אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת קִידּוּשִׁין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שָׁלַח. וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ.

she is not betrothed, because he sent the gifts on account of the first betrothal, i.e., the item whose value to the woman was less than one peruta, and not to effect betrothal. And similarly, if there was a minor who betrothed a woman, and he sent her gifts after he became an adult, the assumption is that he sent them on account of his betrothal when he was still a minor, and since betrothal performed by a minor is of no account, she is not betrothed.

גמ׳ וּצְרִיכָא. דְּאִי אַשְׁמַעִינַן שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – אַיְידֵי דְּקָא נָפֵיק מָמוֹנָא מִינֵּיהּ טָעֵי, אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה אֵימָא: יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וְכִי קָא מְשַׁדַּר סִבְלוֹנוֹת – אַדַּעְתָּא דְּקִידּוּשִׁין קָא מְשַׁדַּר.

And it is necessary for all these cases to be stated in the mishna, despite their apparent similarity. As, had the tanna taught us only the case of one who betroths two women with an item worth one peruta, we would have said: Since enough of his money for betrothal goes out, i.e., is spent, he errs and thinks that he can betroth two women with one peruta, and the gifts he later sends are not for the sake of betrothal. But if he betrothed a woman with an item worth less than one peruta, you might say: He knows that betrothal does not take effect with an item worth less than one peruta, and when he later sends gifts he sends them with the intention of betrothal, and she should consequently become betrothed with them. The mishna therefore teaches us that she is not betrothed even in that case.

וְאִי אַשְׁמַעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי – מִשּׁוּם דְּבֵין פְּרוּטָה לְפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה לָא קִים לְהוּ לֶאֱינָשֵׁי. אֲבָל קָטָן שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ – הַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשֵׁי קָטָן כְּלוּם, אֵימָא: כִּי קָא מְשַׁדַּר סִבְלוֹנוֹת – אַדַּעְתָּא דְּקִידּוּשֵׁי קָא מְשַׁדַּר. קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

And had he taught us only these two cases, we would have said that they were necessary because the difference in halakha between betrothal performed with an item worth one peruta and betrothal performed with an item worth less than one peruta is not established or clear to people, and as he might have thought in those cases that his initial betrothal was valid despite each woman receiving less than one peruta, the gifts he sent later were not sent for the sake of betrothal. But in the case of a minor who betroths a woman, everyone knows that the betrothal of a minor is nothing, and you might say that when he later sends gifts, he sends them for the sake of betrothal, and she is betrothed. The mishna therefore teaches us that the same halakha applies in this case as well.

אִיתְּמַר, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְסִבְלוֹנוֹת, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְסִבְלוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רַבָּה: וּמוֹתְבִינַן אַשְּׁמַעְתִּין: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁלַח סִבְלוֹנוֹת לְאַחַר מִכָּאן – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: הָתָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעֲמָא – שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת קִידּוּשִׁין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שָׁלַח.

It was stated that amora’im discussed the following matter. Rav Huna says: One must be concerned about gifts. If a woman agreed to a betrothal and the prospective husband sent her gifts in the presence of witnesses, one must be concerned about the possibility that he sent them for the sake of betrothal. Therefore, the woman may not become betrothed to another man without first receiving a bill of divorce from this one. And Rabba similarly says that one must be concerned about gifts. Rabba says: And we raised an objection against this halakha of ours, as the mishna teaches: Even if he sent gifts later, she is not betrothed. Abaye said to him: There, in the mishna, the reason is as it teaches: Because he sent the gifts on account of the first betrothal. Therefore, there is no concern that he might have sent them for the sake of betrothal. But in this case, where he had not betrothed her beforehand, he might have intended to betroth her by sending her gifts.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבָּה: מְנָא אָמִינָא לָהּ – כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעֲמָא: שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת קִידּוּשִׁין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שָׁלַח; הָכָא הוּא – דְּטָעֵי, הָא בְּעָלְמָא – הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין.

There are those who say a different version of this discussion. Rabba says: From where do I say this halakha, that one must be concerned about gifts? I have learned it from the reason she is not betrothed, as the mishna teaches: Because he sent the gifts on account of the first betrothal. This indicates that it is here that there is no concern for that he betrothed her, since he erred and thinks she is already betrothed to him by the first act of betrothal, and that there is no need to betroth her again. But generally, where this type of mistake is not possible, the sending of gifts does effect betrothal.

וְאַבַּיֵי: לָא מִיבָּעֲיָא קָאָמַר; לָא מִיבָּעֲיָא בְּעָלְמָא דְּלָא נָחֵית לְתוֹרַת קִידּוּשִׁין כְּלָל, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ הָכָא, דְּנָחֵית לְתוֹרַת קִידּוּשִׁין, אֵימָא הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין. קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

And Abaye rejects this proof, as perhaps the tanna of the mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. The mishna stated, for stylistic reasons, a halakha that it did not need to state, and it should be understood as follows: It is not necessary to state this halakha in general, in a case that does not involve a prior act of betrothal, when he had not entered the laws, i.e., begun the process, of betrothal at all, and it would never have entered his mind that the gifts should be considered to be for betrothal. Rather, even here in the case of the mishna, when he has already entered the laws of betrothal by attempting to betroth this woman with less than one peruta, one might say that the gifts should be considered given for the sake of betrothal. The tanna therefore teaches us that there is no concern for betrothal even in that case. It is thereby possible to object to this inference of Rabba.

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלָהּ? אָמַר רַב פַּפָּא: בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְקַדְּשֵׁי וַהֲדַר מְסַבְּלֵי – חָיְישִׁינַן. מְסַבְּלֵי וַהֲדַר מְקַדְּשֵׁי – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it; must one be concerned that the gifts might have been given for the sake of betrothal or not? The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa says: In a place where the custom is that men first betroth women and afterward send gifts we are concerned that he might already have betrothed her or is sending the gifts for the sake of betrothal, since that is the only situation in which gifts are typically sent. But in a place where men first send gifts and afterward betroth women we are not concerned that the gifts are for betrothal.

מְקַדְּשֵׁי וַהֲדַר מְסַבְּלֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּרוּבָּא מְקַדְּשֵׁי וַהֲדַר מְסַבְּלֵי וּמִיעוּטָא מְסַבְּלֵי וַהֲדַר מְקַדְּשֵׁי. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נֵיחוּשׁ לְמִיעוּטָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

The Gemara questions this: In a place where they betroth women and afterward send gifts, it is obvious that if a man sends a woman gifts he must already have betrothed her. The Gemara clarifies: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha due to a place where most men betroth women and afterward send gifts, and a minority of men send gifts and afterward betroth women. Lest you say we should be concerned about the minority and say she is not betrothed, Rav Pappa therefore teaches us that the behavior of the minority is not taken into account.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא מֵרָבָא: הוּחֲזַק שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה בַּשּׁוּק מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּחֲזִיק שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה בַּשּׁוּק נַחֲזִיק בָּהּ כְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ? מַאי הָוֵי עֲלָהּ? אָמַר רַב אַשִׁי: בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְקַדְּשֵׁי וַהֲדַר כָּתְבֵי כְּתוּבָּה – חָיְישִׁינַן; כָּתְבֵי וַהֲדַר מְקַדְּשֵׁי – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

The Gemara discusses a related topic: Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna inquired of Rava: If a woman’s marriage contract was established, i.e., seen, by people in the marketplace, what is the halakha; is she assumed to be married? Rava said to him: And should we establish her as a married woman because a marriage contract was established in the marketplace? Since a marriage contract can be written by a man even before betrothal and without the woman’s consent, its existence does not prove that she is married. The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it? The Gemara answers: Rav Ashi says: In a place where men first betroth women and afterward write a marriage contract, we are concerned that he had betrothed her; but in a place where they write the marriage contract first and afterward betroth women, we are not concerned.

מְקַדְּשֵׁי וַהֲדַר כָּתְבֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ סָפְרָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: סָפְרָא הוּא דְּאִתְרְמֵי. קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

The Gemara questions this: In a place where men first betroth women and afterward write the marriage contract it is obvious that there should be a concern that he has betrothed her. The Gemara clarifies: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha due to a place where a scribe is not commonly available. Lest you say that he wrote the marriage contract early because there was a scribe who happened to be there, and the prospective husband took the opportunity to avail himself of the scribe’s services while intending to perform the betrothal later, Rav Ashi therefore teaches us that there is no concern that he might have done so since the custom is to first betroth the woman.

מתני׳ הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, אוֹ אִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ כְּאַחַת – אֵינָן מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים וּבָהֶן שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וְלִיקֵּט אָדָם אֶחָד כַּלְכָּלָה שֶׁל תְּאֵנִים, וְשֶׁלָּהֶן הָיְתָה, וְשֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית הָיְתָה, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵי כּוּלְּכֶם מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת לִי בְּכַלְכָּלָה זוֹ״, וְקִיבְּלָה אַחַת מֵהֶן עַל יְדֵי כּוּלָּן, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין אֲחָיוֹת מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת.

In the case of one who betroths a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister in one act of betrothal, by saying: You are both betrothed to me, neither of them is betrothed. And 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.

גמ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אֲמַר רָמִי בַּר חָמָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״אִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחֹתָהּ לֹא תִקָּח לִצְרֹר״ – הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ צָרוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ – לֹא יְהֵא לוֹ לִיקּוּחִים אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַחַת מֵהֶם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשׂת מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם״, אִי קִידּוּשִׁין לָא תָּפְסֵי בָּהּ – כָּרֵת מִי מִחַיַּיב?

With regard to the halakha that betrothal does not take effect if one betroths these two women simultaneously, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rami bar Ḥama said: It is as the verse states: “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her” (Leviticus 18:18). The Torah states: When he betroths them together so that they would become rival wives to one another, he will not be able to take, i.e., betroth, even one of them. Rava said to him: If so, how would you explain this, that it is written at the end of the passage: “Whoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29); if betrothal does not take effect with her, what renders him liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]? If he is not betrothed to either woman, and he engages in intercourse with either one, he is not liable for karet, as this punishment is incurred for this sin only if he engaged in intercourse with the sister of his wife.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: קְרָא בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, וּמַתְנִיתִין כִּדְרַבָּה. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ.

Rather, Rava says: The verse is discussing a case where he betrothed them consecutively. He first betrothed one sister and then engaged in intercourse with the other, which accounts for the punishment of karet. And the mishna is to be explained in accordance with the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: Any matters that cannot be accomplished sequentially cannot be accomplished even if one performs them simultaneously. Here too, since he is unable to betroth the mother and daughter or the two sisters sequentially, his betrothal of both of them simultaneously does not take effect.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבָּה: כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי.

The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rabba says: Any matters that cannot be accomplished sequentially cannot be accomplished even if one performs them simultaneously. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 8:10):