## Kiddushin Daf 13a

###### Kiddushin 13a:1
[Kiddushin 13a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:1)

כִּי אָמְרָה ״לָא״ נָמֵי הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין? אַמַּאי, וְהָא קָאָמְרָה ״לָא״! אֶלָּא לָאו: ״רָצְתָה״ – דְּאָמְרָה: ״אִין״, לֹא רָצְתָה – דְּאִישְׁתִּיקָה מִשְׁתָּקה. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שְׁתִיקָה דִּלְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת – וְלֹא כְּלוּם הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that **if** she **said: No, it would also be** a **betrothal.** But **why** should that be the case? After all, **she said: No. Rather, is it not** to be explained in this manner, i.e., that the phrase: **She wanted,** means **she said yes,** and: **She did not want,** means **that she remained silent. And** one can **learn from this** that **silence after** the **money is given is nothing.** Her silence is not interpreted as an agreement to the betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 13a:2
[Kiddushin 13a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:2)

קָשׁוּ בָּהּ בְּפוּם נַהֲרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם בְּתוֹרַת פִּקָּדוֹן יַהֲבִינְהוּ נִיהֲלַהּ, סָבְרָה: אִי שָׁדֵינָא לְהוּ וּמִיתַּבְרִי – מְחַיַּיבְנָא בְּהוּ, הָכָא בְּתוֹרַת קִדּוּשִׁין יַהֲבִינְהוּ נִיהֲלַהּ, וְאִי אִיתָא דְּלָא נִיחָא לַהּ – (לִישְׁדִּינְהוּ)!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In** the city of **Pum Nahara they raised a difficulty against** Rava’s proof, **in the name of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: Is it comparable? There,** in the *baraita*, **he gave her** the money **as a deposit** but they are his. She therefore **thinks: If I throw them and they break I will be obligated** to pay **for them,** as would anyone who destroys another person’s property. Consequently, her silence is interpreted as consent only to continue in her role of holding it as a deposit. By contrast, **here he gives them to her as betrothal** money so that they would belong to her. **And if it is so, that she is not amenable** to being betrothed, **let her throw them** away.


###### Kiddushin 13a:3
[Kiddushin 13a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:3)

פָּרֵיךְ רַב אַחַאי: אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ נְשֵׁי דִּינָא גְּמִירִי? הָכִי נָמֵי סַבְרַהּ: אִי שָׁדֵינָא לְהוּ וּמִיתַּבְרִי מִיתְחַיַּיבְנָא בְּאַחְרָיוּתַיְיהוּ. שְׁלַחָה רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבִינָא: כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא מַאי? שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: אֲנַן לָא שְׁמִיעַ לַן הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אַתּוּן דִּשְׁמִיעַ לְכוּ – חוּשׁוּ לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥai refutes** this argument: **Is that to say** that **all women are learned** in ***halakha*?** In this case **also, she thinks: If I throw them and they break I will be responsible for them.** Therefore, I will not throw them. One cannot deduce from the fact that she does not throw the coins that she accepted them as betrothal money. **Rav Aḥa bar Rav, sent** this question **to Ravina: In a case like this, what** is the *halakha*? Ravina **sent** the following response **to him: We did not hear this statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.** Therefore, we do not need to take it into consideration. **You, who heard it, should be concerned about** a possible betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 13a:4
[Kiddushin 13a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:4)

הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּהֲוָה קָא מְזַבְּנָה וַורְשְׁכֵי, אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא חֲטַף וַורְשְׁכָא מִינַּהּ, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: הַבֵהּ נִיהֲלִי! אֲמַר לַהּ: אִי יָהֵיבְנָא לִיךְ מִיקַּדְּשַׁתְּ לִי? שְׁקַלְתֵּיהּ וְאִישְׁתִּיקָה. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: יְכֵולָה לְמֵימַר: אִין, שְׁקַלִי, וְדִידִי שְׁקַלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara further relates: There was **a certain woman who was selling belts. A certain man came** and **snatched a belt [*varshekha*] from her. She said to him: Give** it **to me. He said to her: If I give** it **to you will you be betrothed to me? She took it and was silent, and Rav Naḥman said: She could say: Yes, I took** it, but **I took my** property. There is no proof that she agreed to accept it as a betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 13a:5
[Kiddushin 13a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:5)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: קִידְּשָׁה בְּגָזֵל וּבְחָמָס, וּבִגְנֵיבָה, אוֹ שֶׁחָטַף סֶלַע מִיָּדָהּ וְקִדְּשָׁהּ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת! הָתָם בִּדְשַׁדֵּיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rav Naḥman** from a *baraita*: If a man **betrothed** a woman **with** property that was taken **by robbery; or** with property taken **by a forced transaction,** when the owner was reluctant to sell, **or** with property that was taken **by theft; or if he grabbed a *sela* from her hand and betrothed her** with it, **she is betrothed.** If so, why does Rav Naḥman say here that when he took it from her and betrothed her she is not betrothed? Rav Naḥman answered: **There,** it is referring to a case where **he** had previously **arranged** to marry her, and therefore if she remained silent she certainly agreed to the betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 13a:6
[Kiddushin 13a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:6)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁנֵי לַן בֵּין שַׁדֵּיךְ וּדְלָא שַׁדֵּיךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר לָהּ: ״כִּנְסִי סֶלַע זוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לִיכִי״ וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בּוֹ״, בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת, רָצְתָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, לֹא רָצְתָה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. לְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ רָצְתָה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where do you say that there is a difference** between a case **where he** had previously **arranged** to marry her **and where he had not arranged** to do so? **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that with regard to a man who **said to** a woman: **Take this *sela* that I owe you, and he went back and said to her: Be betrothed to me with it,** if he said this **at the time the money was given** and **she wanted** it, **she is betrothed;** if **she did not want** it, **she is not betrothed.** If he issued his statement **after** the **money was given,** then **even if she wanted** it, **she is not betrothed.**


###### Kiddushin 13a:7
[Kiddushin 13a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:7)

מַאי ״רָצְתָה״ וּמַאי ״לֹא רָצְתָה״? אִילֵימָא ״רָצְתָה״ – דְּאָמְרָה אִין, לֹא רָצְתָה – דְּאָמְרָה לָא, הָא אִישְׁתִּיקָה – הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין. וְנִתְנֵי ״מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת״ סְתָם, כִּי הָתָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman clarifies: **What** is the meaning of: **She wanted, and what** is the meaning of: **She did not want? If we say** that: **She wanted,** means **that she said yes,** and: **She did not want,** means that **she** explicitly **said no,** it can be inferred that if **she was silent it is** a valid **betrothal. But** if so, **let** the *baraita* **teach** simply that **she is betrothed, without specification, as** it did **there** in the previous case, with regard to one who said: Take this *sela* as a deposit. It is obvious that if she explicitly said no, she is not betrothed.


###### Kiddushin 13a:8
[Kiddushin 13a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:8)

אֶלָּא: ״רָצְתָה״ – דְּאָמְרָה ״אִין״, ״לֹא רָצְתָה״ – דְּאִישְׁתִּיקָה, וְקָא תָנֵי דְּאֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מַאי טַעְמָא? יְכֵולָה לְמֵימַר: אִין, שְׁקַלִי, וְדִידִי שְׁקַלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the phrase: **She wanted,** means **she said yes,** and: **She did not want,** means **that she remained silent. And** in this case of silence the *baraita* **taught that she is not betrothed. What is the reason** that she is not betrothed if she remained silent? It is that **she can say: Yes I took** it, **but I took my own** property and did not intend to become betrothed.


###### Kiddushin 13a:9
[Kiddushin 13a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:9)

וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא הָךְ דְּקִדְּשָׁהּ בְּגָזֵל וּבְחָמָס וּבִגְנֵיבָה אוֹ שֶׁחָטַף סֶלַע מִיָּדָהּ וְקִדְּשָׁהּ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הָא – דְּשַׁדֵּיךְ, הָא – דְּלָא שַׁדֵּיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But this** is **difficult** with regard to **that** which we learned, that if a man **betrothed her with** property that was taken **by robbery, or** with property taken **by a forced transaction, or** with property that was taken **by theft, or if he grabbed a *sela* from her hand and betrothed her** with it, **she is betrothed. Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from it** that **this** ruling, that she is betrothed if she was silent, is referring to a case **where he arranged** the marriage beforehand, whereas **this** ruling, that she is not betrothed when she remained silent, is referring to a situation **where he did not arrange** it beforehand?


###### Kiddushin 13a:10
[Kiddushin 13a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:10)

כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי, עֲיַילוּ רַבָּנַן לְנַקּוֹטִינְהוּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּתֵיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ הַהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שְׁמֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – כָּךְ אֵין קַרְקַע נִקְנֵית בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וְהָתַנְיָא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – קַרְקַע נִקְנֵית בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: **When Rabbi Asi died, the Sages assembled to collect his statements,** i.e., they wished to review his rulings of *halakha* lest they be forgotten. **A certain** member **of the Sages, and Rabbi Ya’akov was his name, said to them: This** is what **Rabbi Asi said** that **Rabbi Mani said: Just as a woman cannot be acquired by less than the value of one *peruta*, so** too **land cannot be acquired by less than the value of one *peruta*. They said to him: But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Although a woman cannot be acquired by less than the value of one *peruta*, land can be acquired by less than the value of one *peruta*?**


###### Kiddushin 13a:11
[Kiddushin 13a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:11)

אֲמַר לְהוּ: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – בַּחֲלִיפִין, דְּתַנְיָא: קוֹנִין בִּכְלִי, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ya’akov **said to them: When that** *baraita* **is taught** to the effect that land can be acquired by less than the value of one *peruta* but a woman cannot, it was **with regard to** acquisition through symbolic **exchange,** i.e., a legal act of acquisition formalizing the transfer of ownership of an article. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One can acquire** land and movable items through a symbolic exchange **by** giving **a vessel, even though it is not worth one *peruta*.**


###### Kiddushin 13a:12
[Kiddushin 13a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:12)

הֲדַר יָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּטִיב גִּיטִּין וְקִדּוּשִׁין לֹא יְהֵא לוֹ עֵסֶק עִמָּהֶן. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְקָשִׁין לְעוֹלָם יוֹתֵר מִדּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָלֹה וְכַחֵשׁ וְרָצֹחַ וְגָנֹב וְנָאֹף פָּרָצוּ וְדָמִים בְּדָמִים נָגָעוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They then sat and said** additional statements in the name of Rabbi Asi. One statement concerned **that which Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: Anyone who does not know the nature of bills of divorce and betrothals should have no dealings in them,** as his ignorance might lead people to commit serious sins. In this context, **Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And** those who deal with these issues without proper knowledge **are worse for the world than the generation of the flood, as it is stated: “Swearing and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery. They break all bounds, and blood touches blood”** (Hosea 4:2).


###### Kiddushin 13a:13
[Kiddushin 13a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:13)

מַאי מַשְׁמַע? כְּדִמְתַרְגֵּם רַב יוֹסֵף: מוֹלְדִין בְּנִין מִנְּשֵׁי חַבְרֵיהוֹן חוֹבִין עַל חוֹבִין מוֹסִיפִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where may** it **be inferred** that this verse is referring to individuals of this kind and that they are worse for the world than the generation of the flood? The Gemara explains: **As Rav Yosef translated** the phrase “and committing adultery, they break all bounds, and blood touches blood,” as: **They give birth to children through the wives of others; they add sins upon sins.**


###### Kiddushin 13a:14
[Kiddushin 13a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:14)

וּכְתִיב ״עַל כֵּן תֶּאֱבַל הָאָרֶץ וְאֻמְלַל כׇּל יוֹשֵׁב בָּהּ בְּחַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם וְגַם דְּגֵי הַיָּם יֵאָסֵפוּ וְגוֹ׳״, וְאִילּוּ בְּדוֹר הַמַּבּוּל לֹא נִגְזְרָה גְּזֵירָה עַל דָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ״ – וְלֹא דָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם. וְאִילּוּ הָכָא, אֲפִילּוּ דָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is written** in the next verse: **“Therefore the land mourns and everyone who dwells there languishes, with the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea are also taken away”** (Hosea 4:3). This indicates that those who cause illegitimate children to be born lead to such a great tragedy that even the fish of the sea will die, **whereas in the generation of the flood the decree was not imposed upon the fish in the sea, as it is stated: “Whatever was on dry land died”** (Genesis 7:22). The explicit mention of dry land indicates that **the fish in the sea did not** die. **But here,** in the punishment described in the verses in Hosea, **even the fish in the sea** died.


###### Kiddushin 13a:15
[Kiddushin 13a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:15)

וְאֵימָא עַד דְּעָבֵיד לְכוּלְּהוּ! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי מִפְּנֵי אָלָה אָבְלָה הָאָרֶץ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** one can **say** that this punishment is not administered **until they perform all of them,** i.e., only if they commit all of the sins mentioned in the verse, including taking false oaths, committing murder, and stealing. The Gemara answers: It should **not enter your mind** to say this, **as it is written: “For because of swearing the land mourns”** (Jeremiah 23:10). This verse teaches that on account of taking false oaths alone the world can be destroyed, from which it may be inferred that each these acts on its own is enough to warrant destruction.


###### Kiddushin 13a:16
[Kiddushin 13a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/13a:16)

וְאֵימָא: אָלָה לְחוּד, וְהָנָךְ לְחוּדֵיהוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **But** one can **say** that taking a false **oath is distinct,** as it involves the desecration of God’s name, **and these** other sins **are distinct,** i.e., they are less severe offenses that entail a less serious punishment. Therefore, it is possible that this great tragedy will result only if one performs all of them.