## Kiddushin Daf 5b

###### Kiddushin 5b:1
[Kiddushin 5b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:1)

חוּפָּה שֶׁגּוֹמֶרֶת – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתִּקְנֶה? מָה לְכֶסֶף, שֶׁכֵּן פּוֹדִין בּוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. בִּיאָה תּוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**is it not logical that** a wedding **canopy, which completes** the marriage, since it entirely removes a young woman from her father’s authority, **can effect acquisition** for betrothal on its own? The Gemara rejects this claim: **What** is unique **about money is that** it can effect acquisition in many contexts, **as one can redeem with it consecrated** property **and second tithe.** This is not so with regard to a wedding canopy, which is ineffective in effecting any acquisition other than marriage. Therefore, in the case of betrothal, money can effect betrothal while a wedding canopy cannot. The Gemara counters: The *halakha* of **sexual intercourse proves** otherwise, as this act serves to effect acquisition of a woman despite the fact that it is not a valid mode of acquisition in any other case.


###### Kiddushin 5b:2
[Kiddushin 5b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:2)

מָה לְבִיאָה, שֶׁכֵּן קוֹנָה בִּיבָמָה. כֶּסֶף יוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין: לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן: שֶׁקּוֹנִין בְּעָלְמָא וְקוֹנִין כָּאן, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא חוּפָּה שֶׁקּוֹנָה בְּעָלְמָא, וְקוֹנָה כָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **What** is unique about **sexual intercourse** is **that it effects acquisition of a *yevama*,** whereas a *yavam* does not acquire her via a wedding canopy. The Gemara answers: **Money proves** otherwise, as money cannot be used to acquire a *yevama*, and yet it is a valid mode for acquiring a woman. **And the derivation has reverted** to its starting point: **The aspect of this** mode, money, **is not like the aspect of that** mode, intercourse, **and the aspect of that** mode, intercourse, **is not like the aspect of this** mode, money. **Their common denominator is that they generally effect acquisition, and they effect acquisition here,** with regard to betrothal. **Likewise, I will bring** the mode of a wedding **canopy, which generally effects acquisition,** rendering a woman as married, **and** therefore it should also **effect acquisition here.**


###### Kiddushin 5b:3
[Kiddushin 5b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:3)

מָה לְצַד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן הֲנָאָתָן מְרוּבָּה. שְׁטָר יוֹכִיחַ. מָה לִשְׁטָר, שֶׁכֵּן מוֹצִיא בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. כֶּסֶף וּבִיאָה יוֹכִיחוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **What** about the fact that **the common denominator of** money and intercourse is **that their benefit,** i.e., pleasure, **is great?** The Gemara says: The case of **a document proves** otherwise, as no great pleasure is derived from receiving a document, and yet it can be used to acquire a woman. The Gemara answers: **What** is unique about **a document is that it can release a Jewish woman** from her husband in the form of a bill of divorce. The Gemara answers: **Money and intercourse prove** otherwise, as they do not release a woman and yet they are valid modes of acquisition for betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 5b:4
[Kiddushin 5b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:4)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין: לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן: שֶׁקּוֹנִין בְּעָלְמָא וְקוֹנִין כָּאן – אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא חוּפָּה, שֶׁקּוֹנָה בְּעָלְמָא וְקוֹנָה כָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** once again, **the derivation has reverted** to its starting point: **The aspect of this** mode **is not like the aspect of that** mode, **and the aspect of that** mode **is not like the aspect of this** mode. **Their common denominator is that they generally effect acquisition and they effect acquisition here,** with regard to betrothal. **Likewise, I will bring** the mode of a wedding **canopy, which generally effects acquisition, and** therefore it should also **effect acquisition here.**


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

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ. וְרַב הוּנָא – כֶּסֶף מִיהָא בְּאִישׁוּת לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara again rejects this claim: **What** about the fact that **the common denominator of** all three modes of acquisition is **that they are** effective in certain situations **against her will?** A bill of divorce, sexual intercourse in the case of a *yevama*, and money with regard to a Hebrew maidservant all effect acquisition of a woman against her will. Therefore, the mode of a wedding canopy cannot be derived from these methods, as a wedding canopy is effective only when the woman enters it willingly. **And** in response to this claim **Rav Huna** would answer: **In any event, with regard to marriage, we have not found** a case in which a woman can be acquired through **money against her will.** Consequently, it is possible to learn from the modes of money, a document, and intercourse that a wedding canopy likewise effects betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 5b:6
[Kiddushin 5b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:6)

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁתֵּי תְשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר. חֲדָא, דְּ״שָׁלֹשׁ״ תְּנַן וְ״אַרְבַּע״ לָא תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** There are **two refutations of** this **matter,** i.e., it is possible to refute Rav Huna’s opinion in two ways. **One** opinion is **that we learned** in the mishna that a woman can be acquired through **three** modes of acquisition, **and we did not learn** that there are **four** modes. This indicates that there are no other ways to acquire a woman apart from the three listed in the mishna.


###### Kiddushin 5b:7
[Kiddushin 5b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:7)

וְעוֹד: כְּלוּם חוּפָּה גּוֹמֶרֶת אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי קִידּוּשִׁין, וְכִי גָּמְרִינַן חוּפָּה שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי קִידּוּשִׁין מֵחוּפָּה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי קִידּוּשִׁין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** Rava disagrees with the main point of the proof, which was based on the fact that a wedding canopy completes a marriage: **Doesn’t** entering a wedding **canopy complete** a marriage **only by** means of an act of **betrothal,** which precedes the wedding canopy? **And can one derive** that entering a wedding **canopy** effects acquisition **without betrothal from** the case of entering a wedding **canopy that** effects acquisition **by** means of **betrothal?** Consequently, entering a wedding canopy alone cannot effect a betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 5b:8
[Kiddushin 5b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הָא דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ ״שָׁלֹשׁ״ תְּנַן וְ״אַרְבַּע״ לָא תְּנַן – תַּנָּא מִילְּתָא דִּכְתִיבָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי, מִילְּתָא דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בְּהֶדְיָא לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava in response to his two claims: With regard to **that which you said,** that **we learned** in the mishna **three** modes **and we did not learn** that there are **four** modes, this is no proof, as the ***tanna* teaches** only **a matter that is explicitly written** in the Torah, and **does not teach a matter that is not explicitly written** in the Torah, such as a wedding canopy.


###### Kiddushin 5b:9
[Kiddushin 5b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:9)

וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ ״כְּלוּם חוּפָּה גּוֹמֶרֶת אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי קִידּוּשִׁין״ – רַב הוּנָא נָמֵי הָכִי קָאָמַר: וּמָה כֶּסֶף שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוֹמֵר אַחַר כֶּסֶף – קוֹנֶה, חוּפָּה שֶׁגּוֹמֶרֶת אַחַר כֶּסֶף – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתִּקְנֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **that which you said: Doesn’t** entering a wedding **canopy complete** a marriage **only by** means of an act of **betrothal, this is also what Rav Huna is saying,** i.e., Rav Huna incorporates this claim into his reasoning: **If money, which does not complete** a marriage **after money,** i.e., after a woman has been betrothed through money an additional monetary gift cannot render her a fully married woman, **effects acquisition** of the woman in the form of betrothal, **is it not logical that** entering a wedding **canopy,** which is more powerful than money in that it **completes** a marriage **after money, should effect acquisition** and be used to perform betrothal by itself?


###### Kiddushin 5b:10
[Kiddushin 5b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:10)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד בְּכֶסֶף? נָתַן לָהּ כֶּסֶף אוֹ שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף, וְאָמַר לָהּ: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי״, ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְאוֹרֶסֶת לִי״, ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ לִי לְאִינְתּוּ״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אֲבָל הִיא שֶׁנָּתְנָה, וְאָמְרָה הִיא: ״הֲרֵינִי מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לְךָ״, ״הֲרֵינִי מְאוֹרֶסֶת לְךָ״, ״הֲרֵינִי לְךָ לְאִינְתּוּ״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ After discussing the sources for the modes of acquisition listed in the mishna, the Gemara analyzes these *halakhot* in greater detail. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:1): **How** is betrothal performed **through money?** If a man **gave** a woman **money or** an item **worth money, and** he **said to her: You are hereby betrothed [*mekuddeshet*] to me,** or: **You are hereby betrothed [*me’oreset*] to me,** or: **You are to me as a wife,** then **she is betrothed. But** if **she** is the one **who gave** the money to him, **and she said: I am hereby betrothed [*mekuddeshet*] to you,** or: **I am hereby betrothed [*me’oreset*] to you,** or: **I am hereby to you as a wife,** then **she is not betrothed.**


###### Kiddushin 5b:11
[Kiddushin 5b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:11)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: טַעְמָא דְּנָתַן הוּא וְאָמַר הוּא, הָא נָתַן הוּא וְאָמְרָה הִיא – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אֲבָל הִיא שֶׁנָּתְנָה לוֹ וְאָמְרָה הִיא – לָא הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין. טַעְמָא דְּנָתְנָה הִיא וְאָמְרָה הִיא, הָא נָתַן הוּא וְאָמְרָה הִיא – הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa objects to this:** This *baraita* contains an internal contradiction. The first part of the *baraita* states: If a man gave a woman money and said to her: You are hereby betrothed to me, from which it may be inferred **that the reason** the woman is betrothed is that **he gave** her money **and he said** the appropriate formula. This leads to the conclusion that if **he gave** her money **and she said** the formula, **she is not betrothed.** Now **say the latter clause** of the *baraita*: **But** if **she** is the one **who gave** the money to him, **and she said:** I am hereby betrothed to you, then **it is not** a valid **betrothal.** Rav Pappa infers: **The reason** that it is not a valid betrothal is that **she gave** money to him **and she said** the appropriate formula, from which it may be inferred that if **he gave** money to her **and she said** the appropriate formula, then **this is** a valid **betrothal.**


###### Kiddushin 5b:12
[Kiddushin 5b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:12)

רֵישָׁא דַּוְקָא, סֵיפָא כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ. וְתָנֵי סֵיפָא מִילְּתָא דְּסָתְרָא לַהּ לְרֵישָׁא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **The first clause** of the *baraita* is **exact,** and therefore it is correct to infer that which was not explicitly stated from this ruling. By contrast, **the latter clause** of the *baraita* was **cited for no reason,** i.e., it was simply formulated in the opposite manner of the first clause, and the *baraita* is not exact in the wording of this case. Therefore, one should not analyze this clause too carefully and infer *halakhot* from it. The Gemara asks: **And** would the *baraita* **teach** in **the latter clause a matter that contradicts the first clause?**


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

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: נָתַן הוּא וְאָמַר הוּא – פְּשִׁיטָא דְּהָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין. נָתַן הוּא וְאָמְרָה הִיא – נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁנָּתְנָה הִיא וְאָמְרָה הִיא, וְלָא הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: נָתַן הוּא וְאָמַר הוּא – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. נָתְנָה הִיא וְאָמְרָה הִיא – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. נָתַן הוּא וְאָמְרָה הִיא – סְפֵיקָא הִיא וְחָיְישִׁינַן מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of the following. **This is what** the *baraita* **is saying:** If **he gave** the money **and he said** the formula, it **is obvious that it is** a valid **betrothal.** If **he gave** the money **and she said** the formula, **it is considered as though she gave** the money **and she said** the formula, **and** therefore **it is not** a valid **betrothal. And if you wish, say** a different explanation of the *baraita*: If **he gave** the money and **he said** the formula, **she is betrothed.** If **she gave** the money **and she said** the formula, **she is not betrothed** at all. If **he gave** the money **and she said** the formula, the ruling **is uncertain, and by rabbinic law we are concerned** that this might actually be a betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 5b:14
[Kiddushin 5b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:14)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּקִידּוּשִׁין, נָתַן לָהּ כֶּסֶף וְשָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף וְאָמַר לָהּ: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת״, ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְאוֹרֶסֶת״, ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ (לִי) לְאִינְתּוּ״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. ״הֲרֵינִי אִישֵּׁךְ״, ״הֲרֵינִי בַּעְלֵיךְ״, ״הֲרֵינִי אֲרוּסֵיךְ״ – אֵין כָּאן בֵּית מֵיחוֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to discuss the language of betrothal. **Shmuel says: With regard to betrothal,** if **he gave her money or** an item **worth money, and said to her: You are hereby betrothed [*mekuddeshet*],** or: **You are hereby betrothed [*me’oreset*],** or: **You are hereby as a wife,** then **she is betrothed.** If he said: **I am hereby your man,** or: **I am hereby your husband,** or: **I am hereby your betrothed,** then **there is no room for concern here.** In these cases there is no possibility that it might be a valid betrothal, as betrothal is effective only if its formulation defines the relationship in terms of the woman’s connection to the man, not the reverse.


###### Kiddushin 5b:15
[Kiddushin 5b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:15)

וְכֵן בְּגֵירוּשִׁין, נָתַן לָהּ וְאָמַר לָהּ: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְשׁוּלַּחַת״, ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת״, ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְכׇל אָדָם״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. ״אֵינִי אִישֵּׁךְ״, ״אֵינִי בַּעְלֵיךְ״, ״אֵינִי אֲרוּסֵיךְ״ – אֵין כָּאן בֵּית מֵיחוֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, with regard to divorce,** if a husband **gave** his wife a bill of divorce **and said to her: You are hereby sent away,** or: **You are hereby divorced,** or: **You are hereby permitted to** marry **any man,** then **she is divorced.** If he said: **I am not your man,** or: **I am not your husband,** or: **I am not your betrothed,** then **there is no room for concern,** as a bill of divorce is effective only if its formulation defines the relationship in terms of the woman’s connection to the man, not the reverse.


###### Kiddushin 5b:16
[Kiddushin 5b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְמֵימְרָא דְּסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵין מוֹכִיחוֹת, הָוְיָין יָדַיִם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Is this to say that Shmuel holds** that **ambiguous intimations,** i.e., incomplete expressions that can be understood only from their context, **are** considered like unambiguous **intimations?** In the cases listed by Shmuel, the woman is betrothed despite the fact that the man did not say: You are hereby betrothed to me, but merely: You are hereby betrothed. The statement itself does not include the detail that the speaker intends to betroth her to himself, and yet Shmuel maintains that the betrothal is valid.


###### Kiddushin 5b:17
[Kiddushin 5b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:17)

וְהָתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״אֱהֵא״ – הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: וְדִילְמָא ״אֱהֵא בְּתַעֲנִית״ קָאָמַר? וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְהוּא שֶׁהָיָה נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו. טַעְמָא דִּנְזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו, הָא לָאו הָכִי – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa asks: **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Nazir* 2a) that **one who says: I shall be, is a nazirite? And we discussed** this ruling: **But perhaps** he meant **to say: I will be in a fast? And Shmuel said** that **this** mishna **is** referring to a particular set of circumstances, that he said: I shall be, **when a nazirite was passing before him.** In that context it is clear the individual meant that he too will be a nazirite. Rav Pappa analyzes this statement: **The reason** that he is a nazirite is only due to the fact **that a nazirite passes before him.** But **if this** were **not** the case, **no,** his statement would not be considered a naziriteship vow. This indicates that according to Shmuel, ambiguous intimations are not considered like unambiguous intimations.


###### Kiddushin 5b:18
[Kiddushin 5b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/5b:18)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דְּאָמַר ״לִי״. אִי הָכִי, מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? הָנֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **With what are we dealing here?** Shmuel is referring to a case **where he said** the formulation and added the phrase: **To me.** For example, he said to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me. The Gemara asks: **If so, what is** Shmuel **teaching us?** If the man stated the full formula it is obvious that she is betrothed, as he used the standard expression of betrothal. The Gemara answers: **These**