Kiddushin

divorce must be expressly for her sake,1 So must betrothal be too; or perhaps, different modes of betrothal are assimilated to each other: just as betrothal by money need not be for her sake,2 so betrothal by deed need not be for her sake? — After putting the question he, himself, decided it: betrothal is assimilated to divorce, for Scripture writes, and when she is departed [i.e., divorced] . . . she may be [another man's wife].3 It has been stated: If it [the deed of betrothal] is written for her sake, but without her knowledge: Raba and Rabina rule: She is betrothed; R. Papa and R. Sherabia say: She is not betrothed. Said R. Papa: I will explain their reason and I will explain mine. I will explain their reason: Because It is written, and when she is departed. . . she may be [another man's wife], assimilating betrothal to divorce: just as divorce must be [written] for her sake yet without her consent,4 so must betrothal be for her sake, yet without her consent. And I will explain my reason: And when she departeth . . . then she shall be [etc.]: this assimilates betrothal to divorce: as in divorce, the giver's knowledge is required,5 so in betrothal, the giver's knowledge is required. 6 An objection is raised: Deeds of erusin and nissu'in7 may only be written with the knowledge of both. Surely actual deeds of erusin and nissu'in are meant? — No: [the reference is to] deeds of apportionment,8 and it is in accordance with R. Giddal's dictum in Rab's name, viz., How much do you give your son? — So much. How much do you give your daughter? — So much. If they [thereupon] arose and made a betrothal, they acquire a title [to the promised sums], and these are the things which are acquired by a verbal undertaking. 9 OR BY INTERCOURSE. Whence do we know this? — R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: Because Scripture saith, If a man be found lying with a woman] who had intercourse with a husband,10 thus teaching that he became her husband through intercourse. R. Zera said to R. Abbahu-others state, Resh Lakish said to R. Johanan: Is this what Rabbi taught unsatisfactory, [viz.,] [When a man taketh a wife] and hath intercourse with her:11 this teaches that she is acquired by intercourse? — If from there, I might have thought: He must first betroth her [e.g., by money] and then cohabit with her:12 [therefore] we are informed [otherwise]. R. Abba b. Mammel objected: If so,13 when Scripture decrees stoning in the case of a betrothed maiden,14 how is it conceivable? If he [first] betrothed and then cohabited with her, she is a be'ulah;15 if he betrothed but did not cohabit with her, it is nothing.16 The Rabbis answered this before Abaye; It is possible if the arus cohabited with her unnaturally.17 Thereupon Abaye observed to them: Even Rabbi and the Rabbis dispute [this matter] only in reference to a stranger: but as for the husband, all agree that if he cohabits with her unnaturally he renders her a be'ulah! (What is this?18 For it was taught: If ten men cohabited [unnaturally] with her [sc. a betrothed maiden] and she is still a virgin, all are stoned. Rabbi said: I maintain, the first is stoned, but the rest are strangled.)19 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: It would be possible if he betrothed her by deed: since it completely sunders, 20 it completely unites.21 And R. Johanan: How does he utilize this, and hath intercourse with her? — He needs that [to shew]: she [a wife] is acquired by cohabitation, but not a Hebrew bondmaid. For I might have thought, it may be inferred a minori from a yebamah: if a yebamah, who cannot be acquired by money, is acquired by cohabitation; this one [Hebrew bondmaid] who can be acquired by money, may surely be acquired by cohabitation. [No.] As for a yebamah, that is because she is already tied!22 — I might have argued, since it is written: If he take him another [wife],23 Scripture compared her [the bondsmaid] to the ‘other’ [the wife]: just as the other is acquired by intercourse, so is a Hebrew bondsmaid acquired thus; therefore we are informed [otherwise].24 And Rabbi: how does he know this conclusion? — If so,25 Scripture should have written; and hath intercourse: why [state] ‘and hath intercourse with her?’ Thus both are deduced.26 But according to Raba, who said: Bar Ahina explained it to me: ‘When a man taketh a woman and hath intercourse with her’: [this teaches:] kiddushin27 that can be followed by28 intercourse is [valid] kiddushin, that which cannot be followed by intercourse is not [valid] kiddushin;29 what can one say?30 — If so,31 Scripture should have written, or ‘hath intercourse with her’: why [state], ‘and hath intercourse with her?’32 Thus all are inferred. And Rabbi: how does he employ this phrase,’ who had intercourse [be'ulath] with a husband?’ — He utilizes it [to teach:] her husband renders her a be'ulah unnaturally,33 but not a stranger.34 But does Rabbi hold this view? Has it not been taught: If ten men cohabited [unnaturally] with her [sc. a betrothed maiden] and she is still a virgin, all are stoned. Rabbi said: I maintain, the first is stoned, but the rest are strangled.35 consent became necessary. necessarily the thing promised, from the promisor. Here, however, the promise itself is binding. And the Baraitha quoted teaches that the witnesses may not draw up bonds to that effect unless both parties consent. the latter she is not even betrothed. whereas Rabbi maintains that she is a be'ulah after the first. This dispute, however, applies only to strangers. be'ulah.