Kiddushin

and I will become betrothed to thee,’1 she is betrothed by the law of a surety:2 a surety, though he personally derives no benefit [from the loan], yet obligates himself [to repayment]; so this woman too, though she personally derives no benefit [from the money], obligates and cedes herself [in betrothal]. [If a man says,] ‘Take this maneh and be betrothed to So-and-so,’3 she is betrothed by the law of a Canaanite slave:4 a Canaanite slave, though he himself loses nothing,5 yet acquires himself [his freedom]; so this man too though he personally loses nothing, acquires this woman. [If the woman declares,] ‘Give a maneh to So-and-so, and I will become betrothed to him,’ she is betrothed by the laws of both: a surety, though he personally derives no benefit, obligates himself, so this woman too’ though she personally derives no benefit, cedes herself. [And should you object:] How compare: as for a surety, he who acquires a title6 loses money,7 — but shall this man acquire the woman at no cost to himself? Then let a Canaanite slave prove it, who loses no money5 and yet acquires himself. [And if you demur:] How compare: there, he who gives possession8 acquires [the money given for the slave's freedom]; but here, shall this woman cede herself though she acquires nothing whatsoever? Then let a surety prove it: though he personally receives no benefit, he obligates himself. Raba propounded: What [if a woman declares,] ‘Here is a maneh and I will become betrothed unto thee?’9 Mar Zutra ruled in R. Papa's name: She is betrothed. R. Ashi objected to Mar Zutra: If so, property which ranks as security [real estate] is acquired as an adjunct to property which does not rank as security [movables];10 whereas we learnt the reverse: Property which does not rank as security may be acquired in conjunction with property which ranks as security by money, deed, or hazakah?11 — Said he to him: Do you think that she said to him, ‘Along with’?12 Here the reference is to an important personage: in return for the pleasure [she derives] from his accepting a gift from her, she completely cedes herself.13 It has been stated likewise in Raba's name: The same applies to monetary matters.14 Now, both are necessary: had we been informed this of kiddushin [only], that is because a woman is pleased [even] with very little, in accordance with Resh Lakish's dictum, for Resh Lakish said: It is better to dwell in grief with a load15 than to dwell in widowhood;16 but as for money, I would say it is not so. And if we were informed this of monetary matters, that is because it is subject to remission;17 but as for kiddushin, I would say it is not so.18 Hence both are necessary. Raba said: [If a man declares,] ‘Be thou betrothed to half of me,’ she is betrothed: ‘half of thee be betrothed to me,’ she is not betrothed. Abaye demurred before Raba: Why does ‘half of thee be betrothed to me’ differ, that she is not betrothed? Because Scripture said, [when a man take] a wife,19 but not half a wife? Then here too Scripture saith, ‘a man’, but not half a man? — How now! he rejoined. There, a woman is not eligible to two [men]; but is not a man eligible to two [women]? Hence this is what he said to her: ‘Should I desire to marry another, I may do so.’ Mar Zutra, son of R. Mari, said to Rabina: Yet let the kiddushin spread through the whole of her.20 Has it not been taught: If one declares, ‘Let the foot of this [animal] be a burnt-offering,’ the whole of it is a burnt-offering? And even on the view that it is not all a burnt-offering, that is only if one dedicates a limb21 upon which life is not dependent; but if he dedicates a limb upon which life is dependent [e.g., the heart], it is all a burnt-offering!22 — How compare? There it is an animal, whereas here we have an independent23 mind.24 This can only be compared with R. Johanan's dictum: An animal belonging to two partners: — if one [of them] dedicates half, and then purchases it [the other half] and dedicates it, it is holy, yet cannot be offered up;25 and it establishes [the sanctity of] a substitute,26 and the substitute is as itself.27 This proves three things: of movables, if sold; hence the former is termed property which ranks as security, the latter, property which does not rank as security. Human beings are on a par with the former, and R. Ashi assumed that the woman is acquired in conjunction with the maneh. which in turn is considered of financial value. ‘Take a maneh, and let your field be sold to C,’ C acquires it by the law of a Canaanite slave; ‘Give money to C and let him thereby acquire my field,’ he acquires it by the laws of both — all as explained with reference to kiddushin. from the man who betroths to the woman who is betrothed. now be sold, and an animal purchased with the proceeds and sacrificed. Thus the sanctity of the half does not spread over the whole, since the partner does not wish it. then both it and the change thereof shall be holy. Thus here too, if one substituted another animal for this one, the substitute also is holy.