לָאו הַיְינוּ דִּיהוּדִית דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, דְּהָוֵית לָהּ צַעַר לֵידָה, אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: אָמְרָה לִי אֵם: קִיבֵּל בֵּיךְ אֲבוּךְ קִידּוּשֵׁי כִּי זוּטַרְתְּ. אֲמַר לָהּ: לָאו כָּל כְּמִינָּהּ דְּאִימָּךְ דְּאָסְרַתְּ לֵיךְ עִילָּוַאי.

Rav Ḥisda explained: Is this not similar to the case of Yehudit, wife of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who would have painful childbirths and therefore wished to leave Rabbi Ḥiyya? She said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: My mother told me: When you were young your father accepted betrothal on your behalf from another man, which would render Yehudit forbidden to Rabbi Ḥiyya. He said to her: It is not in your mother’s power to render you forbidden to me, as this testimony is insufficient.

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב חִסְדָּא: אַמַּאי? הָא אִיכָּא סָהֲדֵי בְּאִידִית, דְּיָדְעִי דִּבְהַהוּא יוֹמָא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! הָשְׁתָּא מִיהָא לָא לֵיתְנְהוּ קַמָּן.

Returning to the incident with the blue marble stone, the Gemara relates that the Sages said to Rav Ḥisda: Why do you say that she is not betrothed because the item is not worth one peruta in the place where the betrothal occurred? After all, there are witnesses in Idit who know that on that day it had the value of one peruta. Rav Ḥisda said to them: Now, in any event, they are not here, and therefore their potential testimony is disregarded.

לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: עֵידֶיהָ בְּצַד אִסְתָּן וְתֵיאָסֵר?!

Rav Ḥisda cites a proof for his statement: Isn’t this the same as the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina? In the case of a woman who appeared before the court and said that she was taken captive but remained undefiled, if there are no witnesses that she was captured, her entire claim must be accepted, and therefore she is permitted to her husband. Although there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify that she was taken captive, and consequently, the court need not rely on her statement alone, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: When her witnesses are far away in the north [istan], will she be forbidden?

אַבַּיֵי וְרָבָא לָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ לְהָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא; אִם הֵקֵילוּ בִּשְׁבוּיָה, דִּמְנַוְּולָה נַפְשָׁהּ גַּבֵּי שַׁבַּאי – נֵיקֵיל בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ?!

The Gemara comments: Abaye and Rava do not hold in accordance with this statement of Rav Ḥisda with regard to betrothal. In their opinion one cannot learn the halakha here from Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement, as there is a difference between the cases: If in the case of Rabbi Ḥanina the Sages were lenient with regard to a captive woman, who makes herself appear repulsive before her captor so that he will not rape her, and it is therefore believable that she was not violated, shall we be lenient with regard to the serious prohibition of a married woman?

אִישְׁתָּאַר מֵהַהִיא מִשְׁפָּחָה בְּסוּרָא וּפָרְשׁוּ רַבָּנַן מִינָּהּ. וְלָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּסְבִירָא לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּסְבִירָא לְהוּ כְּאַבַּיֵי וְרָבָא.

The Gemara reports: Descendants of the family of the woman who had been betrothed with a blue marble stone remained in Sura, as after Rav Ḥisda ruled that that woman’s first betrothal was invalid, she married another man and had children. But the Sages avoided the family and refused to marry into it due to the concern that it was founded on a possibly adulterous relationship, which would render the descendants of the family mamzerim. The Gemara comments: And it was not because they maintained, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, that there is a concern that any item might be worth one peruta somewhere else. Rather, it was because they held in accordance with the opinion of Abaye and Rava, who said: Since there are witnesses in a different place, one must take them into account.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ בְּשׁוֹטִיתָא דְּאָסָא בְּשׁוּקָא. שְׁלָחָהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא מַאי? שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: נַגְדֵיהּ – כְּרַב, וְאִצְטְרִיךְ גִּיטָּא – כִּשְׁמוּאֵל.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with a myrtle branch in the marketplace. Rav Aḥa bar Huna sent this dilemma before Rav Yosef: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef sent a response to him: Flog him, in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and require her to receive a bill of divorce, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, in case the myrtle branch is worth one peruta somewhere else.

דְּרַב מַנְגֵּיד עַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּשׁוּקָא; וְעַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה; וְעַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּלָא שִׁידּוּכֵי;

The Gemara explains that Rav would flog a man for betrothing a woman in the marketplace, because this is disrespectful and crude, and for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse, as it is unsavory to invite witnesses to observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse. And he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman without an arrangement [shiddukhei], i.e., if he did not discuss betrothal with the woman before betrothing her. Each of these acts is considered indecent behavior.

וְעַל דִּמְבַטֵּיל גִּיטָּא; וְעַל דְּמָסַר מוֹדָעָא אַגִּיטָּא; וְעַל דִּמְצַעֵר שְׁלוּחָא דְּרַבָּנַן; וְעַל דְּחָלָה שַׁמְתָּא עִילָּוֵיהּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין;

And likewise, Rav would flog a man for nullifying a bill of divorce he has already sent to his wife, and for issuing a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce. The latter case is referring to one who announces before giving a bill of divorce that he is divorcing his wife against his will, thereby rendering the document ineffective. This behavior might lead to a grave sin if the wife marries another man under the mistaken impression that she is divorced. And similarly, Rav would flog anyone for tormenting a messenger of the Sages, as this indicates a lack of regard for the Sages. And Rav would flog one who had an excommunication take effect on him for thirty days and yet does not repent or appeal to the Sages to annul his censure.

וְעַל חֲתָנָא דְּדָיֵיר בֵּי חֲמוּהּ. דְּדָיֵיר – אִין, חָלֵיף – לָא. וְהָא הַהוּא חֲתָנָא דְּחָלֵיף אַבָּבָא דְּבֵי חֲמוּהּ, וְנַגְדֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת! הַהוּא מֵידָם הֲוַת דַּיְימָא חֲמָתֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.

And Rav would flog a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house, as there is a concern that he might sin with his mother-in-law. The Gemara comments: This indicates that with regard to one who lives in his father-in-law’s house permanently, yes, he is flogged, whereas with regard to one who only passes by his father-in-law’s house, no, he is not flogged. But there was a certain son-in-law who passed by the entrance of his father-in-law’s house and Rav Sheshet flogged him due to licentiousness. The Gemara explains: In that case, there were suspicions [dayma] about him and his mother-in-law, i.e., about rumors of intimacy between them. In walking by the house he contributed to these rumors, which is why he was flogged.

נְהַרְדְּעֵי אָמְרִי: בְּכוּלְּהוּ לָא מַנְגֵּיד רַב אֶלָּא עַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה בְּלָא שִׁידּוּכֵי. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשִׁידּוּכֵי נַמִי, מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּתָא.

The Sages of Neharde’a say: Rav would not flog a violator in all of the cases listed, but he would in fact flog a man for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse without a prior arrangement. And there are those who say: Even if there was an arrangement beforehand, he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman with intercourse, due to licentiousness, as it is indecent to have witnesses observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקָדֵישׁ בְּצִיפְתָא דְּאָסָא. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: וְהָא לֵית בָּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ: תִּיקְדּוּשׁ בְּאַרְבַּע זוּזֵי דְּאִית בָּהּ. שְׁקַלְתָּא וְאִישְׁתִּיקָא. אֲמַר רָבָא: הָוָה שְׁתִיקוּתָא דִּלְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת, וְכָל שְׁתִיקוּתָא דִּלְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת – לָאו כְּלוּם הִיא.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with a mat of myrtle branches. People who were present said to him: But it is not worth one peruta. He said to them: If so, let her be betrothed with the four dinars that are wrapped in the mat. The woman took the mat and was silent. Rava said: This is silence after the money is given, and any silence after the money is given is nothing. Since it was assumed at the time that he gave her an item worth less than one peruta, there is no proof that she acted in accordance with his subsequent statement. It is possible that she ignored him and did not intend to become betrothed with the four dinars.

אֲמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמִינָא לָהּ – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר לָהּ: כִּנְסִי סֶלַע זוֹ בְּפִקָּדוֹן, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ: הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בּוֹ; בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, לְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת, רָצְתָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, לֹא רָצְתָה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

Rava said: From where do I state this opinion? As it is taught in a baraita that in a case where a man said to a woman: Take this sela as a deposit, and he subsequently went back and said to her: Be betrothed to me with it, if he said this at the time the money was given, she is betrothed. In a case where he said this after the money was given, then if she wanted to be betrothed in this manner, she is betrothed. If she did not want it, she is not betrothed.

מַאי רָצְתָה וּמַאי לֹא רָצְתָה? אִילֵימָא: רָצְתָה – דְּאָמְרָה ״אִין״, לֹא רָצְתָה – דְּאָמְרָה ״לָא״, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא

The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of: She wanted, and what is the meaning of: She did not want? If we say that: She wanted, means that she said yes, she wishes to be betrothed, and: She did not want, means that she explicitly said no, one can learn by inference that in the first clause of the baraita, when he spoke as he gave her the money and no difference is suggested between her wanting or not wanting,