Kiddushin

This was taught only if he said to her, ‘With this and with this and with this.’ But if he said to her, ‘[Be thou betrothed unto me] with these,’ even if she eats [them one by one], she is betrothed:1 when she eats, she eats her own.2 It was taught in accordance with Raba: [If he says] ‘Be thou betrothed unto me with an acorn, a pomegranate and a nut’; or if he says to her, ‘Be thou betrothed unto me with these’ — if they are all together worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. ‘[Be thou betrothed unto me] with this and this and this’ — if they are all together worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. ‘With this one’ whereupon she took and ate it; ‘with this one’ — and she took and ate it; ‘and also with this one, and also with this one’ — she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth a perutah. Now, what is meant by this [clause], ‘with an acorn, a pomegranate, and or a nut’? Shall we assume that he said to her, ‘either’ with an acorn, a pomegranate, or a nut’? ‘If they are altogether worth a perutah she is betrothed’! But he said: ‘or’! Again if it means, ‘with an acorn and a pomegranate and a nut’ — then it is identical with ‘with this and with this!’3 Hence it must surely mean that he said to her, ‘With these’. But since the second clause teaches: ‘or if he said to her, "Be thou betrothed unto me with these,"’ it follows that the first clause does not refer to ‘with these’! Hence it [must be taken] as [an] explanatory [clause]. ‘Be thou betrothed unto me with an acorn, a pomegranate and a nut’, that is, where he said: ‘Be betrothed unto me with these’.4 Now, the final clause teaches: ‘With this one and she took and ate it: if one of them is worth a perutah she is betrothed, but not otherwise. Whereas the first clause draws no distinction whether she eats or lays it down. This proves that whenever he says to her, ‘with these,’ if she eats, she eats her own. This proves it. [Reverting to the final clause of the Mishnah,] That is well on the view that it refers to the second clause, and what is meant by, UNLESS ONE OF THEM IS WORTH A PERUTAH? Unless the last is worth a perutah. Then here too [in the Baraitha just quoted] it means, unless the last is worth a perutah. But according to Rab and Samuel, who maintain that it refers to the first clause, it being necessary to state the case of eating: here comprehensive statements are given, but not detailed enumerations?5 — This agrees with Rabbi, who said: There is no difference between ‘the size of an olive, the size of an olive,’ and ‘the size of an olive and the size of an olive’: they are [both] detailed enumerations.6 Rab said: If one betroths [a woman] with a debt, she is not betrothed:7 a loan is given to be expended.8 Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim: If one betroths [a woman] with a debt, she is not betrothed; but some say she is betrothed. Surely they differ in this: one Master holds that a loan is given to be expended, whereas the other holds that it is not?9 — Now, is that plausible? Consider the second clause: And both agree in respect to purchase that he acquires it;10 but if you say that a loan is given to be expended, wherewith does he acquire it? — Said R. Nahman: Huna our companion relates this [Baraitha] to another matter. We suppose the reference here is to the case where he said to her, ‘Be thou betrothed unto me with a maneh,’ and the maneh was found to be short of a denar:11 one Master holds that she is bashful to claim it;12 the other, that she is not.13 If so, when R. Eleazar said: [If he declares,] ‘Be thou betrothed unto me with a maneh,’ and he gives her a denar, she is betrothed, and he must make it up — shall we say that he stated this ruling in dependence upon Tannaim?14 — I will tell you: when the maneh lacks [but] a denar, she may be bashful to claim it; when the maneh is short of ninety-nine, she is [certainly] not bashful to claim it.15 An objection is raised: If he says to a woman, ‘Be thou betrothed unto me with the deposit which I have in thy possession,’ and she goes and finds that it is stolen or destroyed; if the value of a perutah is left thereof, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. But in the case of a debt, even if a perutah's worth thereof16 is not left, she is betrothed. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said on R. Meir's authority: A debt where he said ‘be betrothed unto me with these’, and the final clause teaches ‘with this one’ etc.] comprehensive statement, in so far as it is taught that if they are all together worth, etc. Hence there is no clause in the Baraitha equivalent to the first clause in the Mishnah. Now, according to R. Ammi, it is well, since in the Mishnah too ‘If she eats’ refers to the second clause, viz., likewise to his comprehensive statement. But according to Rab and Samuel it must refer to a detailed enumeration, viz., by this, by this (not and by this); but such a clause is absent in the Baraitha. sacrifice is ‘abomination’, and he is liable to kareth (q.v. Glos.); if to eat it without the boundaries fixed for its eating, the sacrifice is unfit, but he is not liable to kareth. In the case of a combined intention, the latter ruling applies. R. Judah rules: The intention first expressed determines its particular law. Thereon Rabbi said: There is no difference whether he declares, ‘I will eat the size of an olive after time, the size of an olive without the boundaries,’ or ‘I will eat the size of an olive after time and the size of an olive, etc.’: both are detailed enumerations, the first of which determines its law according to R. Judah, and not comprehensive statements (i.e., combined intentions). Consequently, this clause of our Baraitha, ‘With this one, etc.,’ was not taught by the same Tanna as the former, but in agreement with Rabbi that even when he adds the copulative and with this one, each is a separate declaration: ‘Be thou betrothed unto me with this one,’ ‘Be thou betrothed unto me with this one.’ Hence when it is stated: ‘If she ate, etc. ,’the same holds good even with greater force if she lays down each (v. Rab and Samuel's reasoning on 46a, which likewise applies here). when the creditor demands its return. Hence this money which she actually possesses is her own, and he gives her nothing at all. v. supra p. 21, n. 9. 26a), if A possesses the actual money loaned.