## Kiddushin Daf 52a

###### Kiddushin 52a:1
[Kiddushin 52a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/52a:1)

הָאֶחָד חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְהַשְּׁנַיִם – אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַבֵּם. אִם קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the one** brother **performs *ḥalitza* with both of them, and** of **the two** brothers, **one performs *ḥalitza*** with one of the sisters **and one,** if he so desires, **performs levirate marriage** with the other sister. **If they married** the widows **before** consulting the court, the court **does not remove them from** the marriage, and they are permitted to remain married.


###### Kiddushin 52a:2
[Kiddushin 52a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/52a:2)

דַּוְקָא מִיחְלָץ וַהֲדַר יַבּוֹמֵי, אֲבָל יַבּוֹמֵי וַהֲדַר מִיחְלָץ – לָא, דְּקָא פָּגַע בִּיבָמָה לַשּׁוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the novelty of the latter clause: This is effective **specifically** if one of the two brothers first **performs *ḥalitza* and afterward** the other brother **performs levirate marriage, but** if one of the two brothers first **performs levirate marriage and afterward** the other brother **performs *ḥalitza*,** the levirate marriage would **not** take effect, **as he** is possibly **encountering a *yevama*** getting married **to** a member of the **public.** This is because it is possible that the woman he married was not his *yevama* but someone else’s *yevama*, and until the other man’s brother performs *ḥalitza* with her it is still prohibited for her to marry other men.


###### Kiddushin 52a:3
[Kiddushin 52a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/52a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי טָבְיוֹמֵי: לְזֶה חֲמִשָּׁה בָּנִים וּלְזֶה חֲמִשָּׁה בָּנוֹת, וְאָמַר: ״אַחַת מִבְּנוֹתֶיךָ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לְאֶחָד מִבָּנַי״ – כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת צְרִיכָה חֲמִשָּׁה גִּיטִּין. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶם – כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת צְרִיכָה אַרְבָּעָה גִּיטִּין, וַחֲלִיצָה מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara derives a proof: **Come** and **hear, as** the Sage **Tavyumei taught** the following *baraita*: If **this** man **had five sons and that** man **had five daughters, and** the first man **said: One of your daughters is betrothed to one of my sons, each and every one** of the daughters **requires five bills of divorce,** one from each of the sons, due to the uncertainty of who is betrothed to whom. If **one of the** sons **died** before giving his bill of divorce, **each and every one** of the daughters **requires four bills of divorce,** one from each of the surviving brothers, **and *ḥalitza* from one of them,** in case she was betrothed to the deceased son. The *ḥalitza* of one of the brothers suffices to release her from her levirate bond. According to Rava this betrothal should not be valid, as it is not given to consummation. Why, then, do they each require bills of divorce?


###### Kiddushin 52a:4
[Kiddushin 52a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/52a:4)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי כְּשֶׁהוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ, הָא ״אַחַת מִבְּנוֹתֶיךָ לְאֶחָד מִבָּנַי״ קָתָנֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא, תְּיוּבְתָּא. וְהִילְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי בְּיַעַ״ל קַגַ״ם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **here too** it is referring to a case **where they were identified and later intermingled,** that cannot be. This is as the *baraita* **teaches: One of your daughters to one of my sons,** indicating that the betrothal could never have been given to consummation, and yet it is a valid betrothal. The Gemara concludes: **The refutation** of the opinion **of Rava is a conclusive refutation.** The Gemara further notes: **And the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion **of Abaye** when he has a dispute with Rava **with regard to** six *halakhot*, as represented by the mnemonic ***yod*, *ayin*, *lamed*, *kuf*, *gimmel*, *mem*:** Despair that is not conscious [*yeush shelo mida’at*], conspiring witnesses [*eidim*] who are disqualified retroactively, a side post [*leḥi*] standing alone, betrothal [*kiddushin*] that is not given to consummation, revealing intent with a bill of divorce [*get*], and an apostate [*mumar*] who sins rebelliously. Although the *halakha* generally is in accordance with the opinion of Rava in his disputes with Abaye, in these six cases the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.


###### Kiddushin 52a:5
[Kiddushin 52a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/52a:5)

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים. אָמַר רַב: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִמַּתְנִיתִין אַרְבַּע, וְנָקֵיט רַב בִּידֵיהּ תְּלָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **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. **Rav says:** One can **learn four** *halakhot* **from the mishna.** The Gemara adds: **And Rav held three** of them **in his hand,** i.e., knew what they were, but he was uncertain about the fourth.


###### Kiddushin 52a:6
[Kiddushin 52a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/52a:6)

שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: קִידְּשָׁהּ בְּגָזֵל – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, אֲפִילּוּ בְּגָזֵל דִּידַהּ. מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: שֶׁלָּהֶם הָיְתָה וְשֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית הָיְתָה – טַעְמָא דִּשְׁבִיעִית, דְּהֶפְקֵר הוּא, הָא דִּשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav clarifies: **Learn from it** that with regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with produce of** the **Sabbatical** Year, **she is betrothed,** and you do not say that this produce can be used only for eating and not for any other purpose. **And learn from it** that if one **betroths** a woman **with a stolen item, even** if it was **her stolen item, she is not betrothed.** You do not say that her accepting from him an item that he stole from her indicates that she released him from his obligation to return it, rendering it his to use in order to betroth her. **From where** can these two *halakhot* be deduced? It is **from** the fact **that it teaches** that the produce **was from their** field, **and was of** the **Sabbatical** Year, which indicates: **The reason** it could be used for betrothal is that the produce was **of** the **Sabbatical** Year, **which** causes the figs to be **ownerless** property. **But** if it was one **of the other years of the seven-**year Sabbatical cycle, the betrothal would **not** take effect with stolen property, even if she accepted it for her betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 52a:7
[Kiddushin 52a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/52a:7)

וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אִשָּׁה נַעֲשֵׂית שָׁלִיחַ לַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית לָהּ צָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And learn from it: A woman can become an agent** to accept a betrothal **for another** woman, **and** this is so **even in a situation where she** thereby **becomes** the **rival wife of** the other, as in the case of the mishna.


###### Kiddushin 52a:8
[Kiddushin 52a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/52a:8)

וְאִידַּךְ מַאי הִיא? קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִים לְבִיאָה. וְנִיחְשְׁבַהּ! מִשּׁוּם דִּמְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי כְּאַבָּיֵי אִי כְּרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the other** *halakha*, the fourth one mentioned by Rav? It is the *halakha* of **betrothal that is not given to consummation.** The Gemara suggests: **And let** Rav also **count this** *halakha*. The Gemara explains: He does not do so, **because he is uncertain whether** the correct interpretation of the mishna is **in accordance with** the explanation of **Abaye,** who maintains that such a betrothal is valid, or **whether** the correct interpretation of the mishna is **in accordance with** the explanation of **Rava,** which would mean it is not betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 52a:9
[Kiddushin 52a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/52a:9)

כִּי סְלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא אַמְרַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי אָמַר רַב הָכִי? וְהוּא לָא אֲמַר?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גָּזַל וְלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵינָם יְכוֹלִים לְהַקְדִּישׁ, זֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: מִי אָמַר רַב כְּווֹתִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **When Rabbi Zeira ascended** to Eretz Yisrael **he stated this *halakha* before Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who **said to him: Did Rav** actually **say so?** This indicates that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with the statement of Rav that these *halakhot* can be learned from the mishna, which leads the Gemara to ask: **But didn’t he** himself **say** so? **And didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say:** If one **robbed** another of an item **and** its **owner has not despaired** of recovering it, **neither of them can consecrate** the stolen item? **This** one, the robber, cannot consecrate it **because it is not his, and that** one, the owner, cannot consecrate it **because it is not in his possession.** By the same logic, one should not be able to betroth a woman with stolen property, as it is not his. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan was not objecting to Rav’s opinion, but **this is** what **he said to him: Did Rav** actually **say in accordance with my** opinion?


###### Kiddushin 52a:10
[Kiddushin 52a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/52a:10)

מֵיתִיבִי: קִידְּשָׁהּ בְּגָזֵל, בְּחָמָס, וּבִגְנֵיבָה, אוֹ שֶׁחָטַף סֶלַע מִיָּדָהּ וְקִדְּשָׁהּ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת! הָתָם בְּגָזֵל דִּידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** against Rav’s opinion that one cannot betroth a woman with stolen property, from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 4:5): If one **betrothed her with** an item taken **in robbery, in a forced transaction, or in theft, or if he grabbed a *sela* from her hand and betrothed her** with it, **she is betrothed.** This indicates that one can betroth a woman with stolen property. The Gemara answers: **There** it is referring to **her stolen** property, and by accepting it from him as betrothal, she indicates that she has released him from his obligation to return it.


###### Kiddushin 52a:11
[Kiddushin 52a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/52a:11)

הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אוֹ שֶׁחָטַף סֶלַע מִשֶּׁלָּהּ – מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא בְּגָזֵל דְּעָלְמָא עָסְקִינַן! פָּירוּשֵׁי קָא מְפָרֵשׁ: קִידְּשָׁהּ בְּגָזֵל, בְּחָמָס, וּבִגְנֵיבָה כֵּיצַד? כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָטַף סֶלַע מִיָּדָהּ וְקִדְּשָׁהּ בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But from** the fact **that the last clause** of the *baraita* **teaches: Or if he grabbed a *sela* of hers, it may be inferred that** in **the first clause we are dealing with** property **stolen from others.** The Gemara explains: These are not two separate cases. Instead, the *tanna* **is explaining** his earlier statement: If one **betrothed** a woman **with** an item taken **in robbery, in a forced transaction, or in theft; how so? For example, if he grabbed a *sela* from her hand and betrothed her with it.**