Commentary page

Kiddushin 52a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Kiddushin 52a

Kiddushin 52a. The full printed text of this folio side — 11 numbered segments, about 250 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

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

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.

Segment 2

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

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.

Segment 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.

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?

Segment 4

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

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.

Segment 5

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

§ 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.

Segment 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.

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.

Segment 7

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

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.

Segment 8

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

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.

Segment 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?

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?

Segment 10

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

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.

Segment 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.

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.

Kiddushin 52a

Kiddushin 52a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Original text