## Kiddushin Daf 50b

###### Kiddushin 50b:1
[Kiddushin 50b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:1)

אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת קִידּוּשִׁין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שָׁלַח. וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**she is not betrothed, because he sent** the gifts **on account of the first betrothal,** i.e., the item whose value to the woman was less than one *peruta*, and not to effect betrothal. **And similarly,** if there was **a minor who betrothed** a woman, and he sent her gifts after he became an adult, the assumption is that he sent them on account of his betrothal when he was still a minor, and since betrothal performed by a minor is of no account, she is not betrothed.


###### Kiddushin 50b:2
[Kiddushin 50b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, אַיְּידֵי דְּקָא נָפֵיק מָמוֹנָא מִינֵּיהּ – טָעֵי, אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, אֵימָא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה וְכִי קָא מְשַׁדַּר סִבְלוֹנוֹת – אַדַּעְתָּא דְּקִידּוּשִׁין קָא מְשַׁדַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **And** it is **necessary** for all these cases to be stated in the mishna, despite their apparent similarity. **As, had** the *tanna* **taught us** only the case of one who betroths two women with an item **worth one *peruta*,** we would have said: **Since** enough **of his money** for betrothal **goes out,** i.e., is spent, **he errs** and thinks that he can betroth two women with one *peruta*, and the gifts he later sends are not for the sake of betrothal. **But** if he betrothed a woman with an item **worth less than one *peruta*,** you might **say: He knows that betrothal does not take effect with** an item **worth less than one *peruta*, and when he** later **sends gifts he sends** them **with the intention of betrothal,** and she should consequently become betrothed with them. The mishna therefore teaches us that she is not betrothed even in that case.


###### Kiddushin 50b:3
[Kiddushin 50b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:3)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, מִשּׁוּם דְּבֵין פְּרוּטָה לְפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה לָא קִים לְהוּ לְאִינָשֵׁי. אֲבָל קָטָן שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ – הַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשֵׁי קָטָן כְּלוּם, אֵימָא: כִּי קָא מְשַׁדַּר סִבְלוֹנוֹת אַדַּעְתָּא דְקִידּוּשֵׁי קָא מְשַׁדַּר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had he taught us** only **these two** cases, we would have said that they were necessary **because** the difference in *halakha* **between** betrothal performed with an item worth **one *peruta* and** betrothal performed with an item **worth less than one *peruta* is not established** or clear **to people,** and as he might have thought in those cases that his initial betrothal was valid despite each woman receiving less than one *peruta*, the gifts he sent later were not sent for the sake of betrothal. **But** in the case of **a minor who betroths** a woman, **everyone knows that the betrothal of a minor is nothing,** and you might **say** that **when he** later **sends gifts, he sends** them **for the sake of betrothal,** and she is betrothed. The mishna therefore **teaches us** that the same *halakha* applies in this case as well.


###### Kiddushin 50b:4
[Kiddushin 50b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:4)

אִיתְּמַר: רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְסִבְלוֹנוֹת. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְסִבְלוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רַבָּה: וּמוֹתְבִינַן אַשְּׁמַעְתִּין: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁלַח סִבְלוֹנוֹת לְאַחַר מִכָּאן – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הָתָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא: שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת קִידּוּשִׁין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שָׁלַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **was stated** that *amora’im* discussed the following matter. **Rav Huna says: One** must be **concerned about gifts.** If a woman agreed to a betrothal and the prospective husband sent her gifts in the presence of witnesses, one must be concerned about the possibility that he sent them for the sake of betrothal. Therefore, the woman may not become betrothed to another man without first receiving a bill of divorce from this one. **And Rabba similarly says** that **one** must be **concerned about gifts. Rabba says: And we raised an objection against** this ***halakha* of ours,** as the mishna teaches: **Even if he sent gifts later, she is not betrothed. Abaye said to him: There,** in the mishna, the **reason** is **as it teaches: Because he sent** the gifts **on account of the first betrothal.** Therefore, there is no concern that he might have sent them for the sake of betrothal. But in this case, where he had not betrothed her beforehand, he might have intended to betroth her by sending her gifts.


###### Kiddushin 50b:5
[Kiddushin 50b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:5)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַבָּה: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא: שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת קִידּוּשִׁין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שָׁלַח. הָכָא הוּא דְּטָעֵי. הָא בְּעָלְמָא הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** a different version of this discussion. **Rabba says: From where do I say** this *halakha*, that one must be concerned about gifts? I have learned it from **the reason** she is not betrothed, **as** the mishna **teaches: Because he sent** the gifts **on account of the first betrothal.** This indicates that **it is here** that there is no concern for that he betrothed her, **since he erred** and thinks she is already betrothed to him by the first act of betrothal, and that there is no need to betroth her again. **But generally,** where this type of mistake is not possible, the sending of gifts **does** effect **betrothal.**


###### Kiddushin 50b:6
[Kiddushin 50b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:6)

וְאַבָּיֵי: ״לָא מִיבַּעְיָא״ קָאָמַר. לָא מִיבַּעְיָא בְּעָלְמָא, דְּלָא נְחֵית לְתוֹרַת קִידּוּשִׁין כְּלָל, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ הָכָא, דִּנְחֵית לְתוֹרַת קִידּוּשִׁין אֵימָא: הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye** rejects this proof, as perhaps the *tanna* of the mishna **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary.** The mishna stated, for stylistic reasons, a *halakha* that it did not need to state, and it should be understood as follows: **It is not necessary** to state this *halakha* **in general,** in a case that does not involve a prior act of betrothal, **when he had not entered the laws,** i.e., begun the process, **of betrothal at all,** and it would never have entered his mind that the gifts should be considered to be for betrothal. **Rather, even here** in the case of the mishna, **when he has** already **entered the laws of betrothal** by attempting to betroth this woman with less than one *peruta*, one might **say** that the gifts **should be** considered given for the sake of **betrothal.** The *tanna* therefore **teaches us** that there is no concern for betrothal even in that case. It is thereby possible to object to this inference of Rabba.


###### Kiddushin 50b:7
[Kiddushin 50b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:7)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְקַדְּשִׁי וַהֲדַר מְסַבְּלִי – חָיְישִׁינַן, מְסַבְּלִי וַהֲדַר מְקַדְּשִׁי – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** conclusion **was** reached **about it;** must one be concerned that the gifts might have been given for the sake of betrothal or not? The Gemara answers: **Rav Pappa says: In a place where** the custom is that men first **betroth** women **and afterward send gifts we are concerned** that he might already have betrothed her or is sending the gifts for the sake of betrothal, since that is the only situation in which gifts are typically sent. But in a place where men first **send gifts and afterward betroth** women **we are not concerned** that the gifts are for betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 50b:8
[Kiddushin 50b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:8)

מִקׇּדְשֵׁי וַהֲדַר מְסַבְּלִי – פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּרוּבָּא מְקַדְּשִׁי וַהֲדַר מְסַבְּלִי, וּמִיעוּטָא מְסַבְּלִי וַהֲדַר מְקַדְּשִׁי. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נֵיחוּשׁ לְמִיעוּטָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this: In a place where **they betroth** women **and afterward send gifts,** it **is obvious** that if a man sends a woman gifts he must already have betrothed her. The Gemara clarifies: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach this *halakha* due to a place **where most** men **betroth** women **and afterward send gifts, and a minority** of men **send gifts and afterward betroth** women. **Lest you say we should be concerned about the minority** and say she is not betrothed, Rav Pappa therefore **teaches us** that the behavior of the minority is not taken into account.


###### Kiddushin 50b:9
[Kiddushin 50b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:9)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא מֵרָבָא: הוּחְזַק שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה בַּשּׁוּק, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי (שֶׁמַּחְזִיק) [שֶׁהוּחְזַק] שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה בַּשּׁוּק נַחְזִיק בָּהּ כְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ? מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְקַדְּשִׁי וַהֲדַר כָּתְבִי כְּתוּבָּה – חָיְישִׁינַן, כָּתְבִי וַהֲדַר מְקַדְּשִׁי – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses a related topic: **Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna inquired of Rava:** If a woman’s **marriage contract was established,** i.e., seen, by people **in the marketplace, what is** the *halakha*; is she assumed to be married? Rava **said to him: And should we establish her as a married woman because a marriage contract was established in the marketplace?** Since a marriage contract can be written by a man even before betrothal and without the woman’s consent, its existence does not prove that she is married. The Gemara asks: **What** conclusion **was** reached **about it?** The Gemara answers: **Rav Ashi says: In a place where** men first **betroth** women **and afterward write a marriage contract, we are concerned** that he had betrothed her; but in a place where **they write** the marriage contract first **and afterward betroth** women, **we are not concerned.**


###### Kiddushin 50b:10
[Kiddushin 50b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:10)

מְקַדְּשִׁי וַהֲדַר כָּתְבִי – פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ סָפְרָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא סָפְרָא הוּא דְּאִתְרְמִי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this: In a place where men first **betroth** women **and afterward write** the marriage contract it **is obvious** that there should be a concern that he has betrothed her. The Gemara clarifies: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach this *halakha* due to a place **where a scribe is not commonly available. Lest you say** that he wrote the marriage contract early because there was **a scribe who happened** to be there, and the prospective husband took the opportunity to avail himself of the scribe’s services while intending to perform the betrothal later, Rav Ashi therefore **teaches us** that there is no concern that he might have done so since the custom is to first betroth the woman.


###### Kiddushin 50b:11
[Kiddushin 50b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ כְּאַחַת – אֵינָן מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים וּבָהֶן שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וְלִיקֵּט אָדָם אֶחָד כַּלְכַּלָּה שֶׁל תְּאֵנִים. וְשֶׁלָּהֶן הָיְתָה, וְשֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית הָיְתָה, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵי כּוּלְּכֶם מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת לִי בְּכַלְכַּלָּה זוֹ״, וְקִיבְּלָה אַחַת מֵהֶן עַל יְדֵי כּוּלָּן. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין אֲחָיוֹת מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who betroths a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister in one** act of betrothal, by saying: You are both betrothed to me, **neither** of them **is betrothed. And an incident** occurred **involving five women, and among them** were **two sisters, and one person gathered a basket of figs that were from their** field, **and** the fruit **was of** the **Sabbatical** Year, **and he said: You are hereby all betrothed to me with this basket, and one of them accepted** it **on behalf of all of them. And the Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed.**


###### Kiddushin 50b:12
[Kiddushin 50b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:12)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחֹתָהּ לֹא תִקָּח לִצְרֹר״, הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ צָרוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ, לֹא יְהֵא לוֹ לִיקּוּחִים אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַחַת מֵהֶם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשֹׂת מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם״ – אִי קִידּוּשִׁין לָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ, כָּרֵת מִי מִחַיַּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the *halakha* that betrothal does not take effect if one betroths these two women simultaneously, the Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rami bar Ḥama said:** It is **as the verse states: “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her”** (Leviticus 18:18). **The Torah states: When** he betroths them together so **that they** would **become rival wives to one another, he will not be able to take,** i.e., betroth, **even one of them. Rava said to him: If so,** how would you explain **this, that it is written** at the end of the passage: “Whoever shall do any of these abominations, **even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people”** (Leviticus 18:29); **if betrothal does not take effect with her,** what **renders** him **liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*]?** If he is not betrothed to either woman, and he engages in intercourse with either one, he is not liable for *karet*, as this punishment is incurred for this sin only if he engaged in intercourse with the sister of his wife.


###### Kiddushin 50b:13
[Kiddushin 50b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:13)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: קְרָא בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, וּמַתְנִיתִין כִּדְרַבָּה. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava says: The verse** is discussing a case where he betrothed them **consecutively.** He first betrothed one sister and then engaged in intercourse with the other, which accounts for the punishment of *karet*. **And the mishna** is to be explained **in accordance with** the statement **of Rabba, as Rabba says: Any** matters **that cannot** be accomplished **sequentially cannot be** accomplished **even** if one performs them **simultaneously.** Here too, since he is unable to betroth the mother and daughter or the two sisters sequentially, his betrothal of both of them simultaneously does not take effect.


###### Kiddushin 50b:14
[Kiddushin 50b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/50b:14)

גּוּפָא. אָמַר רַבָּה: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes **the** matter **itself. Rabba says: Any** matters **that cannot** be accomplished **sequentially cannot be** accomplished **even** if one performs them **simultaneously. Abaye raised an objection to his** opinion from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Demai* 8:10):