האומר לחבירו צא וקדש לי אשה פלונית וקדשה לעצמו – We say in the Gemara (Kiddushin 58b) what is "והלך" /”and he went ? That he went with deception, and for that reason, the Mishnah teaches: “He who says to his friend” and it doesn’t teach: “He who says to his agent,” to teach us that even though he had not made him his agent from the outset to this, but said to him: “Betroth to me a specific woman,” if he betrothed him to himself, , we call him that he went with reception and that he was a deceiver.

ובא אחר וקדשה בתוך ל' יום מקודשת לשני – and he can consummate a marriage by conducting a woman to his home, even within these thirty days.

מקודשת – and she requires a Jewish bill of divorce from both of them.

בת כהן לישראל – if this woman is the daughter of a Kohen, that became betrothed after thirty days, all thirty days, she may consume the Priest’s sacred gifts, for she was not invalidated from eating Terumah of her father’s house. But if she is the daughter of an Israelite [who is betrothed] to a Kohen, she does not eat Terumah, for she is not yet the wife of a Kohen.

הרי את מקודשת לי – with this Perutah/penny on the condition that I will give you two hundred Zuz.

ויתן – and when he gives it [to her], she is betrothed retroactively, but all who say, on condition is treated like one who says, “from now.”

הרי זו מקודשת ויש לו – if there witnesses that he has it (i.e., the money), and if it is not known that he has it, she is doubtfully betrothed, lest he has it, but that he intends to upset her.

ואם הראה על השלחן – for he was a money-changer and he showed her money on the table that was not his, and she is not betrothed.

בית כור – an appropriate place to seed a Kor, which is thirty Seah..

ויש לו – If there are witnesses that he has it, she is certainly betrothed, but if it is not known that he has it, she is doubtfully betrothed. And we don’t say that monies that people make is what they hide, for we fear lest he have it and he has the intention to upset her. But land we don’t suspect that perhaps he has it, for if there is that he has land, it has a voice.

ואם הראה בבקעה – that it is not his, and even though that he set it down for a tenant who will pay a fixed rent payable in kind or land tenancy on a fixed rent, she is not betrothed.

כל תנאי – which is not a double [stipulation] (stating both alternatives) is not a [valid] condition, for even if the condition was not fulfilled, the words/matters were fulfilled.

אם יעברו ואם לא יעברו – and if he did not double the words, his condition would be fulfilled and they (i.e., Reuben, Gad, and one-half of the tribe of Manasseh would inherit the land of Gilead, even though they would not cross [the Jordan River to fight the battles in Canaan with their brethren]. And even though he (i.e., Moses) said, “If every shock-fighter among the Gadites and Reubenites crosses the Jordan with you…” we don’t have that it follows from the affirmation, we derive the negative by implication. And we learn from it also, that we require the condition before the action, for since he did not say, “give it to them if they will cross [the Jordan]” implies that if he had said such, its condition would not come and void the action of the gift that preceded it, and we also learn from it that we require the affirmative prior to the negative, for he (i.e., Moses) did not say, “if you will not cross, don’t give them, but if they do cross, give them.”

ר' חנינא כו' – He disputes the double condition, that there is no need to double, for it follows from the affirmation that we derive the negative by implication, and this is what Moses doubled, there was a need for that matter. And regarding the Halakhic decision, if he said, “on condition,” there is no need for the double stipulation, and neither the affirmation prior to the negative, nor the condition prior to the ac, but the condition stands. But, if he did not say, “on the condition,” he would need all of these things that we mentioned, “and if not,” the condition is void and the action is valid, and it doesn’t make a difference whether the condition was made in monetary matters or in [the realms] of Jewish divorce and betrothal – everything is equivalent in this matter.

והוכר עוברה דבריו קיימין – Maimonides wrote [in his commentary to the Mishnah] that he may not come upon her until he betroth her a second time, for a person does not ever give possession of (i.e., sell) what does not yet exist, and they did not say that his words are fulfilled other than to be stringent upon her so that she cannot marry anyone else.

ואעשה עמך כפועל – with the labor of one day [as the betrothal monies], and not that he is betrothing her with the salary of the work for since we hold that there regarding hiring there is from the beginning to the end, hence it is found that when he completes his work, his hire is like a loan to her, and one who betroths with a loan is not betrothed, but he betroths her now with a Perutah/penny , on the condition that afterward, he will act with her like a [day] laborer.

ע"מ שירצה אבא – In the Gemara (Kiddushin 63b), it explains that the father will not protest, and when they established the time for his protest, such as if he (i.e. the potential husband) said if the father will not protest all thirty days. Therefore, the father desired it, if the thirty days passed and he did not protest, then she is betrothed. If he didn’t want it (i.e., the betrothal to take place), that he protested within the thirty day [period], she is not betrothed.

מת האב – within the thirty day [period], she is betrothed, for as we said, who is protesting?

מת הבן – within the thirty day [period], we teach the father that he should protest so that she would not be in need of her brother-in-law (i.e., the husband’s brother – in the case of his dying without issue, enters his estate and marries his wife).

אני קדשתיה נאמן – to wed her, that he would not be arrogant before the father that who received the betrothal [monies] to say, “I am he,” for if it was not the truth, he would be afraid, as perhaps he would contradict him.

וגרשתיה – I received her Jewish bill of divorce.

והרי היא קטנה – now when I said this about her.

נאמן – to make her disqualified from the priesthood [through marriage]. He is believed about his daughter all the time that she is a minor, as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:16): “[And the girl’s father shall say to the elders,] ‘I gave this man my daughter to wife…” When he said “[this] man, he prohibited her to everyone else, for we do not know to whom [it was that he was talking about], and when he returned and said to this one, he made her permissible to him.

והרי היא גדולה – and if he said this after she had grown [into adulthood], but did not say this when she was still a minor, he is not believed.

נשבית ופדיתיה וכו' אינו נאמן – to disqualify her from the priesthood, for regarding marriage, the All-Merciful (i.e., the Torah) believes the father; regarding her being taken captive, he is not believed.

יש לי בנים – and my wife will not be dependent upon her brother-in-law (who in the case of his brother dying without issue enters into his estate and marries his wife).

יש לי אחים – and my wife will be dependent upon her brother-in-law, but up until now, she was in the status that she would not be dependent.

אין הבוגרות בכלל – because they are not in the domain of the father to become betrothed, and even though he had made the adult daughter an agent to receive her betrothal, we say (Kiddushin 64b) that a person does not put aside a Mitzvah which [primarily] rests on him [to see to the betrothal of his daughter] and perform one which is not incumbent upon him [concerning his adult daughter]. But minors and girls between the ages of twelve and twelve-and-one-half require a Jewish bill of divorce, out of doubt, for we don’t know which of them he (i.e., the father) had betrothed.

קדשתי את בתי גדולה – it was necessary for the Tanna [of our Mishnah] to teach us of the dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi in the case of: “I betrothed the eldest” and “I betrothed the youngest.” For had [the Mishnah] only taught us regarding “I betrothed the eldest,” I would think that on this which Rabbi Meir is commenting upon, and since there is a younger [daughter] than her, it is to this one, “the elder” that he calls her, for it is praiseworthy for a person to call his daughter with the language of “older” even though she is “younger,” when there is younger sister younger than her. But, regarding a minor, I would say that he (i.e., Rabbi Meir) would agree with Rabbi Yosi, that all the while that he can call her “elder,” he would not call her “younger.” But if [the Mishnah only taught] that alone (i.e., the statement of Rabbi Meir), it is on that alone which Rabbi Meir is commenting upon but on this one (“I betrothed the younger”), I would say that Rabbi Yosi agrees with Rabbi Meir. Therefore, it was necessary to teach both of them. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi in both cases.

האומר לאשה קדשתיך וכו' – it is necessary for us to mention the case of when he says, “I have betrothed you,” and [the case] when she says, “you have betrothed me.” For if it (i.e., the Mishnah) [only] taught when he says to the woman: “I have betrothed you,” he is forbidden to her relatives while she is permitted to his relatives, I would think that the law is that she does not make herself forbidden to his relatives, for if he were to tell a lie, as a man doesn’t care [and hence speaks thus] if he forbids himself to her relatives for no reason, and he lies when he says, “I have betrothed you,” even though he has not [in reality] betrothed her, but she, when she states “You have betrothed me,” prohibits herself to the entire world until he gives her a Jewish bill of divorce, for if he had not established this for her, she would not have said it, and through her mouth he would be forbidden to all of her relatives, and even if he gave her a Jewish bill of divorce; this is what it comes to tell us, [that this is not the case]. (see Kiddushin 65a)

קדשתיך והיא אומרת לא קדשת אלא בתי וכו' – because you might think to say that since according to the Torah, the father is believed about his daughter, that the mother would be believed about her daughter, according to the Rabbis, but what it comes to tell us is that she is not believed.

קדשתי את בתך וכו' – Since the [Mishnah] taught above these clauses above [in the previous Mishnah], it (i.e., the Mishnah) also teaches this, and even though it is a Mishnah that is not necessary, and in all of these [sections] when she says: “You have betrothed me,” we request from him that he give [her] a Jewish bill of divorce in order that it will permit her [to marry others]. And if he gave a Jewish bill of divorce on his own accord, we force him to give [her] the Ketubah [settlement].

כל מקום שיש קדושין ואין עבירה – that the betrothal takes effect, and there is no sin [associated] with her marriage. And this principle is not exact, for a male convert who marries an illegitimately born female, the betrothal is valid but there is no sin [associated] with it, for a community/congregation of converts is not called a community. And even though any child-born goes after the [status] of the male, [in this case] the child is illegitimate (i.e., a Mamzer), both whether a convert married an illegitimately born female or whether a Mamzer married a woman convert.

וכל מי שאין לה עליו קדושין וכו' הולד ממזר – In [Tractate] Yevamot (49a) we derive it from Scripture, as it is written (Deuteronomy 23:1): “No man shall marry his father’s former wife, [so as to remove his father’s garment],” and near it (verse 3), [it states]: “No one misbegotten [shall be admitted into the congregation of the LORD; none of his descendants, even in the tenth generation, shall be admitted into the congregation of the LORD].” And we maintain her as a widow whose husband died childless waiting for her brother-in-law to act (i.e., either to marry her or to absolve her of the obligation through the Halitzah/refusal ceremony) of his father, as she is the wife of the brother of his father and she is liable to Divine extirpation through him.

על אחת מכל העריות – of those liable for Divine extirpation.

ולד שפחה ונכרית – as it is written [regarding] a female maidservant (Exodus 21:4): “the wife and her children shall belong to the master…” and [regarding] a heathen woman, it is written (Deuteronomy 7:4): “For they will turn your children away from Me [to worship other gods]…,” and because it is not written, “and she will turn [your children] away [from Me], we learn from it that this is how it should be understood: “do not give your daughters to their sons [or take their daughters for your sons]” (Deuteronomy 7:3), for the husband of your daughter will turn away your son that your daughter will give birth to through him from Me, but, it does not repeat “his daughter you shall not take for your son,” for the child (literally “male,”) that comes from the heathen is not called “your son,” but rather, “her son.”

ממזר שנשא שפחה – and even ab initio, a Mamzer can marry a maid-servant in order to purify his children. And the Halakah is according to Rabbi Tarfon. But Rabbi Tarfon admits that a slave who married a Mamzeret, the child is a Mamzer, for the slave has no pedigree