Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 51

1) PERFORMING KIDUSHIN WITH TWO SISTERS SIMULTANEOUSLY

OPINIONS: We know that when a man marries a woman and then he attempts to marry her sister, the Kidushin does not take effect, because the second woman is prohibited to him as an Ervah of "Achos Ishto" (his wife's sister). The Gemara asks what is the Halachah when a man is Mekadesh both women (sisters) at the same time? Perhaps the Kidushin should take effect, because neither woman was classified as an "Achos Ishto" at the time of the Kidushin, since no prior act of Kidushin had been performed with either of them!

Rava answers with the principle of Rabah, that any two acts that cannot take effect consecutively, also cannot take effect simultaneously ("Kol sh'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh, Afilu b'Vas Achas Eino").

The Gemara entertains the possibility that when a man is Mekadesh two sisters at the same time, the Kidushin can take effect. On whom would the Kidushin take effect? Do we say that one of the sisters would become Mekudeshes, and the other would be considered an "Achos Ishto" (in which case each one would be *Safek* Mekudeshes and the man would need to give each one a Get), or do we say that both women would become completely Mekudeshes since, at the moment of the Kidushin, there is no "Achos Ishto" to prevent the Kidushin with either woman from taking effect, and thus each woman would be *Vadai* Mekudeshes?

ANSWER: This question is discussed at length by the Acharonim.

(a) The Gemara says that if someone pledged to bring a Korban Todah, which must be accompanied by forty loaves, and he said that he wants eighty loaves to become Kadosh, none of the loaves become Kadosh. RASHI explains that the reason for this is because of Rabah's principle of "Kol sh'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh, Afilu b'Vas Achas Eino." Since it is impossible to sanctify forty additional loaves in a case where one has already sanctified forty loaves for the Korban Todah (i.e. the loaves cannot be sanctified "Zeh Achar Zeh"), one also cannot sanctify eighty loaves all together at one time ("b'Vas Achas Eino"). This implies that if "Bas Achas" would work, then all eighty loaves would become Kadosh. We see from this case that "Bas Achas" would enable both sets of loaves -- or in our case, both sisters -- to become Kadosh (or Mekudeshes).

(b) The Gemara asks why Rava needed to explain the Mishnah in accordance with Rabah's rule of "Kol sh'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh...." Why did he not simply say that the Kidushin with each sister is a Kidushin that is not consummatable with Bi'ah ("Kidushin sh'Einan Mesurin l'Bi'ah"), as each woman might be an "Achos Ishto" and thus he cannot live with either one?

The Gemara answers that Rava did not *need* to explain the Mishnah with the rule of "Kol sh'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh...," but rather he chose to do so in order to explain the view of Rami bar Chama (50b), who wanted to prove the Mishnah's statement from the verse if "v'Ishah El Achosah Li Sikach" (Vayikra 18:18).

The Gemara questions Rava's explanation from the Reisha of the Mishnah, which states that if one attempts to be Mekadesh a woman and her daughter at the same time, the Kidushin is invalid. This implies that if he is Mekadesh only one of them (without specifying which one), the Kidushin would be valid, even though it would be a "Kidushin sh'Einan Mesurin l'Bi'ah" (since each woman is a Safek Ervah). The Gemara (51b) answers that the Mishnah means that one who is Mekadesh one of the two related women (without specifying which one) is *like* a case of one who is Mekadesh both related women, and the Kidushin does not take effect at all.

The RASHBA asks that the only way Rava can explain the Mishnah is by using the principle of Rabah, that "Kol sh'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh, Afilu b'Vas Achas Eino." How, then, can the Gemara say that Rava really did not need to explain the Mishnah according to this principle?

The Rashba answers that since -- when one is Mekadesh both related women simultaneously -- each woman one is definitely (Vadai) Mekudeshes, each one also becomes a Vadai Ervah. In a case where the Isur Bi'ah is a Vadai (and not just a Safek), everyone agrees that "Kidushin sh'Einan Mesurin l'Bi'ah" is not a valid Kidushin.

The Rashba is stating clearly that when one is Mekadesh two sisters at the same time, the Kidushin takes effect on both of them, and it is not a mere Safek which one is Mekudeshes, according to the Gemara's Havah Amina. (A. Kronengold)

QUESTION: The Gemara challenges Rabah's principle (that any two acts that cannot take effect consecutively, also cannot take effect simultaneously) from the case of "Marbeh b'Ma'aser," in which a person separates more than a tenth of his fruit as Ma'aser. The Tosefta states that his fruits (from which Ma'aser was separated) are permitted, while the fruits of Ma'aser themselves are "Mekulkal" ("corrupt;" they are prohibited, because Ma'aser can only take effect on a tenth of the fruits, and since he separated more than that as Ma'aser, there are fruits of Tevel mixed in with the fruits of Ma'aser).

The Gemara's question from the case of Ma'aser is that if we hold of the principle, "Kol sh'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh, Afilu b'Vas Achas Eino," then the Ma'aser should not take effect at all; since one cannot separate a tenth of his fruit as Ma'aser and then separate another tenth ("ba'Zeh Achar Zeh"), he cannot separate two tenths simultaneously ("Afilu b'Vas Achas Eino"). Since the Tosefta says that the Ma'aser *does* take effect, it must be that the principle of "Kol sh'Eino..." is not true. On the other hand, it is clear that not all of the fruit becomes Ma'aser, but only a tenth of it; the rest of the fruit remains "Mekulkal" and must have Ma'aser separated on its behalf from different fruit. This implies that only one of the acts of Ma'aser takes effect, and not both of them.

How can this Gemara be reconciled with the words of RASHI and the RASHBA (cited above in the previous Insight), who seem to say that according to the opinion that does *not* hold of "Kol sh'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh, Afilu b'Vas Achas Eino," *both* of the acts would take effect?

The same question can be asked from the case of Ma'aser Behemah. The Gemara states that the tenth and eleventh animals are mixed together, and we do not know which one is the Ma'aser animal. This means that the Hekdesh took effect only on one of the animal, and the doubt is merely on which animal it took effect.

The same question can be asked from the case of the loaves brought with the Korban Todah. Chizkiyah holds that forty of the loaves are Hekdesh, but not all eighty. This implies that only one act of Hekdesh takes effect, in contradiction to the views of Rashi and the Rashba!

ANSWER: Certain acts can take effect only once, by definition. "Ma'aser" means "one-tenth," and thus by definition it is not possible for two Ma'aseros to take effect simultaneously, since then we would end up with one-fifth, and not one-tenth. Since it is in direct contradiction to the very meaning of Ma'aser, only one act of Ma'aser can take effect.

The same is true for Ma'aser Behemah. By definition, Ma'aser Behemah means one animal out of ten, and not more. Similarly, the loaves of the Korban Todah are specified by the Torah to be an exact number of loaves that are to be brought with the Korban. Hence, we cannot add to that number by making two acts of Hekdesh take effect, and therefore only forty loaves become Hekdesh. (See PNEI YEHOSHUA and others.)

However, if this is true, then why does the Gemara present these cases in our Sugya in the first place? If the Machlokes whether or not two acts done "b'Vas Achas" take effect deals with the question of whether *both* acts take effect (as Rashi and the Rashba explain), then why does the Gemara mention these cases altogether? In these cases, it is not possible for both acts to take effect together, and thus they should have no bearing on the question of the Gemara at all!

The Acharonim explain that the point of the Machlokes revolves around how to view two acts that are done simultaneously. Do we say that since the acts are being done at the same time, neither one can exclude or interfere with the other, since neither of them have taken place yet, or do we say that even in such a situation, each act can interfere with the other? If we hold that both acts take effect at the same time, what exactly will take effect depends on each individual case. In some cases, both acts can take effect (like Kidushin), while in other cases, it is possible only for one act to take effect (like Ma'aser). If, on the other hand, we hold that both acts cannot take effect at the same time ("Afilu b'Vas Achas Eino"), that means that one act always interferes with the other, and it does not depend on how many acts we are interested in having take effect. Even if we are trying only to make one act of Ma'aser, since the other act of Ma'aser is being made at the same time, they exclude each other from taking effect at all. (A. Kronengold)

51b