Kiddushin

let the middle one of the second [junior] group be permitted?1 — The meaning here is that there are only an elder and a younger [daughter].2 And reason supports this too: for if it is so,that there is [a middle one], let her be mentioned!3 But even on your view; the middle one of the first [senior] group, who is certainly doubtful and forbidden4 — is she mentioned? — How compare! There [even] the one younger than her is taught as being forbidden, and the same applies to this [middle] one, who is older than her; but here,5 if it is so that there is [a middle one], let her be mentioned! R. Huna, son of R. Joshua, said to Raba:6 But Passover is as one group, and yet they differ? — There, he replied, they differ merely on language: one Master holds, ‘until pene Passover’ means until [just] before Passover, and the other maintains, until it has passed. 7 MISHNAH. IF HE SAYS TO A WOMAN, ‘I HAVE BETROTHED THEE,’ AND SHE SAYS, THOU HAST NOT BETROTHED ME: HER RELATIONS8 ARE FORBIDDEN TO HIM,9 BUT HIS RELATIONS ARE PERMITTED TO HER. IF SHE SAYS, ‘THOU HAST BETROTHED ME,’ AND HE MAINTAINS, ‘I HAVE NOT BETROTHED THEE,’ HER RELATIONS ARE PERMITTED TO HIM. BUT HIS RELATIONS ARE FORBIDDEN TO HER. ‘I HAVE BETROTHED THEE,’ AND SHE REPLIES, THOU HAST BETROTHED NONE BUT MY DAUGHTER,’ THE RELATIONS OF THE SENIOR [THE MOTHER] ARE FORBIDDEN TO HIM, WHILST HIS ARE PERMITTED TO THE SENIOR; THE JUNIOR'S RELATIONS ARE PERMITTED TO HIM, AND HIS RELATIONS ARE PERMITTED TO THE JUNIOR.10 I HAVE BETROTHED THY DAUGHTER,’ AND SHE REPLIES, ‘THOU HAST BETROTHED NONE BUT MYSELF’; THE JUNIOR'S RELATIONS ARE FORBIDDEN TO HIM, WHILST HIS RELATIONS ARE PERMITTED TO THE JUNIOR; THE SENIOR'S RELATIONS ARE PERMITTED TO HIM, WHILST HIS RELATIONS ARE FORBIDDEN TO THE SENIOR. GEMARA. IF HE SAYS TO A WOMAN, I HAVE BETROTHED THEE etc. Now, it is necessary.11 For if we were informed this of him,12 [that is] because a man does not care,13 and so it happens that he speaks [thus].14 But as for her, I might argue, were she not certain of her statement, she would not have made it,15 and so her relations are forbidden to him. Hence we are informed [that it is not so]. I HAVE BETROTHED THEE,’ AND SHE REPLIES [‘MY DAUGHTER’] etc. Why do I need this too? — It is necessary. I might think, By Scriptural law the Merciful One gave credence to the father;16 hence by Rabbinical law credence was given to her [sc. the mother], and so her daughter is interdicted on her statement. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. I HAVE BETROTHED THY DAUGHTER etc. What is the purpose of this too? Since the one is taught, the other is taught too.17 It was stated: Rab said: We force [him to divorce her]; Samuel said: We request. To what [does this refer]? Shall we say: To the first clause: there is neither compulsion nor request?18 But if to the second clause:19 as for requesting him, that is well; but we compel why? He can protest. ‘I do not wish to be forbidden to her rela — tions!20 — But these rulings were stated in reference to each other.21 Samuel said: He is asked to give her a divorce; Rab said: If he gives a divorce of his own accord,22 he is compelled to pay the kethubah.23 It was stated likewise: R. Aha b. Adda said in Rab's name — others state. R. Aha b. Adda said in R. Hamnuna's name in Rab's name: We compel and request. Both?24 — This is the meaning: He is requested to grant a divorce; but if he gives a divorce of his own accord, he is compelled to pay the kethubah. Rab Judah said: If a man betroths in the presence of one witness, we disregard25 his kiddushin.26 Rab Judah was asked: What if both admit it?27 He answered ‘Yes’ and ‘no’, being uncertain.28 It was stated: R. Nahman said in Samuel's name: If a man betroths in the presence of one witness, we disregard his kiddushin even if both admit it. Raba objected before R. Nahman: IF ONE SAYS TO A WOMAN, ‘I HAVE BETROTHED THEE,’ AND SHE SAYS, THOU HAST NOT BETROTHED ME: HER RELATIONS ARE FORBIDDEN TO HIM, WHILST HIS RELATIONS ARE PERMITTED TO HER. Now, if there are witnesses, why are his relations permitted to her? And if there are no witnesses, why are her relations forbidden to him?29 Hence it surely means that there is one witness!30 — [No.] The meaning is that he says to her, ‘I betrothed thee in the presence of So-and-so,31 who have [since] gone overseas.’ He raised an objection: If one divorces his wife and then stays overnight with her in an inn: Beth Shammai rule: She does not require a second divorce from him; while Beth Hillel maintain: She does require a second divorce from him.32 What are the circumstances? If there are witnesses,33 what is Beth Shammai's reason? And if there are no witnesses, what is Beth Hillel's reason?34 Hence it must surely mean that there is one witness!35 — Yet according to your view, consider the second clause: But they agree that if she was divorced after erusin,36 she does not require a second divorce from him, because he is not intimate with her.37 Now if you think that one witness is believed, what does it matter whether [the divorce was] from erusin or nissu'in? Hence the meaning here is that we have witnesses of privacy, but not of intercourse. Beth Shammai maintain: we do not youngest of all, which is the same as in the case of one group only. even after divorce, e.g., a sister, are now forbidden to him. betrothed? Or perhaps kiddushin in the presence of one witness only is invalid?