse [to give her unto him]:3 I only know that her father [can refuse]: how do I know [it of] herself? Because it is stated: ‘If he utterly refuse’, [implying] in all cases!4 — Said Rab to them ‘[the scholars before whom the objection was raised]: Be not misguided!5 He can answer you that [we] suppose he did not entice her for the purpose of marriage. If he did not entice her with marital intent, is then a verse necessary!6 — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: It is to teach that he [her seducer] must pay the fine as for an enticed maiden.7 R. Joseph said to him: That being so,8 it was consequently taught: He shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife:9 [this means] that she needs kiddushin from him. But had he seduced her with marital intent, why is kiddushin required?10 — Said Abaye: [This does not follow:] She may need kiddushin with her father's knowledge.11 MISHNAH. HE WHO SAYS TO A WOMAN, ‘BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME WITH THIS DATE, BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME WITH THIS ONE’ — IF ANY ONE OF THEM IS WORTH A PERUTAH, SHE IS BETROTHED; IF NOT, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED, [IF HE SAYS,] ‘WITH THIS AND WITH THIS AND WITH THIS ONE’ — AND THEY ARE ALL TOGETHER WORTH A PERUTAH, SHE IS BETROTHED; IF NOT, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. IF SHE EATS THEM ONE BY ONE, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED UNLESS ONE OF THEM IS WORTH A PERUTAH.12 GEMARA. Which Tanna taught: ‘BE THOU BETROTHED, BE THOU BETROTHED’? — Said Rabbah: R. Simeon, who maintained, Unless he declares [‘I take] an oath’ to each one separately. 13 WITH THIS AND WITH THIS AND WITH THIS ONE [- AND THEY ARE ALL TOGETHER WORTH A PERUTAH, SHE IS BETROTHED; IF NOT, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. IF SHE EATS THEM ONE BY ONE, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED UNLESS ONE OF THEM IS WORTH A PERUTAH]. To what does this refer? Shall we say, to the first clause — why particularly if she eats them; even if she lays them down it is also thus, since he says: ‘BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME WITH THIS ONE’?14 But if to the second clause — [and that] even [if there is a perutah's worth] in the first [only]? But it is a debt!15 — Said R. Johanan: Behold a table, meat and knife, yet we have no mouth to eat!16 Rab and Samuel said: After all, it refers to the first clause, but it teaches what is most noteworthy.17 [Thus:] It is unnecessary to teach that if she lays them down she is [betrothed] only if [one] is worth a perutah, and not otherwise. But if she eats them, I might argue that since her benefit is immediate, she resolves to cede herself [even for less than a perutah]. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. R. Ammi said: After all, it applies to the second clause; and what is meant by, UNLESS ONE OF THEM IS WORTH A PERUTAH? Unless the last is worth a perutah. Said Raba: From R. Ammi's [explanation] three [corol — laries] may be inferred; [i] If one betroths with a debt, she is not betrothed;18 [ii] If one betroths [a woman] with a debt and a perutah [i.e., cash], her mind is set upon the perutah,’19 authority over her or tacitly consented, for otherwise he would not have maintained silence so long. enticed her for the purpose of kiddushin, since intercourse itself may be such (supra 2a). must be considered as a whole. Now, as soon as she eats one she cannot be betrothed by it, since his statement was as yet incomplete, and it becomes a debt, which cannot effect kiddushin. worth a perutah, is the coin actually given. Since the betrothal is valid, we must assume that she regards the last only, for if she regarded the debt and wished to be betrothed thereby, she could not.