One-Page Learn · The Halachos at a glance
אִישׁוּת
Marriage 9
Sefer Nashim · What one added clause rescues in a sentence that would otherwise consecrate nobody, why a claim about a marriage binds only the mouth that makes it, and how a report circulating in a street can leave a woman presumed married with no binding evidence at all
25
Bills of divorce when five brothers appoint one father and he consecrates one of five sisters
2
Sisters told that one of them is consecrated, both needing a get from a man forbidden to both
5
Women each claiming she is the one he consecrated, all divorced and one ketubah left among them
1
Witness, against her own denial, leaves her permitted without any restriction
Part 1One sentence, one clause, and who is married when it ends
- An offer that cannot be divided fails entirely. A man who consecrates two women forbidden to be married to him together, a woman and her daughter or two sisters, has consecrated neither, and a man who tells a whole group that all of you are consecrated to me has consecrated none of them if two sisters or a mother and daughter or a woman forbidden to him as an ervah is standing among them. (9:1, 9:2)
- And the clause that repairs it. Where he says instead that those of you who are fit to engage in marital relations with me are consecrated to me, every woman present is consecrated except the ones with whom kiddushin cannot be established. (9:2)
- Valid and unusable. Telling two sisters that one of you is consecrated to me and giving a perutah leaves the kiddushin viable, so both require a divorce and he may live with neither, and the same follows where a father accepts kiddushin for one unnamed daughter. (9:3)
- When the order of two acts is unknown. Where an agent consecrated a woman and the principal consecrated her mother, daughter or sister, and nobody knows which came first, both women need a divorce and both are forbidden to him; where a woman was consecrated both by her agent and by herself to another man, both men must divorce her, and only if the two men are unrelated may one divorce her and the other marry her. (9:4, 9:5)
- The agent who died. A man who sent an agent to consecrate a wife and does not know whether the agent did so before dying is presumed to have had the mission carried out, since an agent is assumed to fulfil his charge, so the man may not marry a woman who has an unmarried mother, daughter or sister of her own, though he may marry a woman who has no such relative. (9:6)
- Five brothers, five daughters, one sentence. Where five sons appoint their father and he accepts from a colleague that one of your daughters is consecrated to one of my sons, every daughter must be divorced by every brother, and if one brother dies each woman needs four bills of divorce and chalitzah from one of the survivors. (9:7)
- Where a phrase can be settled, the court settles it. A father who consecrates his daughter without naming her is assumed not to mean the bogeret unless he says so explicitly, and a father with two pairs of daughters who says he consecrated his oldest or his youngest is understood to mean the one none is older or younger than, with no other reading entertained. (9:8, 9:9)
RememberNothing about the man changes between the two sentences. The first makes one indivisible offer and the second makes a filter.
Part 2A claim binds the mouth that makes it
- A father's word about a daughter not yet of age. He is believed when he says she has been consecrated, and she is then forbidden to marry at all; where he adds that he does not know to whom, she is forbidden to every man until he says he has become aware that it was so and so, and his later word is accepted even after she reaches bagrut. (9:10, 9:11)
- The woman who does not know to whom. Where she says she was consecrated and does not know to whom, and a man comes forward claiming he consecrated her, his word is accepted so that he may divorce her and permit her to others, and he himself is forbidden to consummate the marriage, lest his own inclination produced the claim and she encouraged it in order to be released. (9:14)
- Forbidden to him, permitted to her. Where he claims the kiddushin and she denies it, he is forbidden to her close relatives and she is permitted to his, and where she claims it and he denies it, the reverse holds; where he says he consecrated the mother and she says he consecrated her daughter, each party is bound by what he or she said and by nothing the other said. (9:15)
- All of it presupposes witnesses. Every one of these claims assumes that the kiddushin was given before witnesses who then travelled overseas or died, and where both parties acknowledge that no witnesses observed it the kiddushin is of no consequence; a man who denies a woman's claim is asked to write her a divorce, since it costs him nothing, and one who divorces her of his own accord is compelled to pay the ketubah. (9:16)
- Two claimants, and a third who comes late. Where two men each say they consecrated her, both must divorce her, or one divorces and one marries her, and a third man who comes forward after the marriage is consummated is not believed and does not forbid her to her husband. (9:13)
- The agent who kept her. An agent sent to consecrate a woman who consecrates her to himself has consecrated her to himself, the act stands, and the Rambam writes in the same halacha that it is forbidden to act this way and that whoever does so, in marriage or in business, is wicked; whether the agency was established before witnesses then decides the competing claims that follow. (9:17, 9:18, 9:19, 9:20)
RememberThe kiddushin is valid and the man is wicked. Neither sentence is permitted to soften the other.
Part 3What the street saw, and what it is worth
- One of five, and none of them named. A man who consecrated one of five women without knowing which, each of them claiming she is the one, is forbidden to the relatives of all of them and must divorce each, leaving the sum of one ketubah among them; where the kiddushin was by relations the Sages penalised him to pay each of them. (9:21)
- A report can create a presumption with no evidence behind it. Where a report circulates that a woman was consecrated to a particular man, and two witnesses substantiate it in court by describing the signs of a kiddushin celebration and what was said there, she is treated as consecrated although there is no binding evidence, and a report never brought before a court is disregarded. (9:22)
- The offsetting rationale and its timing. A rationale that undercuts the report, such as that the kiddushin was conditional or itself doubtful, defeats the report only when it is heard together with it, and one raised days later is weighed by the court and otherwise ignored; in the recorded case of a father who came afterwards to plead an unfulfilled condition, the Sages ruled the kiddushin doubtful all the same. (9:23, 9:24, 9:25)
- A report against an actual kiddushin. Where a report names one man and a second man then consecrates her before us, the first report is investigated, and if it is not confirmed the first man divorces her and the second may consummate the marriage, but if the second divorces her the first should not marry her; where two successive reports name two men, one writes a divorce and either may marry her. (9:26, 9:27)
- Gifts and contracts read against local custom. Witnesses who saw presents sent to a woman raise a suspicion of kiddushin wherever it is the custom to send them after consecrating, even if most men in that city send them first, and no suspicion at all where everyone sends first; a marriage contract found written raises the same suspicion on the same reasoning. (9:28, 9:29)
- Seeing nothing is not testimony. Where two witnesses say they saw the kiddushin on a given day and two others say they did not see it, she is consecrated even if they all live in one courtyard, since men commonly consecrate in private; but a single witness against her own denial leaves her permitted, and where one witness affirms and another denies she should not marry another man, though a marriage already contracted is not dissolved. (9:30, 9:31)
RememberA denial by the party is powerful. A denial by a bystander who saw nothing is not a denial at all.