מ ה ל ה צ ד ה ש ו ה ש ב ה ן ש כ ן י ש נ ן ב ע ל כ ר ח ה! ו ר ב הו נ א: כ ס ף מ יה א ב א יש ו ת ל א א ש כ ח ן ב ע ל כ ר ח ה. א מ ר ר ב א: ש ת י ת ש ו ב ות ב ד ב ר: ח ד א ד ש ל ש ת נ ן ו א ר ב ע ל א ת נ ן. ו ע וד: כ לו ם חו פ ה ג ומ ר ת א ל א ע ל י ד י ק יד ו ש ין. ו כ י ג מ ר ינ ן חו פ ה ש ל א ע ל י ד י ק יד ו ש ין מ חו פ ה ש ע ל י ד י ק יד ו ש ין? א מ ר ל יה א ב י י: ה א ד ק א מ ר ת : ש ל ש ת נ ן ו א ר ב ע ל א ת נ ן ת נ א, מ יל ת א ד כ ת י ב א ב ה ד י א ק ת נ י, מ י ל ת א ד ל א כ ת יב א ב ה ד י א ל א ק ת נ י. ו ד ק א מ ר ת : כ לו ם חו פ ה ג ומ ר ת א ל א ע ל י ד י ק יד ו ש ין ר ב הו נ א נ מ י ה כ י ק א מ ר: ו מ ה כ ס ף ש א ינ ו ג ומ ר א ח ר כ ס ף ק ונ ה, חו פ ה ש ג ומ ר ת א ח ר כ ס ף א ינ ו ד ין ש ת ק נ ה? ת נו ר ב נ ן: כ יצ ד ב כ ס ף? נ ת ן ל ה כ ס ף א ו ש ו ה כ ס ף, ו א מ ר ל ה ה ר י א ת מ קו ד ש ת ל י ה ר י א ת מ א ור ס ת ל י ה ר י א ת ל י ל א ינ ת ו ה ר י ז ו מ קו ד ש ת. א ב ל ה יא ש נ ת נ ה, ו א מ ר ה ה יא ה ר ינ י מ קו ד ש ת ל ך ה ר ינ י מ א ור ס ת ל ך ה ר ינ י ל ך ל א ינ ת ו א ינ ה מ קו ד ש ת. The Gemara again rejects this claim: What about the fact that the common denominator of all three modes of acquisition is that they are effective in certain situations against her will? A bill of divorce, sexual intercourse in the case of a yevama, and money with regard to a Hebrew maidservant all effect acquisition of a woman against her will. Therefore, the mode of a wedding canopy cannot be derived from these methods, as a wedding canopy is effective only when the woman enters it willingly. And in response to this claim Rav Huna would answer: In any event, with regard to marriage, we have not found a case in which a woman can be acquired through money against her will. Consequently, it is possible to learn from the modes of money, a document, and intercourse that a wedding canopy likewise effects betrothal. Rava said: There are two refutations of this matter, i.e., it is possible to refute Rav Huna s opinion in two ways. One opinion is that we learned in the mishna that a woman can be acquired through three modes of acquisition, and we did not learn that there are four modes. This indicates that there are no other ways to acquire a woman apart from the three listed in the mishna. And furthermore, Rava disagrees with the main point of the proof, which was based on the fact that a wedding canopy completes a marriage: Doesn t entering a wedding canopy complete a marriage only by means of an act of betrothal, which precedes the wedding canopy? And can one derive that entering a wedding canopy effects acquisition without betrothal from the case of entering a wedding canopy that effects acquisition by means of betrothal? Consequently, entering a wedding canopy alone cannot effect a betrothal. Abaye said to Rava in response to his two claims: With regard to that which you said, that we learned in the mishna three modes and we did not learn that there are four modes, this is no proof, as the tanna teaches only a matter that is explicitly written in the Torah, and does not teach a matter that is not explicitly written in the Torah, such as a wedding canopy. And with regard to that which you said: Doesn t entering a wedding canopy complete a marriage only by means of an act of betrothal, this is also what Rav Huna is saying, i.e., Rav Huna incorporates this claim into his reasoning: If money, which does not complete a marriage after money, i.e., after a woman has been betrothed through money an additional monetary gift cannot render her a fully married woman, effects acquisition of the woman in the form of betrothal, is it not logical that entering a wedding canopy, which is more powerful than money in that it completes a marriage after money, should effect acquisition and be used to perform betrothal by itself? After discussing the sources for the modes of acquisition listed in the mishna, the Gemara analyzes these halakhot in greater detail. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:1): How is betrothal performed through money? h If a man gave a woman money or an item worth money, and he said to her: You are hereby betrothed [mekuddeshet] to me, or: You are hereby betrothed [me oreset] to me, or: You are to me as a wife, then she is betrothed. But if she is the one who gave the money to him, and she said: h I am hereby betrothed [mekuddeshet] to you, or: I am hereby betrothed [me oreset] to you, or: I am hereby to you as a wife, then she is not betrothed. כ י צ ד ק ד ו ש י money How is betrothal performed through : A man betroths a woman by giving her one peruta or an כ ס ף item worth at least one peruta and saying to her: You are hereby betrothed to me with this. He may also say: You are hereby to me as a wife, or any formula that is clearly referring to betrothal in that location, provided that she understands that it is a betrothal. Some authorities write that it is appropriate to add: In accordance with the law of Moses and the Jewish people, which is the common practice (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 3:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 27:1, and in the comment of Rema). :ה יא ש נ ת נ ה ו א מ ר ה ה יא said She is the one who gave and she If a woman gives a man money and says to him: I am hereby betrothed to you, or anything similar, she is not betrothed (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 3:2).. Kiddushin. Perek I. 5b 23 א קרפ :ה ףד
He gave and she said ת ן הו א ו א מ ר ה ה יא :נ Rashi explains that this is an invalid betrothal because it is like a woman who gives herself to the man. Other commentaries say that a betrothal performed in this manner does not constitute a fulfillment of the verse: When a man takes (Deuteronomy 24:1), as the verb takes indicates that the man performs all elements of the betrothal, both the act of acquisition and the declaration (Tosefot Tukh; Rashba). מ ת ק יף ל ה ר ב פ פ א: ט ע מ א ד נ ת ן הו א ו א מ ר הו א, ה א נ ת ן הו א ו א מ ר ה ה יא א ינ ה מ קו ד ש ת. א ימ א ס יפ א: א ב ל ה יא ש נ ת נ ה ל ו ו א מ ר ה ה יא ל א ה וו ק יד ו ש ין. ט ע מ א ד נ ת נ ה ה יא ו א מ ר ה ה יא, ה א נ ת ן הו א ו א מ ר ה ה יא ה וו ק יד ו ש ין! ר יש א ד ו ק א, ס יפ א כ ד י נ ס ב ה. ו ת נ י ס י פ א מ י ל ת א ד ס ת ר א ל ה ל ר י ש א?! א ל א ה כ י ק א מ ר: נ ת ן הו א ו א מ ר הו א פ ש יט א ד ה וו ק יד ו ש ין. נ ת ן הו א ו א מ ר ה ה יא נ ע ש ה כ מ י ש נ ת נ ה ה יא ו א מ ר ה ה יא, ו ל א ה וו ק יד ו ש ין. ו א י ב ע ית א ימ א: נ ת ן הו א ו א מ ר הו א מ קו ד ש ת. נ ת נ ה ה יא ו א מ ר ה ה יא א ינ ה מ קו ד ש ת. נ ת ן הו א ו א מ ר ה ה יא ס פ יק א ה יא, ו ח י יש ינ ן מ ד ר ב נ ן. א מ ר ש מו א ל: ב ק יד ו ש ין; נ ת ן ל ה כ ס ף ו ש ו ה כ ס ף, ו א מ ר ל ה ה ר י א ת מ קו ד ש ת ה ר י א ת מ א ור ס ת ה ר י א ת )ל י( ל א ינ ת ו ה ר י ז ו מ קו ד ש ת. ה ר ינ י א יש ך ה ר ינ י ב ע ל יך ה ר ינ י א רו ס יך א ין כ אן ב ית מ יח וש. Rav Pappa objects to this: This baraita contains an internal contradiction. The first part of the baraita states: If a man gave a woman money and said to her: You are hereby betrothed to me, from which it may be inferred that the reason the woman is betrothed is that he gave her money and he said the appropriate formula. This leads to the conclusion that if he gave her money and she said nh the formula, she is not betrothed. Now say the latter clause of the baraita: But if she is the one who gave the money to him, and she said: I am hereby betrothed to you, then it is not a valid betrothal. Rav Pappa infers: The reason that it is not a valid betrothal is that she gave money to him and she said the appropriate formula, from which it may be inferred that if he gave money to her and she said the appropriate formula, then this is a valid betrothal. The Gemara explains: The first clause of the baraita is exact, and therefore it is correct to infer that which was not explicitly stated from this ruling. By contrast, the latter clause of the baraita was cited for no reason, i.e., it was simply formulated in the opposite manner of the first clause, and the baraita is not exact in the wording of this case. Therefore, one should not analyze this clause too carefully and infer halakhot from it. The Gemara asks: And would the baraita teach in the latter clause a matter that contradicts the first clause? Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of the following. This is what the baraita is saying: If he gave the money and he said the formula, it is obvious that it is a valid betrothal. If he gave the money and she said the formula, it is considered as though she gave the money and she said the formula, and therefore it is not a valid betrothal. And if you wish, say a different explanation of the baraita: If he gave the money and he said the formula, she is betrothed. If she gave the money and she said the formula, she is not betrothed at all. If he gave the money and she said the formula, the ruling is uncertain, and by rabbinic law we are concerned that this might actually be a betrothal. The Gemara continues to discuss the language of betrothal. Shmuel says: With regard to betrothal, if he gave her money or an item worth money, and said to her: You are hereby betrothed [mekuddeshet], or: You are hereby betrothed [me oreset], h or: You are hereby as a wife, then she is betrothed. If he said: I am hereby your man, h or: I am hereby your husband, or: I am hereby your betrothed, then there is no room for concern here. In these cases there is no possibility that it might be a valid betrothal, as betrothal is effective only if its formulation defines the relationship in terms of the woman s connection to the man, not the reverse. He gave and she said ן הו א ו א מ ר ה ה יא :נ ת If a man gave a woman an item that is worth at least one peruta and she said: I am hereby betrothed to you, it is uncertain if it is a valid betrothal. The Rosh that this is the case only if they were not speaking about matters of betrothal beforehand. But if he was discussing matters of betrothal with her just prior to this action, then even were she to accept the item without saying anything, she would be betrothed. Therefore, the fact that she speaks in this case does not detract from his act, and she is betrothed (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 3:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 27:1). You are hereby betrothed ר י א ת מ קו ד ש ת :ה If a man says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed, without adding: To me, she is not betrothed (Rosh). Some say that there is a concern that it might be a valid betrothal. If he was discussing their betrothal with her beforehand, she is betrothed. If a man first betrothed one woman in an entirely valid manner, and immediately afterward he said to another woman: You are hereby betrothed, this is considered an ambiguous intimation, and it is uncertain if it is a valid betrothal (Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 27:4). I am hereby your man ה ר י נ י א י ש ך : If a man says to a woman: I am hereby your man, or: I am hereby your husband, or any similar statement, she is not betrothed, even if they were discussing betrothal beforehand (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 3:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 27:6). א קרפ :ה ףד. 5b 24 Kiddushin. perek I.
ו כ ן ב ג ירו ש ין; נ ת ן ל ה ו א מ ר ל ה ה ר י א ת מ ש ו ל ח ת ה ר י א ת מ ג ור ש ת ה ר י א ת מו ת ר ת ל כ ל א ד ם ה ר י ז ו מ ג ור ש ת. א ינ י א יש ך א ינ י ב ע ל יך א ינ י א רו ס יך א ין כ אן ב י ת מ י ח ו ש. א מ ר ל יה ר ב פ פ א ל א ב י י: ל מ ימ ר א ד ס ב ר ש מו א ל י ד י ם ש א ין מ וכ יח ות ה ו י ין י ד י ם? ו ה ת נ ן: ה א ומ ר א ה א ה ר י ז ה נ ז יר. ו ה ו ינ ן ב ה : ו ד יל מ א א ה א ב ת ע נ ית ק א מ ר? ו א מ ר ש מו א ל: ו הו א ש ה י ה נ ז יר ע וב ר ל פ נ יו. ט ע מ א ד נ ז יר ע וב ר ל פ נ יו, ה א ל או ה כ י ל א! ה כ א ב מ אי ע ס ק ינ ן ד א מ ר ל י. א י ה כ י מ אי ק מ ש מ ע ל ן? ה נ י And similarly, with regard to divorce, if a husband gave his wife a bill of divorce and said to her: You are hereby sent away, h or: You are hereby divorced, or: You are hereby permitted to marry any man, then she is divorced. If he said: I am not your man, or: I am not your husband, or: I am not your betrothed, then there is no room for concern, as a bill of divorce is effective only if its formulation defines the relationship in terms of the woman s connection to the man, not the reverse. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Is this to say that Shmuel holds that ambiguous intimations, i.e., incomplete expressions that can be understood only from their context, are considered like unambiguous intimations? In the cases listed by Shmuel, the woman is betrothed despite the fact that the man did not say: You are hereby betrothed to me, but merely: You are hereby betrothed. The statement itself does not include the detail that the speaker intends to betroth her to himself, and yet Shmuel maintains that the betrothal is valid. Rav Pappa asks: But didn t we learn in a mishna (Nazir 2a) that one who says: I shall be, hn is a nazirite? b And we discussed this ruling: But perhaps he meant to say: I will be in a fast? And Shmuel said that this mishna is referring to a particular set of circumstances, that he said: I shall be, when a nazirite was passing before him. In that context it is clear the individual meant that he too will be a nazirite. Rav Pappa analyzes this statement: The reason that he is a nazirite is only due to the fact that a nazirite passes before him. But if this were not the case, no, his statement would not be considered a naziriteship vow. This indicates that according to Shmuel, ambiguous intimations are not considered like unambiguous intimations. The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? Shmuel is referring to a case where he said the formulation and added the phrase: To me. For example, he said to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me. The Gemara asks: If so, what is Shmuel teaching us? If the man stated the full formula it is obvious that she is betrothed, as he used the standard expression of betrothal. The Gemara answers: These You are hereby sent away ר י א ת מ ש ו ל ח ת :ה If a man said upon giving a bill of divorce: You are hereby divorced, or: You are hereby sent away, or: You are hereby permitted to every man, this is a valid bill of divorce. But if he said to her: I am not your man, or: I am not you husband, some authorities say this bill of divorce is entirely invalid (Rambam). Rabbeinu Yeruĥam holds that if the couple had just been discussing divorce it is uncertain if it is a valid bill of divorce (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Geirushin 1:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 136:3). One who says, I shall be ה א ו מ ר א ה א : If someone said: I shall be, as a nazirite passed by him, this means that he should be a nazirite like the nazirite that passed by him. Although he did not make his intention absolutely clear, he is a nazirite (Rambam Sefer Hafla a, Hilkhot Nezirut 1:6). One who says, I shall be ה א ו מ ר א ה א : Some commentaries explain that this statement is more likely to mean that the individual in question wants to be a nazirite than to accept a fast upon himself, because his obligation to fast cannot apply that day but only on the next day at the earliest. By contrast, one can become a nazirite immediately (Tosafot). Others explain that as the expression: I shall be, is referring to the individual himself, it is logical that he wanted to become a nazirite. It is less appropriate for one who is not changing his status but merely accepting an obligation upon himself (Ramban). Nazirite ז יר :נ A nazirite is an individual who undertakes a nazirite vow, as detailed in the Torah (Numbers 6:1 21). A nazirite must refrain from eating or drinking any product of the vine. He must avoid becoming ritually impure through contact with corpses, and he must refrain from cutting his hair. A nazirite who violates any of these prohibitions is liable to receive lashes. One can vow to be a nazirite for any period of time that he wishes, but the minimum period is thirty days. One who does not specify how long he wishes to be a nazirite assumes these obligations for thirty days. If a nazirite becomes ritually impure through contact with a corpse, whether intentionally or not, he must first purify himself and then bring two pigeons to the Temple as offerings, one for a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering. He also brings a lamb as a guiltoffering. After this, the individual must begin his naziriteship period again. When the nazirite completes the period of his vow, he must bring two lambs as offerings, one female as a sinoffering and one male as a burnt-offering, as well as a ram for a peace-offering. He shaves his hair and burns it beneath the pot in which the ram sacrificed as a peace-offering is cooked. After these offerings have been sacrificed, the period of naziriteship ends, and the former nazirite is no different from anyone else.. Kiddushin. Perek I. 5b 25 א קרפ :ה ףד
Perek I Daf 6 Amud a You are hereby my wife ה ר י א ת א ש ת י : If a man says to a woman: You are hereby my wife, or: You are hereby bound to me, or: You are hereby acquired by me, or: You are hereby betrothed to me, or: You are hereby mine, or: You are hereby under my authority, or: You are hereby my taken one, she is betrothed. Maggid Mishne, citing Ran, adds that this applies only if they were discussing betrothal beforehand (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 3:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 27:2, and in the comment of Rema). Unique to me מ י ו ח ד ת ל י : If a man said or wrote to a woman: You are hereby unique to me, or: You are hereby designated to me, or: You are hereby my helper, or: You are hereby my counterpart, or: You are hereby my rib, or: You are hereby beneath me, or: You are hereby my gathered one, or: You are hereby my possession, her betrothal is uncertain. This applies if they were speaking about matters of betrothal, as the question in the Gemara is left unanswered. If they were not speaking about the issue of betrothal, there is no concern that these statements might constitute a valid betrothal and she is not betrothed (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 3:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 27:3). You are hereby my espoused one ה ר י א ת ח ר ו פ ת י : If a man said or wrote to a woman: You are hereby my espoused one, she is betrothed. Some write that only in Judea is she betrothed, whereas in other places it is an uncertain betrothal (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 3:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 27:3, and in the comment of Rema). מ י ו ח ד ת etc. You are hereby unique to me, what is, : In each of the ten formulations discussed in this ל י מ ה ו dilemma, the man employs a terminology that can be understood as a reference to betrothal, either in and of itself or due to its similarity to a term employed in a verse referring to marriage in some sense. Designation [yi ud] is the term for the marriage between a Hebrew maidservant and her master. Helper, counterpart, rib, closed one, and beneath me all allude to the creation of Eve, as the verses state: And the Lord God said: It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as a counterpart to him (Genesis 2:18), and: And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh beneath it (Genesis 2:21). Gathered one alludes to a husband bringing a wife into his home. Seized one alludes to the phrase in the verse: And seize her and lie with her (Deuteronomy 22:28), a verse that deals with rape; and a rapist is obligated to marry the woman he rapes if she desires this. The connection of the other terms to betrothal is self-evident. ל יש נ י ב ת ר א י ק א מ ש מ ע ל ן: ה כ א כ ת יב: כ י י ק ח ו ל א ש י ק ח א ת ע צ מ ו, ו ה כ א כ ת יב: ו ש ל ח ה ו ל א ש י ש ל ח א ת ע צ מ ו. ת נו ר ב נ ן: ה ר י א ת א ש ת י, ה ר י א ת א רו ס ת י, ה ר י א ת ק נו י ה ל י מ קו ד ש ת. ה ר י א ת ש ל י, ה ר י א ת ב ר ש ו ת י, ה ר י א ת ז קו ק ה ל י מ קו ד ש ת. ו ל ית נ ינ הו כ ו ל הו כ ח ד א! ת נ א ת ל ת ת ל ת ש מ ע ינ הו ו ג ר ס ינ הו. א יב ע י א ל הו : מ יו ח ד ת ל י מ הו? מ יו ע ד ת ל י מ הו? ע ז ר ת י מ הו? נ ג ד ת י מ הו? ע צו ר ת י מ הו? צ ל ע ת י מ הו? ס גו ר ת י מ הו? ת ח ת י מ הו? ת פו ש ת י מ הו? ל קו ח ת י מ הו? פ ש וט מ יה א ח ד א, ד ת נ י א: ה א ומ ר ל קו ח ת י ה ר י ז ו מ קו ד ש ת, מ ש ו ם ש נ א מ ר: כ י י ק ח א יש א ש ה. א יב ע י א ל הו : ח רו פ ת י מ הו? ת א ש מ ע: ד ת נ י א, ה א ומ ר ח רו פ ת י מ קו ד ש ת, ש כ ן ב יהו ד ה ק ור ין ל א רו ס ה ח רו פ ה. ו יהו ד ה ה ו י א רו ב א ד ע ל מ א?! last expressions are what he teaches us. The novelty of Shmuel s statement is that with regard to the second set of pronouncements there is no concern at all that a valid betrothal or divorce might have been performed. The Gemara explains why according to Shmuel these pronouncements are not of concern. Here, in the case of betrothal, it is written: When a man takes a woman (Deuteronomy 24:1), which indicates that the man is acting to change the status of the woman, and it is not written that he takes himself or gives himself to her, as in the case of one who says: I am hereby your man. And likewise, it is written here, with regard to divorce: And sends her (Deuteronomy 24:1), and it is not written that he sends himself from her, as in the case of one who says: I am not your man. The Sages taught in a baraita that if a man says to a woman: You are hereby my wife, h or: You are hereby my betrothed, or: You are hereby acquired to me, then she is betrothed. If he said to her: You are hereby mine, or: You are hereby under my authority, or: You are hereby bound to me, then she is betrothed. The Gemara asks: But as the is that she is betrothed with regard to both sets of statements, let the baraita teach all of them together. Why does the baraita divide these statements into two groups? The Gemara answers: The tanna heard them as two sets of three, and consequently he taught them in that form. He heard each sequence of three cases as a separate from his teachers, and therefore he preserved them as two sets of three. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a man betrothing a woman said: You are hereby unique to me, h what is n the? Is this woman betrothed? Similarly, if he said to her: You are hereby designated to me, what is the? If he said: You are hereby my helper, what is the? If he said: You are hereby my counterpart, what is the? If he said: You are hereby my gathered one, what is the? If he said: You are hereby my rib, what is the? If he said: You are hereby my closed one, what is the? If he said: You are hereby beneath me, what is the? If he said: You are hereby my seized one, what is the? Finally, if he said: You are hereby my taken one, what is the? The Gemara suggests: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby my taken one, she is betrothed, because it is stated: When a man takes a woman (Deuteronomy 24:1). A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a man says to a woman: You are hereby my espoused one [ĥarufati], l what is the? Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita that with regard to one who says: You are hereby my espoused one, h she is betrothed, as in Judea they call b a betrothed woman a ĥarufa, an espoused woman. The Gemara asks: And is Judea most of the world? Even if this is true in Judea, why should a that applies in all locations be based on this local custom? My espoused one [ĥarufati] ח ר ו פ ת י : Generally, this word is taken to mean indentured or acquired. The tanna im and the commentaries on the Torah disagree about the origin and precise meaning of the similar term neĥerefet, in the verse: Who is a maidservant language espoused [neĥerefet] to a man (Leviticus 19:20). Since the denotation of this term is obscure, the Gemara asks how the woman knows what he means. In Judea they call יהו ד ה ק ור ין :ב The Talmud states in several places that the Hebrew spoken by the residents of Judea differed slightly from that spoken in Jerusalem. These people apparently preserved expressions that were not widely used elsewhere. א קרפ.ו ףד. 6a 26 Kiddushin. perek I.
ה כ י ק א מ ר: ה א ומ ר ח רו פ ת י מ קו ד ש ת, ש נ א מ ר ו ה יא ש פ ח ה נ ח ר פ ת ל א יש. ו ע וד: ב יהו ד ה ק ור ין ל א רו ס ה ח רו פ ה. ו יהו ד ה ו ע וד ל ק ר א?! א ל א ה כ י ק א מ ר: ה א ומ ר ח רו פ ה ב יהו ד ה מ קו ד ש ת, ש כ ן ב יהו ד ה ק ור ין ל א רו ס ה ח רו פ ה. ב מ אי ע ס ק ינ ן? א יל ימ א ב ש א ין מ ד ב ר ע מ ה ע ל ע ס ק י ג יט ה ו ק יד ו ש יה מ נ א י ד ע ה מ אי ק א מ ר ל ה? ו א ל א ב מ ד ב ר ע מ ה ע ל ע ס ק י ג יט ה ו ק יד ו ש יה א ף ע ל ג ב ד ל א א מ ר ל ה נ מ י, ד ת נ ן: ה י ה מ ד ב ר ע ם א ש ה ע ל ע ס ק י ג יט ה ו ק יד ו ש יה, ו נ ת ן ל ה ג יט ה ו ק יד ו ש יה, ו ל א פ יר ש. ר ב י י וס י א ומ ר: ד י ו. ר ב י י הו ד ה א ומ ר: צ ר יך ל פ ר ש. ו א מ ר ר ב הו נ א א מ ר ש מו א ל: ה ל כ ה כ ר ב י י וס י! א מ ר י: ל ע ול ם ב מ ד ב ר ע מ ה ע ל ע ס ק י ג יט ה ו ק יד ו ש יה. ו א י ד י ה יב ל ה ו ש ת יק ה כ י נ מ י. ה כ א ב מ אי ע ס ק ינ ן? ד יה ב ל ה ו א מ ר ל ה ב ה נ י ל י ש נ י. ו ה כ י ק א מ יב ע י ל יה : ה נ י ל יש נ י, ל ק יד ו ש י ק א מ ר ל ה, א ו ד יל מ א ל מ ל אכ ה ק א מ ר ל ה? ת י ק ו. The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita is saying: With regard to one who says: You are hereby my espoused one, she is betrothed, as it is stated: Who is a maidservant espoused [neĥerefet] to a man (Leviticus 19:20). This verse means that she is betrothed to a certain man. And furthermore, the baraita adds another proof for this claim: In Judea they call a betrothed woman a ĥarufa, an espoused woman. The Gemara asks: And is it reasonable to introduce the custom in Judea with the term: And furthermore, as proof to a derived from a verse? Rather, the Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: With regard to one who says: You are hereby espoused, in Judea, she is betrothed, as in Judea they call a betrothed woman a ĥarufa, an espoused woman. The Gemara asks a general question with regard to all the previously mentioned expressions: With what are we dealing? If we say that these dilemmas are referring to a case where he was not speaking with her about matters of her bill of divorce or her betrothal, but suddenly issued this statement to her, from where does she know what he is saying to her? Out of context, these statements are not necessarily referring to betrothal. Rather, they are referring to a case where he was speaking to her about matters of her bill of divorce and her betrothal. But if so, even though he did not say anything, she would also be betrothed if he gave her money for the purpose of betrothal. As we learned in a mishna (Ma aser Sheni 4:7): If one was speaking with a woman h about matters of her bill of divorce or her betrothal, and he gave her a bill of divorce or her betrothal, i.e., the money or a document of betrothal, but did not clarify his action, Rabbi Yosei says: This is sufficient for him, i.e., it is a valid divorce or betrothal because she will understand his intention from the context. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is required to clarify the meaning of his behavior. And Rav Huna says that Shmuel says: The is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. If so, even if he said nothing to her she would still be betrothed, and this should certainly be the case if he says one of the statements under discussion. The Sages say in explanation of this matter: Actually, we are dealing with cases where he was speaking to her about matters of her bill of divorce and her betrothal, and if it was referring to a case where he had given her the money and been silent, so too it would have been a valid betrothal. With what are we dealing here? This is a case where he gave her something and said to her one of these expressions. And this is the dilemma raised before the Sages: These expressions, did he say them to her for the purpose of betrothal, or perhaps he said them to her for the purpose of labor? He might have intended to hire her, withdrawing his previous intention to betroth her. In other words, his statement in conjunction with his giving of an item renders the meaning of the expression less clear than if he had remained silent. The Gemara leaves most of these issues unanswered, and states that the dilemmas shall stand unresolved. b :ה י ה מ ד ב ר ע ם א ש ה woman If one was speaking with a If a man was speaking with a woman about betrothal, and he gives her betrothal money in silence, she is betrothed. Some claim that it is unnecessary for them to actually be discussing the topic of marriage, provided that they were talking about tangential issues (Rambam Sefer Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 3:8; Shulĥan Arukh; Even HaEzer 27:1, and in the comment of Rema). The dilemmas shall stand unresolved [teiku] יקו :ת Various explanations have been offered for the etymology of this term. One explanation is that it is an abbreviated form of tikom, let it stand. Alternatively, its source is the word tik, a case or pouch, whose contents are unknown. Similarly, the resolution is unknown, as though it were hidden inside a case (Arukh). Although not the literal meaning, some suggest that the term alludes to an acrostic: The Tishbite, i.e., Elijah the Prophet, will resolve questions and dilemmas (Tosefot Yom Tov). This last idea refers to the legendary belief that when Elijah returns to announce the coming of the Messiah, he will also reveal the solutions to outstanding halakhic difficulties.. Kiddushin. Perek I. 6a 27 א קרפ.ו ףד