Kiddushin

An act can nullify both act and intention,1 but intention can nullify neither act nor intention.2 Now, it is well that it [intention] cannot nullify an act, because speech cannot nullify action; yet let it nullify intention?3 — Intention, in respect to uncleanliness, is different, because it ranks as action, and in accordance with R. Papa. For R. Papa pointed out a contradiction. It is written, and if one put [yitten], whereas we read, and if it be put [yuttan]:4 how is this [to be reconciled]? ‘If it be put’ [must be] similar to ‘if one put’: just as when one puts, he desires it, so when it is put, he must desire it.5 R. Zebid recited this discussion in reference to the following: Likewise, if she authorized her agent to betroth her, and went and betrothed herself: if hers came first, her kiddushin is valid; if her agent's came first, her own kiddushin is not valid.6 Now, what if she did not betroth herself, but retracted?7 R. Johanan said: She can retract; Resh Lakish maintained: She cannot retract. R. Johanan said: She can retract: Speech comes and nullifies speech — Resh Lakish said: She cannot retract: speech cannot come and nullify speech R. Johanan refuted Resh Lakish: If he annuls, if he does so before he [his agent] has made a separation, his separation is invalid? — Said Raba: Here the circumstances are, e.g., that the owner anticipated [his agent] by separating terumah for his stacks, so that it is action. Resh Lakish refuted R. Johanan: All utensils become liable to their uncleanness by intention, but ascend thence only by a changeful act. An act can nullify both act and intention, but intention can nullify neither act nor intention. Now, it is well that it cannot nullify an act, because speech cannot nullify action; yet let it nullify intention? — He replied: Intention, in respect to uncleanness, is different, because it ranks as action, and in accordance with R. Papa. For R. Papa pointed out a contradiction. It is written: ‘and if one put [yitten],’ whereas we read: ‘and if it be put [yuttan]’: how is this [to be reconciled]? ‘If it be put’ [must be] similar to ‘if one put’: just as when one puts, he desires it, so when it is put, he must desire it. R. Johanan objected to Resh Lakish: If one sends a divorce to his wife, and then overtakes the messenger or sends a messenger after him and says. ‘The divorce which I gave you is null,’ it is null. This is a refutation of Resh Lakish. It is indeed a refutation. Now, the law is as R. Johanan., even in the first [dispute]; for though we might argue [there]. ‘Giving money into a woman's hand is different, for it is like an action,’ yet even so, speech comes and nullifies speech. But one law contradicts another! For you say; The law is as R. Johanan, while we have an established principle that the law is as R. Nahman, For the scholars propounded: Can he change his mind and divorce therewith?8 R. Nahman said: He can change his mind and divorce therewith; R. Shesheth ruled: He cannot change his mind and divorce therewith — And it is an established [principle] that the law is as R. Nahman!9 — Granted that he nullified it as far as the messenger is concerned, he did not nullify its efficacy as a divorce.10 SHE IS BETROTHED TO THE SECOND. Rab said: She is permanently betrothed to the second; Samuel ruled: She is betrothed to the second until [the end of the] thirty days, after which the betrothal of the second is lifted and that of the first is completed. R. Hisda sat, and found it difficult: Wherewith is the betrothal of the second lifted? — Said R. Joseph to him, You, Sir, learn this in connection with the first clause, and so find it difficult; but Rab Judah learns it in connection with the second clause, and finds no difficulty: FROM NOW AND AFTER THIRTY DAYS. etc. Rab said: She is permanently betrothed yet not betrothed; whereas Samuel ruled: She is betrothed and not betrothed only until [the end of the] thirty days, after which the betrothal of the second loses force and that of the first is completed. Now, Rab is in doubt whether it is a stipulation or a withdrawal;11 whereas Samuel is certain that it is a stipulation. Now, this enters into the controversy of the following Tannaim: [If one declares, ‘Be thou divorced] from to-day and after my death,’ it is a divorce and not a divorce: this is the view of the Sages.12 Rabbi ruled: It is indeed a divorce.13 Then let Rab say: The halachah agrees with the Rabbis, and let Samuel say: The halachah is as Rabbi? — It is necessary. For if Rab said: The halachah is as the Rabbis, I might argue. [That is only] there, seeing that he comes to alienate her;14 but here, that he comes to attach her [to himself]. I would say that he agrees with Samuel that it is a stipulation.15 And if Samuel said: The halachah is as Rabbi, I would argue, That is only there, because there is no divorce after death;16 but here, seeing that the kiddushin can take effect thirty days later, I might say that he agrees with Rab. Thus it is necessary. Abaye said: On Rab's view, If one came and said to her, ‘Behold, thou art betrothed to me from now and after thirty days’; then another came and said to her, ‘Behold, thou are betrothed unto me from now and after thirty days’:17 without smoothing, and then began to smooth it properly, the latter act nullifies the former, and until he finished it is not liable to uncleanness. smooth it, and so it is unfinished, his second intention cannot nullify his first, or his action. the text as it stands may be read i,h ‘one puts’, which implies that a person must actually wet it; but the traditional reading i,uh ‘it be put’, implying even if water accidentally falls thereon. uncleanliness. Thus Scripture intimates that mere thought has the force of action. plausibly, explains: she retracted without informing the agent; for if she informed him it is obvious that she can withdraw. ‘Be thou betrothed unto me from now, providing that I am still willing in thirty days’ time’; or, ‘Be thou betrothed unto me from now — not after thirty days.’ If the first is correct, when after thirty days he signifies his willingness, his betrothal was valid from the very beginning, and so the subsequent betrothal of another is null. But if the second is correct, this is the same as the first clause, and the second betrothal is valid. Hence her status remains permanently doubtful. is valid, or, ‘Be thou divorced from to-day — no! only after my death’: then it is invalid. If he dies childless, she may not marry her brother-in-law, lest it was a divorce; nor is she free to marry a stranger, lest it was not, and so must be freed by halizah, q.v. Glos.