## Kiddushin Daf 51b

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

אֶלָּא לָאו דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ: ״אַחַת מִכֶּם״ וְקָתָנֵי: אֵין אֲחָיוֹת מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת? לְרָבָא קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא, לְאַבָּיֵי קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא. אַבָּיֵי מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, רָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where he said to them: One of you** is betrothed, **and it teaches** that **the sisters are not betrothed,** because with regard to the sisters the betrothal is not given to consummation? The Gemara comments: If so, the **first clause** of the mishna **is difficult for Rava,** while the **last clause is difficult for Abaye.** The Gemara presents a resolution: **Abaye explains** the last clause according **to his** line of **reasoning,** and **Rava explains** the first clause according **to his** line of **reasoning.**


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

אַבָּיֵי מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, אוֹ אִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ כְּאַחַת – אֵינָן מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת. הָא אַחַת מֵאִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, מֵאִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye explains** it according **to his** line of **reasoning,** as follows: 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. But** if he betrothed **one of** a pair consisting of **a woman and her daughter** or **a woman and her sister** by saying: One of you is betrothed to me, each of them is **betrothed** as a matter of uncertainty and requires a bill of divorce, despite the fact that the betrothal is not given to consummation, in case he is in fact betrothed to the other one.


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

וְאִם אָמַר: ״הָרְאוּיָה לְבִיאָה תִּתְקַדֵּשׁ לִי״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי בְּחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים וּבָהֶן שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וְלִיקֵּט אֶחָד כַּלְכַּלָּה שֶׁל תְּאֵנִים וְאָמַר: ״הָרְאוּיָה לִי מִכֶּם תִּתְקַדֵּשׁ לִי״, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין אֲחָיוֹת מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues Abaye’s explanation: **And if he** explicitly **said: The one** of you **fit for sexual intercourse shall be betrothed to me, neither** of them **is betrothed,** as he cannot engage in intercourse with either, not knowing which of them is his betrothed and which is his betrothed’s relative. **And an incident also** occurred **involving five women, and among them** were **two sisters. And one** man **gathered a basket of figs and said: The one** among you **fit** for intercourse **with me shall be betrothed to me** with this basket, **and the Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed.**


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

וְרָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אַחַת מֵאִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ אוֹ אַחַת מֵאִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ – נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, אוֹ אִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ כְּאַחַת, וְאֵינָן מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי בְּחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים וּבָהֶם שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וְלִיקֵּט אֶחָד כַּלְכַּלָּה שֶׁל תְּאֵנִים וְאָמַר: הֲרֵי כּוּלְּכֶם וְאַחַת מִשְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת לִי בְּכַלְכַּלָּה זוֹ, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין אֲחָיוֹת מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava explains** according **to his** line of **reasoning:** In the case of **one who betroths one of** a pair consisting of **a woman and her daughter or one of** a pair consisting of **a woman and her sister it becomes as one who simultaneously betrothed a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister, and they are not betrothed,** since betrothal that is not given to consummation is not considered betrothal. **And an incident also** occurred **involving five women, and among them** were **two sisters. And one** man **gathered a basket of figs and said: All of you, and one of** the **two sisters, are hereby betrothed to me with this basket. And the Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed.** Since the mishna can be read in either of these two ways, nothing can be proven from it with regard to the issue of betrothal that is not given to consummation.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ סְתָם – אֵין הַבּוֹגְרוֹת בַּכְּלָל. הָא קְטַנּוֹת בַּכְּלָל. וְאַמַּאי? קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה נִינְהוּ, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרָבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a mishna (64b): In the case of **one who betroths his daughter** to a man **without specification,** i.e., without specifying which daughter he meant, **the grown women are not included** among those who might be betrothed, since he does not have the right to betroth them. The Gemara analyzes this: One can infer that the **minor daughters are included,** and each is betrothed as a matter of uncertainty. **But why** are the minor daughters betrothed? Each of **these** betrothals is a **betrothal that is not given to consummation,** since he did not specify which of his minor daughters he had in mind. Therefore, according to Rava betrothal should not take effect with regard to any of them, **and** this is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rava.**


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

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּשֶׁאֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rava** could have **said to you: With what are we dealing here?** It is **when there is only** one **adult** daughter **and** one **minor** daughter. Consequently, once the adult daughter is removed from consideration, it is clear that the father has betrothed the minor daughter, and the betrothal is given to consummation.


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

הָא בּוֹגְרוֹת קָתָנֵי! מַאי בּוֹגְרוֹת – בּוֹגְרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא. אִי הָכִי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **But** that mishna **teaches: Grown women,** in the plural. The Gemara answers: **What** is the meaning of **grown women? Grown women in general.** In other words, whenever people betroth their daughters without further specification, only the minor daughters, and not the adult daughters, are included. The Gemara asks: **If so,** that there are only two daughters, **what** is the purpose **of stating** this; what novel *halakha* does it teach?


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

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דְּשַׁוִּיתֵיהּ שָׁלִיחַ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כִּי מְקַבֵּל קִידּוּשֵׁי – אַדַּעְתַּהּ דִּידַהּ קָא מְקַבֵּל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ מִידֵּי דְּאִית לֵיהּ הֲנָאָה מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** It is a situation **where** his adult daughter **designated him** as her **agent** to betroth her. **Lest you say** that **when** he **accepts betrothal** from someone on behalf of his daughter without further specification he **accepts it with her in mind,** and he intended to betroth her rather than his minor daughter, the mishna therefore **teaches us that a person does not set aside something from which he has benefit,** e.g., the betrothal of his minor daughter, where he keeps the betrothal money, in favor of something from which he has no benefit, e.g., the betrothal of his adult daughter, where she keeps the betrothal money.


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

מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ ״קִידּוּשַׁי לְדִידָךְ״? אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, לָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ מִצְוָה דְּרַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ וְעָבֵיד מִצְוָה דְּלָא רַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Aren’t we** also **dealing** with a case **where** the adult daughter **said to him:** When you betroth me, **my betrothal** money **is for you?** Accordingly, he derives benefit from her betrothal as well. The Gemara explains: **Even so,** the father would not have intended to betroth his adult daughter, since **a person does not set aside a mitzva that is incumbent upon him,** e.g., the betrothal of his minor daughter, **and perform a mitzva that is not incumbent upon him,** e.g., the betrothal of his adult daughter.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי כִּתֵּי בָנוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, וְאָמַר: ״קִידַּשְׁתִּי אֶת בִּתִּי הַגְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁבַּגְּדוֹלוֹת וְאִם גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁבַּקְּטַנּוֹת, אִם קְטַנָּה שֶׁבַּגְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה מִן הַגְּדוֹלָה שֶׁבַּקְּטַנּוֹת״ – כּוּלָּן אֲסוּרוֹת, חוּץ מִקְּטַנָּה שֶׁבַּקְּטַנּוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a mishna (64b): With regard to **one who has two groups of daughters from two women,** e.g., he has multiple daughters from his first wife, and after his first wife died he remarried and had multiple daughters with his second wife, **and he said: I betrothed my elder daughter** to someone, **but I do not know if** it was the **eldest of the older** group of daughters **or if** it was **the eldest of the younger** group of daughters, or **if** it was the **youngest of the older** group, **who is** nevertheless **older than the eldest of the younger** group; **all** the daughters **are prohibited** from marrying someone else without first receiving a bill of divorce, **except for the youngest of the younger** group, who is certainly not betrothed. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** This betrothal is not given to consummation, since each daughter could be the sister of his actual betrothed, and yet the betrothal is considered valid, as otherwise they would all be permitted to marry without requiring a bill of divorce.


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

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּשֶׁהוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״אֵין יָדוּעַ״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **With what are we dealing here?** It is a situation **where they were identified and later intermingled.** In other words, this mishna is not dealing with one who betrothed a daughter without specifying which one; rather, he initially stated which daughter he intended to betroth but subsequently forgot. The actual betrothal is given to consummation, so the daughters are betrothed due to the uncertainty. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna **is also precise, as it teaches** that he said: **I do not know,** in the first person and in the present tense, indicating that he did know who it was at one point but does not know now, **and it does not teach** that he said: **It is not known.** The Gemara affirms: **Learn from** the language of the mishna that we are indeed dealing with a case where the daughters were intermingled after they were identified.


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

אִי הָכִי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: לָא מַחֵית אִינִישׁ נַפְשֵׁיהּ לִסְפֵיקָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמַחֵית אִינִישׁ נַפְשֵׁיהּ לִסְפֵיקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, what** is the purpose **of stating** this; what novel *halakha* does it teach? The Gemara answers: The mishna serves **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei, who says: A person does not place himself** into a situation **of uncertainty,** and when he said elder daughter he must have meant the eldest of the older group, who is the absolute eldest. Rabbi Meir **teaches us that a person does place himself** into a situation **of uncertainty,** and the uncertainty applies to each of his daughters, except for the youngest of the younger group.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִי שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ אַחַת מִשְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ קִידֵּשׁ – נוֹתֵן גֵּט לָזוֹ וְגֵט לָזוֹ. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּשֶׁהוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי: ״אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a mishna (*Yevamot* 23b): In the case of **one who betrothed one of two sisters and he does not know which** one **he betrothed,** he must **give a bill of divorce to this** one **and a bill of divorce to that** one, due to the uncertainty. This betrothal is not given to consummation, so why do they require bills of divorce? The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** It is **when they were identified and later intermingled.** The actual betrothal was given to consummation, so the sisters are betrothed due to the uncertainty. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna **is also precise, as it teaches** the phrase: **He does not know,** indicating that he did know who it was at one point but now does not know, **and it does not teach** the phrase: **It is not known.**


###### Kiddushin 51b:14
[Kiddushin 51b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51b:14)

אִי הָכִי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ: מֵת וְלוֹ אָח אֶחָד, חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם – אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַיבֵּם. אִם קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָם מִיָּדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a question: **If so, what** is the purpose **of stating** this; what novel *halakha* does it teach? The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** to teach **the latter clause** of that mishna: If this man **died and he had one brother,** the brother **performs *ḥalitza* with both of** the sisters, but he cannot perform levirate marriage with either because one of them is the sister of his *yevama*, who is forbidden to him by rabbinic law. If **he had two** brothers, **one** of them **performs *ḥalitza*** with one of the sisters but may not take her in levirate marriage, due to the possibility that she is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. **And** then **one takes** the other **in levirate marriage** if he so desires. If both brothers **married** the sisters **before** consulting the court, the court does **not remove them from** their marriage and they are permitted to remain married. Although the first couple should have performed *ḥalitza*, the court does not force them to divorce.


###### Kiddushin 51b:15
[Kiddushin 51b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51b:15)

דַּוְקָא מִיחְלָץ וַהֲדַר יַבּוֹמֵי, אֲבָל יַבּוֹמֵי וַהֲדַר מִיחְלָץ – לָא, דְּקָא פָּגַע בַּאֲחוֹת זְקוּקָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the novelty of the latter clause: This is effective **specifically** if one brother first **performs *ḥalitza* and afterward** the second brother **performs levirate marriage, but** if one brother first **performs levirate marriage and afterward** the other brother **performs *ḥalitza*,** the levirate marriage would **not** take effect, **as he** is possibly **encountering the sister of** the woman **bound to him** by ties of levirate marriage. Until the *yevama* is released through *ḥalitza*, her sister is considered, to a certain extent, the sister of his wife, due to the ties of levirate marriage. The one who performs levirate marriage might have chosen the sister of the woman betrothed by the dead brother.


###### Kiddushin 51b:16
[Kiddushin 51b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51b:16)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁקִּדְּשׁוּ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, זֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ קִידֵּשׁ וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ קִידֵּשׁ – זֶה נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵי גִטִּין, וְזֶה נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵי גִטִּין! הָכָא נָמֵי, שֶׁהוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי: ״אֵין יָדוּעַ״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the continuation of that mishna: In the case of **two** unrelated men **who betrothed two sisters,** where **this** one **does not know which** sister **he betrothed and that** one **does not know which** sister **he betrothed, this** one **gives two bills of divorce,** one to each of the women, **and that** one **gives two bills of divorce.** Their betrothal is not given to consummation, so according to Rava why do they require a bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: **Here too,** it is discussing a case **where they were identified and later intermingled.** The actual betrothal was given to consummation, so the sisters are betrothed due to the uncertainty. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna **is also precise, as it teaches** using the phrase: **Does not know,** indicating that at one point he did know who it was but now does not know, **and it does not teach: It is not known.** The Gemara affirms: **Learn from it** that we are indeed dealing with a case where the sisters were identified and later intermingled.


###### Kiddushin 51b:17
[Kiddushin 51b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/51b:17)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ: מֵת, וְלָזֶה אָח וְלָזֶה אָח – זֶה חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן וְזֶה חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן. לָזֶה אֶחָד וְלָזֶה שְׁנַיִם –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, what** is the purpose **of stating** this; what novel *halakha* does it teach? The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** to teach **the latter clause** of that mishna: If each man **died** before he divorced, **and this** one **had a brother and that** one **had a brother,** then **this** brother **performs *ḥalitza* with both of them, and that** brother **performs *ḥalitza* with both of them.** Neither man may perform levirate marriage, lest he perform levirate marriage with the sister of his *yevama*. If **this** one **had one** brother **and that** one **had two** brothers,