Kiddushin

latter expressions.1 [For] here it is written, when any man taketh [a woman],2 but not that he taketh himself [as a husband], and there it is written, and when he send her away,3 but not that he sends himself away. Our Rabbis taught: [if one declares,] ‘Behold, thou art my wife,’ ‘Behold, thou art my arusah,’ ‘Behold, thou art acquired to me,’ she is betrothed; ‘Behold, thou art mine,’ ‘Behold, thou art under my authority,’ ‘Thou art tied unto me,’ she is betrothed. Then let them all be combined and taught in one clause?4 — The tanna5 heard each three separately, and memorized them [in that order]. The scholars propounded: [What if one declares,] ‘Thou art singled out for me,’6 ‘Thou art designated unto me,’7 ‘Thou art my help,’8 ‘Thou art meet for me,’9 ‘Thou art gathered in to me,’ ‘Thou art my rib,’10 ‘Thou art closed in to me,’11 ‘Thou art my replacement,’12 ‘Thou art kept [seized] unto me,’ [or,] ‘Thou art taken by me’? — One at least you may solve. For it was taught: If one declares, ‘Thou art taken by me,’ she is betrothed, for it is written, when a man taketh a wife.13 The Scholars propounded: What of ‘Thou art my harufah [betrothed]?14 — Come and hear: For it was taught: If a man declares, ‘Be thou my harufah,’ she is betrothed,for in Judea an arusah is called harufah. Is Judea then the greater part of the world?15 — It is meant thus: If he declares, ‘Be thou my harufah,’ she is betrothed, for it is said: ‘that is a bondmaid, neherefeth [betrothed] to a man’; moreover, in Judea an arusah is called harufah. Is [the practice in] Judea to support Scripture!16 — But it means thus: If he says in Judea, ‘Be thou my harufah,’ she is betrothed, because in Judea an arusah is called harufah. What are the circumstances:17 shall we say, that he was not speaking to her about her divorce or kiddushin,18 how does she know what he means?19 But if he was speaking to her about her divorce or kiddushin, then even if he said nothing at all [but gave her money], she is also [betrothed]. For we learnt: If a man was speaking to a woman on matters concerning her divorce or betrothal, and gave her her divorce or kiddushin, but made no explicit declaration — R. Jose said: It is sufficient; R. Judah maintained: He must make an explicit declaration. Whereon R. Huna said in Samuel's name: The halachah20 agrees with R. Jose! — I will tell you: after all, it refers to a case where he was speaking to her about her divorce or betrothal; now, had he given her [the money or the deed of divorce] and remained silent, that indeed would be so.21 But the circumstances here are that he gave [them] to her and made one of these declarations. And this is the problem: did he employ these expressions in the sense of kiddushin, or perhaps he meant them in reference to work?22 The questions stand over. The [above] text [stated]: ‘If a man was speaking to a woman on matters concerning her divorce or betrothal, and gave her her divorce or kiddushin, but made no explicit declaration — R. Jose said: It is sufficient; R. Judah maintained: He must make an explicit declaration’. Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: Providing that they were engaged on that topic [when the divorce or kiddushin was given]. R. Eliezer said likewise in R. Oshaia's name: Providing that they were engaged on that topic.23 This is disputed by Tannaim; Rabbi said: Providing that they were engaged on that topic; R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Even if they were not engaged on that topic. But if they were not engaged on that topic, how does she know what he meant? — Abaye answered: [They travelled] from one matter to another in the same topic.24 R. Huna said in Samuel's name: The halachah agrees with R. Jose. R. Yemar asked R. Ashi: Then when Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: He who does not know the peculiar nature of divorce and betrothal25 should have no business with them26 — [does it hold good] even if he is ignorant of this ruling of R. Huna in Samuel's name? — Even so, he replied. ‘The same applies to divorce: If he gives her [the document of divorce,] and declares, "Behold, thou art sent forth," "Behold, thou art divorced," [or] "Thou art permitted to any man," — then she is divorced.’27 Now it is obvious, if he gives a divorce to his wife and says to her, ‘Behold, thou art a free woman,’ betrothed her) for himself (against), v. Yeb. 63a.] designated for her master. Ri did not seem to have it.] is lacking. consent is not necessary by law in the case of divorce, she must nevertheless be aware of the character of the document that is being given to her, Tosaf. Ri; v. Git.78a.]