Kiddushin

Hence it must surely mean that he said: ‘One of you,’1 and it is taught that the sisters are not betrothed.2 On Raba's view, the first clause is difficult; on Abaye's, the second. Abaye reconciles it according to his opinion. IF HE BETROTHS A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER OR A WOMAN AND HER SISTER SIMULTANEOUSLY, THEY ARE NOT BETROTHED; but if [he betrothed] one of a woman and her daughter or of a woman and her sister, she is betrothed. But if he says: ‘She of you who is eligible for intercourse, let her be betrothed unto me,’ she is not betrothed.3 And thus IT ONCE HAPPENED TO FIVE WOMEN, AMONG WHOM WERE TWO SISTERS, THAT A MAN GATHERED A BASKET OF FIGS AND SAID, ‘She of you who is eligible [for intercourse], let her be betrothed unto me’: THE SAGES THEN RULED: THE SISTERS ARE NOT BETROTHED, Raba reconciled it with his opinion: If a man betroths one of a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister, it is as though he betrothed A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER OR A WOMAN AND HER SISTER SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND THEY ARE NOT BETROTHED. AND IT THUS HAPPENED TO FIVE WOMEN, AMONG WHOM WERE TWO SISTERS, THAT A MAN GATHERED A BASKET OF FIGS AND DECLARED, ‘Behold, all of you, and one of the two sisters, are betrothed unto me with this basket’: THEN THE SAGES RULED: THE SISTERS ARE NOT BETROTHED. Come and hear: If he gives his daughters in betrothal without specifying which, bogeroth4 are not included.5 But minors are included: yet why, Seeing that it is kiddushin which cannot be followed by intercourse?6 which refutes Raba! — Raba can answer you: Here the circumstances are that there are only one bogereth and one minor. But ‘bogeroth’7 is taught! — By bogeroth, bogeroth in general are meant.8 If so,9 why state it? — We refer to the case where she [the bogereth] appointed him [her father] an agent.10 I might have thought that when he accepted kiddushin he did it on her behalf: hence we are informed that a man does not put aside that by which he benefits.11 But do we not refer [even] to where she said to him, ‘Let my kiddushin be yours!’ — Even so, a man does not leave undone an obligation [sc. marrying his daughter] which falls [primarily] upon himself,12 to perform one which does not.13 Come and hear: If one has two groups of daughters by two wives, and he declares, ‘I have given in betrothal my senior daughter, but do not know whether the senior of the seniors14 or the senior of the juniors, or the junior of the seniors who is senior to the senior of the juniors,’ all are forbidden, excepting the junior of the juniors: this is R. Meir's opinion!15 — Here the circumstances are that they were [originally] known, and [only] subsequently mixed up.16 This maybe proved, for it is taught: ‘I do not know,’ not, it is not known. This proves it. If so, why state it? — To counter R. Jose, who said: A man does not permit himself to be brought into doubt;17 hence we are informed that one does bring himself into doubt. Come and hear: If a man betrothed one of two sisters and does not know which, he must give a divorce to both!18 — Here [too] the circumstances are that they were [originally] known but only subsequently intermingled. This too may be proved, for it is taught: ‘he does not know,’ not, it is not known. If so, why state it? — The second clause is necessary: If he dies, and has one brother, he must perform halizah19 with both; if he has two [brothers], one performs halizah and the other yibum;20 yet if they forestall [the Rabbis’ ruling] and marry them, they are not compelled to divorce them,21 [Thus:] only halizah and then yibum [is permissible], but not yibum and then halizah, because he may infringe [the interdict against] the sister of one bound to him by the Levirate tie. 22 Come and hear: If two [strangers] betroth two sisters, and neither knows which, each must give two divorces!23 — Here too it means that they were [originally] known but [only] subsequently mixed up. This may be deduced too, for it is taught: ‘neither knows,’ not, it is not known: this proves it. If so, why state it?The second clause is necessary: If each dies, and each had one brother, this one must perform halizah with both, and the other must perform halizah with both. If one had one brother and the other two brothers, seniors is forbidden to strangers. remember which. On A's death, his brothers B and C perform halizah and yibum with X and Y respectively. Now, when B performs halizah with X, C may marry (perform yibum) Y. For if A had betrothed Y, she is C's yebamah, whom he must marry; while if A had betrothed X, Y is a stranger to C, and he may certainly marry her. For though Y is then the sister of X, who was bound to him by the Levirate tie, and such is forbidden, that tie has already been dissolved by the halizah which B performed. But before the tie is dissolved by halizah marriage is forbidden; hence only that order is permissible, viz., halizah by one brother first and then yibum by the second, (Of course, that is only permissive: the second too may perform halizah, if he does not wish to marry her.) The prohibition mentioned in this note is only Rabbinical, and therefore not insisted upon if the brothers marry both sisters without consulting a Rabbi previously, Yeb. 23b,