Kiddushin

The feature common to both is that they confer much pleasure!1 Let deed then prove it.2 As for deed, that is because it frees an Israelitish daughter!3 Then let money and cohabitation prove it. And thus the argument revolves: the distinguishing feature of one is not that of another, nor is the distinguishing feature of this one that of the other:4 the feature common to all is that they acquire in general and here too; so do I adduce huppah, that it acquires in general and here too. [No.] As for the common feature, it is that they have powers of compulsion.5 And R. Huna?6 — Money at least has no compulsory powers in matrimonial relationships. Raba said: There are two refutations of the matter:7 firstly, we learnt THREE, not ‘four’; and secondly, can then huppah complete [marriage] but through [prior] kiddushin; are we then to deduce huppah, when not as a result of kiddushin, from the same when preceded by kiddushin? — Abaye answered him: As for your objection, we learnt THREE, not ‘four’: [only] what is explicitly stated [in Scripture] is taught, but not what is not explicitly stated.8 And as to your objection; can then huppah complete [marriage] but through [prior] kiddushin — that indeed is R. Huna's argument: if money_ which cannot complete [marriage] after money,9 nevertheless acquires; then huppah, which completes [marriage] after money, can surely acquire.10 Our Rabbis taught: How [is a woman acquired] by money? If a man gives her [a woman] money or its equivalent and declares to her, ‘Behold, thou art consecrated unto me,’ [or] ‘thou art betrothed unto me’, [or] ‘Behold, thou art a wife unto me’ — then she is betrothed.11 But if she gives him [money or its equivalent] and says ‘Behold, I am consecrated unto thee,’ ‘I am betrothed unto thee,’ ‘I am a wife unto thee,’ she is not betrothed. R. Papa demurred: Thus it is only when he both gives [the money] and makes the declaration [that the betrothal is valid]; but if he gives [it] and she speaks, she is not betrothed. Then consider the second clause: But if she gives [it] to him, and she makes the declaration, the kiddushin is not valid. [Hence,] it is only when she both gives [the money] and speaks, but if he gives the money and she speaks, the kiddushin is valid? — The first clause is exact, while the second is mentioned incidentally.12 But may a statement be made in the second clause contradictory to the first?13 — But this is its meaning: If he gives [the money] and he speaks, the kiddushin is obviously valid; [but] if he gives, and she speaks, it is accounted as though she both gives and speaks, so that the kiddushin is not valid. Alternatively, if he gives and speaks, she is betrothed; if she gives and speaks, she is [certainly] not betrothed; but if he gives and she speaks, it is doubtful, and as a Rabbinical measure we fear [the validity of the kiddushin].14 Samuel said: In respect to kiddushin, if he gave her money or its equivalent and declares, ‘Behold, thou art consecrated,’ ‘Behold, thou art betrothed,’[or] ‘Behold, thou art a wife,’ — then she is betrothed. [If he declares,] ‘Behold, I am thy husband,’ ‘Behold, I am thy master,’15 ‘Behold, I am thy arus,’16 — there are no grounds for fear.17 The same applies to divorce: If he gives her [the document of divorce] and declares, ‘Behold, thou art sent forth,’ ‘Behold, thou art divorced,’18 [or] ‘Thou art [henceforth] permitted to any man, — then she is divorced. [But if he declares,] ‘I am not thy husband,’ ‘I am not thy master,’ ‘I am not thy arus,’ there are no grounds for fear.19 R. Papa said to Abaye: Shall we say that in Samuel's opinion inexplicit abbreviations are [valid] abbreviations?20 But we learnt: If one declares, ‘I will be,’ he becomes a nazir. Now we pondered thereon: but perhaps he meant, ‘I will fast’?21 And Samuel answer — ed: That is only if a nazir was passing before him.22 Thus, it is only because a nazir was passing before him, but not otherwise.23 — The circumstances here are that he said ‘unto me.’ If so, what does he inform us?24 — His teaching is with respect to these huppah is only inferred a minori. know her rightful husband. ‘unto me. Moreover, their purport is not explicit and beyond doubt, for he may have been speaking and acting on another man's behalf, yet Samuel rules that since he was the speaker, she is betrothed to him, thus shewing that he holds these to be valid.