## Kiddushin Daf 60a

###### Kiddushin 60a:1
[Kiddushin 60a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:1)

וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר לָהּ: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי מֵעַכְשָׁיו וּלְאַחַר עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים״, מֵרִאשׁוֹן וּמֵאַחֲרוֹן – צְרִיכָה גֵּט, מֵאֶמְצָעִי – אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and another** man **came and said to her: You are hereby betrothed to me from now and after ten days, she requires a bill of divorce from the first** man **and last** man, but **she does not require a bill of divorce from the middle one.**


###### Kiddushin 60a:2
[Kiddushin 60a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:2)

מָה נַפְשָׁךְ – אִי תְּנָאָה הֲוַאי, דְּקַמָּא קִידּוּשֵׁי, דְּהָנָךְ לָאו קִידּוּשֵׁי. אִי חֲזָרָה הֲוַאי, דְּבָתְרָא קִידּוּשֵׁי, דְּהָנָךְ לָאו קִידּוּשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye explains: This is the *halakha* **whichever way you** look at this case: **If** this expression **is a condition** that she should be betrothed from now if he does not retract within thirty days, the betrothal **of the first** man is **a betrothal, whereas** the betrothals **of those** other men are **not betrothals. If it is a retraction,** i.e., if after saying: From now, he changed his mind and delayed the moment of betrothal, then only that betrothal **of the last** one is **a betrothal, whereas** the betrothals **of those** first two men are **not betrothals,** as they both postponed their betrothals to a later date. Either way, the betrothal of the middle man is of no consequence.


###### Kiddushin 60a:3
[Kiddushin 60a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:3)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הַאי לִישָּׁנָא מַשְׁמַע תְּנָאָה וּמַשְׁמַע חֲזָרָה וְתִיבְעֵי גִּיטָּא מִכֹּל חַד וְחַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: It is **obvious** that this is the case; what is the novelty of Abaye’s statement? The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that **this formulation means a condition and** also **means a retraction, and** therefore she should **require a bill of divorce from each and every one of them,** including the middle man, due to the uncertainty. It is possible the first man retracted while the second one imposed a condition, in which case only the betrothal of the second person takes effect. Abaye therefore **teaches us** that according to the opinion of Rav, the uncertainty concerns the meaning of this expression itself, and there is no uncertainty with regard to the intention of each individual person who says this formula. Consequently, there is no possibility that this woman is betrothed to the middle man.


###### Kiddushin 60a:4
[Kiddushin 60a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:4)

עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שַׁוּוֹ נַפְשַׁיְהוּ כִּי שִׁרְגָּא דְלִיבְנֵי, דְּכֹל חַד וְחַד רְוָחָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ שְׁבַק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla** says that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even** if **one hundred** betrothed her in this manner, their betrothal **is effective with regard to her. And similarly, Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even** the betrothal of **one hundred is effective with regard to her. Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Ami, said to Rabbi Asi: I will explain to you the reason of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** These one hundred men **have rendered themselves like a row [*sheraga*] of bricks, each and every one** of whom **leaves a gap for the other.** Since there is a period of time before the betrothal of each man takes effect, another betrothal can intervene in the meantime.


###### Kiddushin 60a:5
[Kiddushin 60a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:5)

מֵתִיב רַב חֲנִינָא: ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״ – גֵּט וְאֵינוֹ גֵּט, וְאִם מֵת – חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥanina raises an objection** to this ruling from a *baraita*: If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce **from today and after** my **death,** there is uncertainty whether it is a valid **bill of divorce or** whether it is **not** a valid **bill of divorce. And** therefore **if he dies she performs *ḥalitza*, but does not enter into levirate marriage.** Since she might not be divorced, the obligation of levirate marriage applies to her, but in practice she cannot perform levirate marriage in case she was in fact divorced and is thereby forbidden to her late husband’s brother, a transgression which is punishable by *karet*.


###### Kiddushin 60a:6
[Kiddushin 60a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:6)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב – מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ, לִשְׁמוּאֵל נָמֵי: הָא מַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא, וַאֲנַן דְּאָמְרִי כְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥanina explains his objection: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rav,** the *baraita* **supports him,** as Rav maintains that the meaning of this expression is uncertain. **According to** the opinion of **Shmuel as well,** although he claims that the phrase is a condition rather than a retraction, he can explain as follows: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who claim in that case that it is uncertain if she is divorced, **and I,** Shmuel, **say** my ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Kiddushin 60a:7
[Kiddushin 60a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:7)

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר שִׁיּוּרָא הָוֵי, כֹּל גִּיטָּא דִּמְשַׁיַּיר בַּהּ וְלָא כְּלוּם הוּא. יַבּוֹמֵי מְיַיבֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said** that this **is** a phrase that **leaves** room for additional betrothals, in a case where he uses this phrase with regard to a bill of divorce, this should not be the *halakha*, as there is a principle: **Any bill of divorce that leaves** a remnant of the marital bond **is not** worth **anything,** as a bill of divorce must completely sever the marital bond between the husband and the wife. If this bond is not fully severed, she is not divorced. Therefore, her late husband’s brother should be allowed to **enter into levirate marriage** with her.


###### Kiddushin 60a:8
[Kiddushin 60a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:8)

אָמַר רָבָא: גֵּט לְהוֹצִיא, וּמִיתָה לְהוֹצִיא, מַה שֶּׁשִּׁיֵּיר גֵּט, גְּמָרַתּוּ מִיתָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי? גֵּט מוֹצִיאה מֵרְשׁוּת יָבָם, מִיתָה מַכְנֶסֶת לִרְשׁוּת יָבָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Since **a bill of divorce** serves **to remove** a wife from her husband, **and death** also serves **to remove** her and dissolve their marital ties, permitting the woman to remarry, one can say that **whatever part is left** over from that **bill of divorce** is nevertheless **completed by death,** and therefore there is a complete act of severance. **Abaye said to him: Are** the two **comparable;** can these stages be viewed as completing one another? **A bill of divorce removes her** not only from her husband’s authority but also **from the authority of the *yavam*,** as a divorced woman does not perform levirate marriage, whereas **death brings her into the authority of the *yavam*,** because it renders her obligated in levirate marriage.


###### Kiddushin 60a:9
[Kiddushin 60a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:9)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָתָם טַעְמָא מַאי? גְּזֵירָה ״מִשּׁוּם מֵהַיּוֹם אִם מַתִּי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said:** One must reject the above explanation, and ask **what is the reason there** for the concern about that bill of divorce, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan? It is not because the bill of divorce is in any way valid. Rather, it is a rabbinic **decree due to** the case of one who says to his wife: This is hereby your bill of divorce **from today if I die.** Everyone agrees that **this is a bill of divorce** that goes into effect from that day if he dies. Since one might confuse the two cases, the Sages decreed that if one says: This is hereby your bill of divorce from today and after my death, the bill of divorce is considered valid to the extent that the woman does not enter into levirate marriage.


###### Kiddushin 60a:10
[Kiddushin 60a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:10)

וְנִגְזוֹר ״מֵהַיּוֹם אִם מַתִּי״ דְּתַחְלוֹץ, אַטּוּ ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״! אִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר חוֹלֶצֶת – מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let us** also issue **a decree** in a case where he said: This is hereby your bill of divorce **from today if I die,** that **she should perform *ḥalitza*, due to** its similarity to a bill of divorce that includes the stipulation: This is hereby your bill of divorce **from today and after** my **death.** The Gemara answers: The Sages do not require her to perform *ḥalitza*, **as, if you say** that **she performs *ḥalitza*,** people will mistakenly think that the *yavam* performed *ḥalitza* because he did not want to marry her, and if he had wanted to **she** could have **entered into levirate marriage.** In fact, she is divorced and is forbidden to the *yavam*, and a decree of this kind could mislead people and result in a later transgression.


###### Kiddushin 60a:11
[Kiddushin 60a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:11)

הָכָא נָמֵי אִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר חוֹלֶצֶת – מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת! תִּתְיַיבֵּם וְאֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם, חֲשָׁשָׁא דְרַבָּנַן הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Here too,** in the case of where he says: This is hereby your bill of divorce from today and after my death, **if you say** that **she performs *ḥalitza*,** people will mistakenly say that **she** could have **entered into levirate marriage.** The Gemara answers: This concern is not important, as **let her perform levirate marriage and** there is **no** problem **with that.** The fact that she is treated as a divorcée and is forbidden to the brother-in-law **is** merely **a concern of the Sages,** who enacted a decree due to the similarity of the case where one says: This is hereby your bill of divorce from today if I die, whereas it is in fact not a bill of divorce and it is permitted for her to enter into levirate marriage.


###### Kiddushin 60a:12
[Kiddushin 60a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶתֵּן לִךְ מָאתַיִם זוּז״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְהוּא יִתֵּן. ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶתֵּן לִךְ מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, נָתַן לָהּ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me** with this *peruta* **on the condition that I will give you two hundred dinars, she is betrothed** immediately **and he shall give** her the money. If he said to her that the betrothal is: **On the condition that I will give you** a particular sum of money **from now and until thirty days,** if **he gave** the money **to her within thirty** days **she is betrothed, but if not, she is not betrothed.**


###### Kiddushin 60a:13
[Kiddushin 60a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:13)

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ. ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאַרְאֵךְ מָאתַיִם זוּז״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְיַרְאֶה לָהּ. וְאִם הֶרְאָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he said to her that the betrothal is: **On the condition that I have two hundred dinars, she is betrothed if he has** this sum. If he said to her that the betrothal is: **On the condition that I will show you two hundred dinars, she is betrothed, and he shall show** the money **to her. And if** he is a moneychanger and **shows** her money belonging to others **on the** moneychangers’ **table, she is not betrothed,** as his statement means that he will show her money of his own.


###### Kiddushin 60a:14
[Kiddushin 60a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיתְּמַר, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: ״וְהוּא יִתֵּן״. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״לִכְשֶׁיִּתֵּן״. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: ״וְהוּא יִתֵּן״ תְּנָאָה הָוֵי, מְקַיֵּים תְּנָאָה וְאָזֵיל. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״לִכְשֶׁיִּתֵּן״ לְכִי יָהֵיב הָווּ קִידּוּשֵׁי, הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא לָא הָווּ קִידּוּשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed with regard to the text of this mishna: **Rav Huna says** that it reads: **And he shall give,** i.e., it is a valid betrothal from the outset, and the man is obligated to give her the promised amount. **Rav Yehuda says** that the correct version of the mishna is: **When he gives,** meaning that the betrothal takes effect only when he actually gives her the money. The Gemara elaborates: **Rav Huna says** that the phrase: **And he shall give,** indicates that this **is a condition** stipulated by the man, which means that the woman is immediately betrothed and he merely **proceeds to fulfill the condition. Rav Yehuda says** that the mishna reads: **When he gives,** which indicates that **when he will give** the money it **will be a betrothal,** but for **now at least** it **is not a betrothal.**


###### Kiddushin 60a:15
[Kiddushin 60a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:15)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְקִבְּלָה קִידּוּשִׁין מֵאַחֵר. לְרַב הוּנָא לָא הָווּ קִידּוּשֵׁי, לְרַב יְהוּדָה הָווּ קִידּוּשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between** the explanations of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda? Both agree that if he does not give her the money she is not betrothed. The Gemara answers: **The difference between them** is in a case **where she extended her hand and accepted betrothal from another** man during the period between the initial betrothal and the delivery of the money. **According to** the opinion of **Rav Huna** the betrothal of the second man **is not** a valid **betrothal,** as he maintains that when the first man gives her the money the betrothal takes effect retroactively from the time of his earlier statement. **According to** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda,** the betrothal of the second man **is** a valid **betrothal,** as the betrothal of the first man does not take effect until after he actually gives her the money.


###### Kiddushin 60a:16
[Kiddushin 60a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60a:16)

וּתְנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי גִיטִּין כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, וְהִיא תִּתֵּן. אִיתְּמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: ״וְהִיא תִּתֵּן״. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״לִכְשֶׁתִּתֵּן״. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: ״וְהִיא תִּתֵּן״, תְּנָאָה הָוֵי, מְקַיְּימָא תְּנָאָה וְאָזְלָה. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״לִכְשֶׁתִּתֵּן״, לְכִי יָהֲבָה לֵיהּ הוּא דְּהָוֵי גֵּט, הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא לָא הָוֵי גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And we also learned** a mishna **concerning bills of divorce like this case** (*Gittin* 74a): With regard to **one who says to a woman: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, she is divorced and she shall give** him the two hundred dinars. **It was stated** that the *amora’im* disputed the correct version of this statement. **Rav Huna says: And she shall give; Rav Yehuda says: When she gives.** The reasons are as stated above in the discussion about betrothal: **Rav Huna says: And she shall give,** as **it is a condition,** and therefore **she proceeds to fulfill the condition. Rav Yehuda says: When she gives,** as **when she will give** the money **to him it will be** a valid **bill of divorce,** but **now, in any event,** it **is not** a valid **bill of divorce.**