## Kiddushin Daf 51a

###### Kiddushin 51a:1
[Kiddushin 51a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:1)

הַמַּרְבֶּה בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר – פֵּירוֹתָיו מְתוּקָּנִים וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו מְקוּלְקָלִין. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of **one who increases tithes,** i.e., he tithes two-tenths instead of one-tenth of his produce, the remainder of **his produce is rendered fit** for consumption, as he tithed it properly, **but the tithes are ruined,** as the additional tithe is neither a tithe nor tithed produce. Since it is unclear which of the two-tenths is the actual tithe and which is not, the entire two-tenths may be treated neither as a tithe nor as tithed produce. **But** according to Rabba’s opinion, **why** is this produce rendered fit for consumption? **Let us say** that **any** matters **that cannot** be accomplished **sequentially cannot be** accomplished **even** if one performs them **simultaneously.** Since one cannot designate a tithe of two-tenths sequentially, one-tenth followed by a second tenth, he should be precluded from simultaneously designating two-tenths of his produce as a tithe. Accordingly, it should be considered as though he had not designated any tithe at all, and his produce should not be regarded as tithed.


###### Kiddushin 51a:2
[Kiddushin 51a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי מַעֲשֵׂר, דְּאִיתֵיהּ לַחֲצָאִים, דְּאִי אָמַר: ״תִּיקְדּוֹשׁ פַּלְגָא דְחִיטְּתָא״ – קָדְשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him:** The case of **tithe is different, as** tithe status **takes effect partially,** i.e., on less than a unit of produce. **As, if one said: Let half** of each grain **of wheat be designated** as tithe, he has **designated it.** Just as one can designate an entire grain of wheat as a tithe, he can likewise designate a half a grain. In this case too, when one tithes two-tenths of the produce, the ruling is not that one-tenth is the actual tithe and the other tenth is untithed produce. Instead, half of each grain of the designated portion is tithe, while the other half of each grain is not. Accordingly, the remainder of the produce is tithed, as one-tenth of the total has been designated as first tithe. The portion designated as the tithe is ruined, because it is impossible to identify which part of each grain is designated.


###### Kiddushin 51a:3
[Kiddushin 51a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:3)

וַהֲרֵי מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, דְּלֵיכָּא לַחֲצָאִין, וְלֵיכָּא בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה. וְאָמַר רָבָא: יָצְאוּ שְׁנַיִם בַּעֲשִׂירִי, וּקְרָאָן ״עֲשִׂירִי״ – עֲשִׂירִי וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְעוֹרָבִים זֶה בָּזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another objection to Rabba’s opinion: **But isn’t there** the case of **animal tithe, which does not take effect partially,** as one cannot consecrate half an animal for his tithe. **And** likewise there is **no** possibility to separate animals **sequentially,** as once one has designated one animal as animal tithe he cannot designate another animal for the same purpose. **And Rava says:** If **two** animals **emerged** from the enclosure together **as the tenth, and he called them** both the **tenth,** the **tenth and eleventh** animals **are intermingled with each other.** One is consecrated with the sanctity of animal tithe while the other remains a peace-offering, but there is no way to determine which is which. The question arises: If the principle that any matters that cannot be accomplished sequentially cannot be accomplished even if one performs them simultaneously is correct, neither animal is consecrated, as one cannot designate both the tenth and the eleventh animals as animal tithe, one after the other.


###### Kiddushin 51a:4
[Kiddushin 51a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:4)

שָׁאנֵי מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּטָעוּת. דִּתְנַן: קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי ״עֲשִׂירִי״, וְלָעֲשִׂירִי ״תְּשִׁיעִי״, וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר ״עֲשִׂירִי״ – שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מְקוּדָּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Animal tithe is different, as** two animals **can be** designated as animal tithe one after the other **in** the case of **an error.** Although one cannot designate the tenth and eleventh animals as the animal tithe *ab initio*, if he did so in error they are both consecrated. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Bekhorot* 60a): If one erred and **called the ninth** animal the **tenth,** and erred again **and** called **the tenth** animal the **ninth and the eleventh** animal the **tenth,** all **three** animals **are consecrated.** The first is consecrated because it was designated as the tenth, the second because it actually is the tenth, and the third because it was designated as the tenth. Apparently, more than one animal can be consecrated as the animal tithe, if designated in error. In Rava’s example as well, a modicum of sanctity applies to the two animals that emerged together and were together designated as the tenth.


###### Kiddushin 51a:5
[Kiddushin 51a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:5)

הֲרֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּלֵיתַהּ בְּטָעוּת, וְלֵיתַהּ נָמֵי בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, וְאִיתְּמַר: תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה עַל שְׁמוֹנִים חַלּוֹת, חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: קָדְשִׁי לַהּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לָא קָדְשִׁי לַהּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another objection to Rabba’s principle. **There is** the case of the forty loaves that accompany **a thanks-offering, which are not** consecrated if they were designated **in error, and are also not** consecrated if two sets of loaves were designated for the same offering **sequentially. And** yet **it was stated** that *amora’im* disagreed with regard to **a thanks-offering that was slaughtered** accompanied **by eighty loaves,** twice the required amount. **Ḥizkiyya said: Forty of the eighty** loaves **are consecrated,** even though their identity cannot be determined. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Not** even **forty of the eighty** loaves **are consecrated.** It would appear that these *amora’im* disagree with regard to whether or not sanctity that cannot take effect in sequence can take effect simultaneously.


###### Kiddushin 51a:6
[Kiddushin 51a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:6)

לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר: ״קָדְשִׁי לַהּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים״ – קָדְשִׁי, ״לֹא יִקְדְּשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קָדְשִׁי שְׁמוֹנִים״ – לָא קָדְשִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this contention: **Wasn’t it stated with regard to this** dispute that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All,** both Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan, **concede** that **anywhere that** the one bringing the thanks-offering **said:** Let **forty of the eighty** loaves **be consecrated,** the forty **are consecrated;** and in a case where he said: **Forty** loaves **should not be consecrated unless** all **eighty are consecrated,** everyone agrees that **they are not consecrated.**


###### Kiddushin 51a:7
[Kiddushin 51a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:7)

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בִּסְתָם, מָר סָבַר: לְאַחְרָיוּת קָא מִיכַּוַּון. וּמָר סָבַר: לְקׇרְבָּן גָּדוֹל קָא מִיכַּוַּון.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They disagree only with regard to** a case where the one bringing the thanks-offering designates eighty loaves **without specification** of how many loaves he wants consecrated. One **Sage,** Ḥizkiyya, **holds:** Although he designated eighty loaves, he wants to consecrate only forty, and when he sets aside eighty loaves, **he** merely **intends to ensure** that he will have forty. He therefore brought the extra loaves so that if the first forty loaves are lost or become ritually impure the second forty will be consecrated in their place. Consequently, the first forty loaves are consecrated. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **holds:** He **intends** to bring **a large offering** of eighty loaves, and therefore none of the loaves are consecrated. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s explanation of the dispute accords with Rabba’s opinion.


###### Kiddushin 51a:8
[Kiddushin 51a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:8)

וְרָבָא, לְמָה לֵיהּ לְשַׁנּוֹיֵי כְּרַבָּה? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara turns from its analysis of Rabba’s opinion to the original issue: **And why does Rava explain** the mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabba? Let him derive** the *halakha* in accordance with a principle of his own, as elsewhere (9a) he establishes that **betrothal that is not given to consummation** is not betrothal at all, and all of **these** cases **are** in this category. Any betrothal in which it is prohibited for the couple to engage in sexual intercourse is not considered betrothal at all. Following this principle, the ruling of the mishna can be explained as follows: Since both women would be forbidden to the man in the event that they were both betrothed to him, as each would be the relative of his betrothed, the betrothals are not given to consummation. Therefore, they do not take effect at all.


###### Kiddushin 51a:9
[Kiddushin 51a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:9)

לִדְבָרָיו דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rava could have explained the mishna this way, but **he stated** his explanation **in accordance with the statement of Rami bar Ḥama.** Rava should be understood as saying: Your opinion that the ruling of the mishna is derived from a verse is incorrect, as the verse is referring only to one who betroths the two sisters or the mother and daughter sequentially. Instead, you should explain the mishna as referring to one who betroths them at the same time, with the reason being that any matters that cannot be accomplished sequentially cannot be accomplished even if one performs them simultaneously.


###### Kiddushin 51a:10
[Kiddushin 51a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:10)

אִיתְּמַר: קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין. רָבָא אָמַר: לָא הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין. אָמַר רָבָא: בַּר אֲהִינָא אַסְבְּרַהּ לִי: ״כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ״, קִידּוּשִׁין הַמְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה – הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין, קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה – לָא הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that *amora’im* had a dispute: With regard to **betrothal that is not given to consummation, Abaye says it is betrothal,** since the prohibition against engaging in sexual intercourse does not affect the betrothal itself. **Rava says: It is not betrothal. Rava says:** The Sage **bar Ahina explained to me** that this *halakha* is derived from the verse: **“When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her”** (Deuteronomy 24:1), as it indicates that **betrothal that is given to** permitted **consummation is betrothal,** whereas **betrothal that is not given to consummation is not betrothal.**


###### Kiddushin 51a:11
[Kiddushin 51a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:11)

תְּנַן: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ כְּאַחַת – אֵינָן מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת. הָא אַחַת מֵאִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ אוֹ מֵאִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְאַמַּאי? קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה נִינְהוּ! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרָבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to analyze these two opinions. **We learned** in the mishna: In the case of **one who betroths a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister in one** act of betrothal **neither** of them **is betrothed.** The Gemara analyzes this: **But** if he said he is betrothing only **one of** this pair, i.e., **the woman or her daughter, or** one **of** that pair, i.e., **the woman or her sister,** without specifying which of them, **she is betrothed.** Nevertheless, in practice it is prohibited for him to engage in intercourse with either of them, as it cannot be determined which woman he betrothed and which woman is the relative of his betrothed. **But why** should the betrothal take effect? **These are** each **a betrothal that is not given to consummation,** and should not be valid according to Rava. Shall we say this is **a conclusive refutation** to the opinion **of Rava?**


###### Kiddushin 51a:12
[Kiddushin 51a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:12)

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים וּבָהֶן שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וְלִיקֵּט אֶחָד כַּלְכַּלָּה שֶׁל תְּאֵנִים, וְשֶׁלָּהֶן הָיְתָה, וְשֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית הָיְתָה, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵי כּוּלְּכֶם מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת לִי בְּכַלְכַּלָּה זוֹ״. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין אֲחָיוֹת מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת. אֲחָיוֹת הוּא דְּאֵינָן מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת, הָא נָכְרִיּוֹת – מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rava** could have **said to you** in response: **And according to your reasoning** that a betrothal that is not given to consummation is still betrothal, **say the latter clause** of the mishna: **An incident** occurred **involving five women, and among them** were **two sisters. And one** man **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.** This indicates that **it is the sisters who are not betrothed, but the unrelated women,** the other three women who are not related to each other, **are betrothed.**


###### Kiddushin 51a:13
[Kiddushin 51a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51a:13)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵימָא דְּאָמַר ״כּוּלְּכֶם״ – ״קְנִי אַתְּ וַחֲמוֹר״ הוּא, וְ״אַתְּ וַחֲמוֹר״ לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to explain what Rava could have said. **What are the circumstances? If we say that he said: You are all** betrothed to me, this **is** comparable to one who gives something to another and says: **Let you and the donkey acquire** this item. **And** in a situation where someone would say: Let **you and the donkey** acquire it, the recipient has **not acquired** the item. Since the donkey cannot acquire items the person does not acquire it either, because the owner linked the two acquisitions. Here too, since he tried to give the item of the betrothal to all of the women, some of whom, the sisters, he cannot betroth together, the betrothal should not take effect even with the other women despite the fact that they are suitable for him.