(Beraisa) Question: What is the source that even a document can make Kidushin?

Answer #1: We learn from a Kal va'Chomer: money can make Kidushin, even though it cannot divorce. A document can divorce, all the more so it can make Kidushin!

Objection: Money is a more versatile acquisition than a document. Money can redeem Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheni, but a document cannot - 'he will give the money, and it (the Hekdesh) will be (permitted, i.e. Chulin) to him';

Perhaps money is stronger also regarding Kidushin!

Answer #2: "She will leave... and she will be (Mekudeshes)" equates divorce and Kidushin;

Just like a document divorces, it can also be Mekadesh.

Question: We should likewise say that just like money can be Mekadesh, it can divorce!

Answer #1 (Abaye): The Torah would not make such a law. People would say, just like money is Mekadesh, it divorces; the advocate has become the prosecutor!

Question: A document can be Mekadesh and divorce, and we are not concerned for this!

Answer: A Shtar (document of) Kidushin is not the same as a Get of divorce.

Question: Also money given for Kidushin need not be the same as money given to divorce.

Answer: The coins themselves are the same.

Answer #2 (Rava): "He will write for her (a Get)" - a woman is divorced through writing, not through money.

Question: Perhaps the verse rather teaches that she is divorced through writing, but she is not Mekudeshes through writing!

Answer: "She will leave... and she will be (Mekudeshes)" equates divorce and Kidushin (a document also makes Kidushin).

Question: Why do you say that that a document works for both, and "he will write for her" teaches that she is not divorced through money? We could say that money works for both, and "he will write for her" teaches that a document cannot be Mekadesh!

Answer: The Torah wrote "he will write for her" in the context of divorce. Presumably, it excludes alternate methods of divorce, not methods of Kidushin.

Question: Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili learns a different law from "he will write for her" (that a Get may not be written on food or living beings). How does he learn that a woman is not divorced through money?

Answer: "Sefer Kerisus" teaches that only a Sefer cuts her off.

Question: What do Chachamim learn from that verse?

Answer: It teaches that the Get must sever them (without a Tenai (stipulation) tying them);

(Beraisa): If one gave a Get and said 'this is your Get on condition that you will never drink wine', or 'on condition that you will never go to your father's house', she is not divorced;

If the Tenai is for a limited duration, she is divorced.

Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili learns this from the plural form "Kerisus".

Chachamim say that the plural form does not warrant expounding an extra law.

We have shown that none of the three methods of Kidushin could have been learned from one of the other two.

Question: Can one method be learned from the other two?

Suggestion #1: We can derive a document from money and Bi'ah.

Rejection: She receives great benefit from money and Bi'ah. We cannot learn to a document.

Suggestion #2: We can derive Bi'ah from money and a document.

Rejection: Money and documents acquire many things. We cannot learn to Bi'ah.

Suggestion #3: We can derive money from a document and Bi'ah.

Rejection: A document and Bi'ah (sometimes) work against her will. We cannot learn to money.

Question: Money acquires an Amah against her will (Rashi - through her father's acceptance; Tosfos - the master is Mekadesh her through the money, against her father's will).

Rejection: We do not find money given for marriage that works against the will of the recipient.

(Rav Huna): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that Chupah makes Kidushin:

Money makes Kidushin, even though it never permits (the woman) to eat Terumah. Chupah (with a Kohen) permits a woman to eat Terumah, all the more so it makes Kidushin!

Question: Money permits a woman to eat Terumah!

(Ula): Mid'Oraisa, a Bas Yisrael Mekudeshes to a Kohen may eat Terumah. "A Kohen who acquires a soul with money (that person may eat Terumah)" - he acquires a wife through money!

Chachamim decreed that she does not eat, lest she come to feed Terumah to her siblings in her father's house.

Correction: Rather, Rav Huna learns that money makes Kidushin, even though it does not complete the marriage. Chupah completes marriage, all the more so it makes Kidushin!

Objection: Money is a more versatile acquisition than Chupah. Money can redeem Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheni. Perhaps money is stronger also regarding Kidushin!

Answer: We learn from Bi'ah. Bi'ah makes Kidushin, even though Bi'ah does not make other acquisitions.

Question: We cannot learn from Bi'ah. Bi'ah acquires a Yevamah (whereas Chupah cannot).

Answer: We see from money that ability to acquire a Yevamah is not essential to make Kidushin.

Money and Bi'ah have different strengths. The common side is, they acquire in other situations, and make Kidushin;

Also Chupah acquires in other situations (after Kidushin). We derive that also Chupah makes Kidushin!

Objection: We cannot learn from money and Bi'ah, for they give greater benefit to the woman than Chupah!

Answer: A document proves that giving benefit is not essential to make Kidushin.

Objection: We cannot learn from a document, for a document can divorce!

Answer: Money and Bi'ah show that ability to divorce is not essential to make Kidushin.

Money, Bi'ah, and a document have different strengths. The common side is, they acquire in other situations and make Kidushin;

Also Chupah acquires in other situations. It also should make Kidushin!

Objection: We cannot learn from money, Bi'ah and a document, for all of them sometimes work against the will of the recipient!

Answer (Rav Huna): We never find that money makes Kidushin against the will of the recipient.

(Rava): There are two difficulties with Rav Huna's law.

Question #1: The Mishnah says that there are (only) three ways to be Mekadesh.

Question #2: We know only that Chupah acquires after Kidushin. How can we learn that Chupah works without prior Kidushin?

Answer (to Question #1 - Abaye): The Tana listed the three forms of Kidushin explicit in the Torah. There may be others not explicit in the Torah.

Answer (to Question #2 - Abaye): The Kal va'Chomer teaches that Chupah works without prior Kidushin!

Money cannot complete marriage, yet it makes Kidushin. Chupah completes marriage, all the more so it makes Kidushin!

(Beraisa): If a man gave to a woman money or Shavah Kesef (something worth money) and said 'you are Mekudeshes (sanctified) to me', or 'you are Me'ureses to me', or 'you are like a wife to me', she is Mekudeshes;

If she gave (money to him) and said 'I am Mekudeshes to you', 'I am Me'ureses to you', or 'I am like a wife to you', she is not Mekudeshes.

Question (Rav Papa): In the Reisha, she is Mekudeshes because he gave the money and said 'you are Mekudeshes...' This implies that had she said these words, she would not be Mekudeshes;

In the Seifa she is not Mekudeshes because she gave the money and said the words. This implies that had he given the money, she would be Mekudeshes!

Answer #1: The Reisha is precise. The Seifa was not taught for this Diyuk. It was taught only for to parallel structure with the Reisha.

Objection: The Tana would not teach something that contradicts the Reisha!

Answer #2: Rather, the Beraisa teaches that if he gives the money and said the words, clearly she is Mekudeshes;

If he gave the money and she said these words, it is as if she gave the money and said the words, and she is not Mekudeshes.

Answer #3: The Beraisa teaches that if he gave the money and said the words, she is Mekudeshes;

If she gave the money and said the words, she is not Mekudeshes;

If he gave the money and she said the words, it is a Safek. Mid'Rabanan, we are stringent and consider her Safek Mekudeshes.

(Shmuel): If a man gave a woman money or Shavah Kesef, and said 'behold, you are Mekudeshes', or 'behold, you are Me'ureses', or 'behold, you are like a wife', she is Mekudeshes;

If he said 'I am your husband', or 'I am your betrothed', she is not even Safek Mekudeshes.

Similarly regarding divorce, if one gave his wife a Get and said 'behold, you are sent', or 'behold, you are divorced', or 'behold, you are permitted to any man', she is divorced;

If he said 'I am not your husband', or 'I am not your betrothed', she is not even Safek divorced.

Question (Rav Papa): Shmuel seems to hold that Yados (incomplete expressions) that are ambiguous are valid Yados (he did not specify to whom he is Mekadesh her, nevertheless she is Mekudeshes to him). If so, he contradicts himself!

(Mishnah): If a man said 'I am', this is acceptance of Nezirus.

Question: Why is this? Perhaps he meant 'I am in a fast'!

Answer (Shmuel): The case is, a Nazir passed in front of him when he said this.

Inference: If a Nazir was not around, it would not be acceptance of Nezirus (because ambiguous Yados are invalid)!

Answer (Abaye): Shmuel (here) discusses one who said '(you are Mekudeshes or divorced) to (or from) me.'

Question: If so, obviously she is Mekudeshes or divorced. What is Shmuel's Chidush?

Answer: He teaches that the latter expressions (of Kidushin and divorce) are invalid.

Regarding Kidushin, it says "when a man will take a woman", not that he will take himself (to be married to her);

Regarding divorce, it says "he will send her", not 'he will send himself from her.'