- If the ketanah can reject kiddushin she accepted, and the case of מפתה of the Torah
In a case where a ketanah accepted kiddushin without her father’s knowledge, Rav said: בין היא ובין אביה יכולין לעכב – either she or her father can prevent the kiddushin by objecting to it. Rav Assi said that only the father can object. Rav Assi is challenged from a Baraisa about מפתה – a seducer, which derives that the girl can also object to marrying him. The Gemara responds that Rav Assi can answer that the Torah is discussing שפיתה שלא לשום אישות – where he seduced her not for a marriage purpose. The passuk is teaching that even her objection can compel him to pay the fine of מפתה. Rav Yosef supported this interpretation with a Baraisa teaching that if the girl is to be the seducer’s wife, he must be mekadesh her. This proves that he was not mekadesh her previously!? Abaye disagrees and explains it may simply be requiring kiddushin with her father’s knowledge.
- Combining multiple dates for kiddushin, and where she eats them as she receives them
The next Mishnah states that one who says: התקדשי לי בתמרה זו – “Become married to me with this date,” then says, התקדשי לי בזו – “become married to me with this second one, they are separate acts of kiddushin, and one of the dates must have a perutah’s value to effect kiddushin. But if he said, “Become married to me בזו ובזו ובזו – with this one, and this one, and this one,” it is a single act, and they can combine to a perutah’s value. The Mishnah concludes that if she ate the dates as she received them, they do not combine to a perutah’s value. Two interpretations of the final case are offered: (1) It refers to the first case of separate kiddushin acts. Although it is obvious that the dates cannot be combined, one might think that הואיל ומיקרבא הנייתה – since her benefit was immediate by eating them, perhaps she gives herself over for kiddushin for even less than a perutah. (2) It refers to the second case of a single kiddushin act. Since the dates eaten (before kiddushin is completed) revert to a מלוה – debt status, they cannot effect kiddushin, and the Mishnah means that the final date must have a perutah’s value.
- The status of money given to marry one’s sister
Regarding one who is mekadesh his sister, which is ineffective, Rav says: מעות חוזרים – the money must be returned to him. Shmuel says: מעות מתנה – the money is a gift. Rav explains: אדם יודע שאין קידושין תופסין באחותו – Every man knows that kiddushin is ineffective with his sister, וגמר ונתן לשום פקדון – and he must have decided to give it to her as a deposit to be returned. He did not tell her as much, because he thought she would not agree to accept a deposit. Shmuel explains that since he knew kiddushin is ineffective, he intended it as a gift, and did not tell her so, because he thought she would be embarrassed to accept a gift. Shmuel is challenged from a Mishnah teaching that if someone separates challah from flour (instead of dough), אינו חלה וגזל ביד כהן – it is not valid challah, and it is considered stolen if it remains in the Kohen’s possession. Since everyone knows that challah cannot be taken from flour, we should assume it was given to the Kohen as a gift!? The Gemara answers that a mishap may result from the Kohen, or the original owner, thinking that the challah is legitimate. Although people know that challah cannot be taken from flour, they may think it is only to save the Kohen from the trouble of preparing it, but this Kohen agreed to accept it as flour.
