When exact descriptions determine kiddushin

הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּכוֹס זֶה שֶׁל יַיִן״, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁל דְבַשׁ; ״שֶׁל דְבַשׁ״, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁל יַיִן;

If a man tells a woman, “You are hereby consecrated to me with this cup of wine,” but it is found to contain honey—or “with this cup of honey,” but it is found to contain wine—

״בְּדִינָר שֶׁל כֶסֶף״, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁל זָהָב; ״שֶׁל זָהָב״, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁל כֶסֶף;

or “with this silver dinar,” but it is found to be gold—or “with this gold dinar,” but it is found to be silver—

in each of these cases, the condition upon which the kiddushin were made has not been fulfilled.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי כּוֹהֵן״, וְנִמְצָא לֵוִי; ״לֵוִי״, וְנִמְצָא כּוֹהֵן;

If he says, “on condition that I am a Kohen,” but he is found to be a Levi—or that he is a Levi, but he is found to be a Kohen—

״נָתִין״, וְנִמְצָא מַמְזֵר; ״מַמְזֵר״, וְנִמְצָא נָתִין;

or that he is a Natin, but he is found to be a mamzer—or that he is a mamzer, but he is found to be a Natin—

the kiddushin do not take effect. Although some of these statuses may appear preferable to others, the woman agreed to kiddushin based upon the particular status he claimed.

״בֶּן עִיר״, וְנִמְצָא בֶּן כְּרָךְ; ״בֶּן כְּרָךְ״, וְנִמְצָא בֶּן עִיר;

If he says that he is a resident of a town but is found to be a resident of a large city—or that he is a resident of a large city but is found to be a resident of a town—

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי עָשִׁיר״, וְנִמְצָא עָנִי; ״עָנִי״, וְנִמְצָא עָשִׁיר;

or “on condition that I am wealthy,” but he is found to be poor—or that he is poor but is found to be wealthy—

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁבֵּיתִי קָרוֹב לַמֶּרְחָץ״, וְנִמְצָא רָחוֹק; ״רָחוֹק״, וְנִמְצָא קָרוֹב;

or “on condition that my home is near the bathhouse,” but it is found to be far away—or that it is far away but is found to be nearby—

the kiddushin do not take effect, because the facts do not match the express condition.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי שִׁפְחָה״ אוֹ ״בַּת גּוֹדֶלֶת״ אוֹ ״אוֹפָה״, וְאֵין לוֹ;

If he says, “on condition that I have a maidservant, or a daughter who braids hair or bakes,” but he does not have one—

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ״, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ;

or he says that he has none of these, but he does—

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים״, וְאֵין לוֹ; ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ״, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ —

or “on condition that I have a wife and children,” but he does not—or that he has neither a wife nor children, but he does—

בְּכָל אֵלּוּ וְהַדּוֹמִין לָהֶן, אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת.

in all these cases, and in every comparable case, she is not consecrated.

Whenever kiddushin are made dependent upon an explicit condition, that condition must be fulfilled. It is not enough for the actual situation to be similar to what was stated.

וְכֵן הִיא שֶׁהִטְעַתּוּ.

The same law applies if the woman misleads the man.

If she makes the kiddushin dependent upon a condition concerning herself and that condition proves untrue, the kiddushin do not take effect.

וּבְכֻלָּם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרָה ״בְּלִבִּי הָיָה לְהִתְקַדֵּשׁ לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִטְעַנִי, וְאֵין הַדָּבָר כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר״,

In all these cases, even if the woman says, “In my heart, I intended to become consecrated to him even if he misled me and the facts were not as he stated,”

אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת.

she is not consecrated.

The kiddushin were expressly made dependent upon a condition, and that condition was not fulfilled. She cannot change the meaning of the agreement afterward by claiming that the difference did not truly matter to her.

וְכֵן אִם אָמַר הוּא ״בְּלִבִּי הָיָה לְקַדְּשָׁהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִטְעַתְנִי״ —

Similarly, if the woman misled the man and he says, “In my heart, I intended to consecrate her even if she misled me,”

אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת.

she is not consecrated.

His unspoken willingness cannot remove a condition that formed part of the expressed kiddushin.

דְּבָרִים שֶׁבַּלֵּב אֵינָם דְּבָרִים.

Unspoken intentions of the heart have no legal force.

This principle does not mean that a person’s inner thoughts are unimportant. It means that an intention kept entirely within the heart ordinarily cannot alter the legal meaning of the words and actions that were actually expressed.

״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לִי עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי בַּסָּם״, וְנִמְצָא בַּסָּם וּבֻרְסִי;

If a man tells a woman, “You are hereby consecrated to me on condition that I am a perfume merchant,” and he is found to be both a perfume merchant and a tanner—

His statement was true. The fact that he also has another occupation does not prevent the condition from being fulfilled.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי בֶּן עִיר״, וְנִמְצָא בֶּן עִיר וּבֶן כְּרָךְ;

If he says, “on condition that I am a resident of a town,” and he is found to be a resident of both a town and a large city—

This can occur when he maintains a home in each place. Since he truly is a resident of a town, his additional residence does not contradict what he said.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁשְּׁמִי יוֹסֵף״, וְנִמְצָא שְׁמוֹ יוֹסֵף וְשִׁמְעוֹן —

If he says, “on condition that my name is Yosef,” and he is found to have both the name Yosef and the name Shimon—

הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת.

she is consecrated.

His name is indeed Yosef. The existence of an additional name does not make his statement false.

אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לָהּ ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין שְׁמִי אֶלָא יוֹסֵף״, וְנִמְצָא שְׁמוֹ יוֹסֵף וְשִׁמְעוֹן;

However, if he tells her, “on condition that my only name is Yosef,” and he is found to have both the name Yosef and the name Shimon—

״שֶׁאֵינִי אֶלָא בַּסָּם״, וְנִמְצָא בַּסָּם וּבֻרְסִי;

or “on condition that I am only a perfume merchant,” and he is found to be both a perfume merchant and a tanner—

״שֶׁאֵינִי אֶלָא בֶּן עִיר״, וְנִמְצָא בֶּן כְּרָךְ וּבֶן עִיר —

or “on condition that I am only a resident of a town,” and he is found to be a resident of both a large city and a town—

אֵין זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת.

she is not consecrated.

By saying “only,” he made the absence of any additional name, occupation, or residence part of the condition. Since the true situation contradicts that exclusive claim, the condition was not fulfilled.

הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לִי בְּזֶה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת״ —

If a man tells a woman, “You are hereby consecrated to me with this item on condition that I know how to read,”—

He is making the kiddushin dependent upon possessing the level of Torah knowledge described by these words.

צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּקְרָא הַתּוֹרָה וִיתַרְגֵּם אוֹתָהּ תַּרְגּוּם אֻנְקֳלוֹס הַגֵּר.

he must be capable of reading the Torah and translating it according to the Targum of Onkelos the convert.

Knowing how to read the Hebrew text alone is insufficient. He must also be able to translate it according to Targum Onkelos.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי קָרָאָה״ —

If he says, “on condition that I am a reader of Scripture,”—

This title requires broader proficiency: he must be able to read all three divisions of Tanach accurately.

צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת תּוֹרָה נְבִיאִים וּכְתוּבִים, בְּדִקְדּוּק יָפֶה.

he must know how to read the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings with proper precision.

He must be capable of reading all three divisions of Tanach accurately.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ לִשְׁנוֹת״ —

If he says, “on condition that I know how to study Mishnah,”—

צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת הַמִּשְׁנָה.

he must know how to read the Mishnah.

This condition requires familiarity with the text of the Mishnah.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי תַּנָּאָה״ —

If he says, “on condition that I am a Tanna,”—

The title “Tanna” requires broader knowledge of the principal collections of teachings from the era of the Mishnah.

צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת הַמִּשְׁנָה וְסִפְרָא וְסִפְרֵי וְתוֹסֶפְתָּא שֶׁל רַבִּי חִיָּא.

he must know how to read the Mishnah, the Sifra, the Sifrei, and the Tosefta of Rabbi Chiyya.

His knowledge must extend beyond the Mishnah itself to these related collections of Tannaitic teachings.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי תַּלְמִיד״ —

If a man consecrates a woman “on condition that I am a Torah student,”—

אֵין אוֹמְרִין כְּבֶן עַזַּאי וּכְבֶן זוֹמָא,

we do not require him to possess the scholarship of Ben Azzai or Ben Zoma.

Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma were renowned for their exceptional scholarship. A man need not equal their level for his statement to be true.

אֶלָא כָּל שֶׁשּׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר אֶחָד בְּתַלְמוּדוֹ וְאוֹמְרוֹ,

Rather, it is sufficient that, when he is asked a question from his studies, he can provide the answer—

וְאַפִלּוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת הֶחָג שֶׁמְּלַמְּדִין אוֹתָן בָּרַבִּים מִדְּבָרִים הַקַּלִּים סָמוּךְ לֶחָג,

even if the question concerns one of the simpler laws of a festival that are taught publicly shortly before the festival,

כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כָּל הָעָם בְּקִיאֵין בָּהֶן.

so that the entire nation will be familiar with them.

Although these laws are relatively simple and widely taught, being able to answer a question about them is sufficient to satisfy the ordinary meaning of “Torah student.”

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי חָכָם״ —

If he says, “on condition that I am a wise man,”—

אֵין אוֹמְרִין כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָה וַחֲבֵרָיו,

we do not require him to possess the wisdom of Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues.

אֶלָא כָּל שֶׁשּׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתוֹ דְּבַר חָכְמָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וְאוֹמֵר.

Rather, it is sufficient that, when he is asked a matter of wisdom in any area, he can provide an answer.

The title is measured by whether he possesses recognizable wisdom, not by whether he compares to the greatest Sages.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי גִּבּוֹר״ —

If he says, “on condition that I am mighty,”—

אֵין אוֹמְרִין כְּאַבְנֵר בֶּן נֵר וּכְיוֹאָב,

we do not require him to possess the might of Avner ben Ner or Yoav.

Avner commanded King Shaul’s army, while Yoav commanded King David’s army. Both were renowned as exceptionally powerful warriors.

אֶלָא כָּל שֶׁחֲבֵרָיו מִתְיָרְאִים מִמֶּנּוּ מִפְּנֵי גְּבוּרָתוֹ.

Rather, it is sufficient that his companions fear him because of his might.

His strength must be significant enough to earn recognition among those who know him.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי עָשִׁיר״ —

If he says, “on condition that I am wealthy,”—

אֵין אוֹמְרִין כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה,

we do not require him to possess wealth comparable to that of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was renowned for his extraordinary wealth.

אֶלָא כָּל שֶׁבְּנֵי עִירוֹ מְכַבְּדִין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי עָשְׁרוֹ.

Rather, it is sufficient that the people of his town honor him because of his wealth.

His wealth must be substantial enough to give him a recognized standing within his community.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי צַדִּיק״ —

If he says, “on condition that I am righteous,”—

אַפִלּוּ רָשָׁע גָּמוּר, הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת מִסָּפֵק,

even if he is known to be completely wicked, the status of the kiddushin is uncertain,

We cannot dismiss the kiddushin solely because of his previous conduct.

שֶׁמָּא הִרְהֵר בִּתְשׁוּבָה בְּלִבּוֹ.

because perhaps he contemplated repentance in his heart.

It is possible that at the time of the kiddushin he sincerely resolved to repent. Since we cannot know what occurred within his heart, the woman’s status remains uncertain.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי רָשָׁע״ —

If he says, “on condition that I am wicked,”—

אַפִלּוּ צַדִּיק גָּמוּר, הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת מִסָּפֵק,

even if he is known to be completely righteous, the status of the kiddushin is uncertain,

שֶׁמָּא הִרְהֵר בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּלִבּוֹ;

because perhaps he resolved in his heart to worship an idol.

His outward conduct may be completely righteous, but it is possible that an idolatrous intention arose within him at that moment.

שֶׁעֲווֹן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה גָּדוֹל הוּא,

For the sin of idol worship is exceptionally grave,

וּמִשֶּׁיְּהַרְהֵר לַעֲבֹד בְּלִבּוֹ נַעֲשָׂה רָשָׁע,

and from the moment a person resolves in his heart to worship an idol, he becomes wicked,

Ordinarily, a person is not punished for a sinful thought unless he carries it into action. Idol worship is different: the inward acceptance of a false god is itself a rejection of Hashem.

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״פֶּן יִפְתֶּה לְבַבְכֶם״ (דברים יא, טז),

as it is stated, “Lest your hearts be tempted” (Devarim 11:16),

וְכָתוּב ״לְמַעַן תְּפֹשׂ אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּלִבָּם״ (יחזקאל יד, ה).

and it is written, “So that I may seize the House of Israel through their hearts” (Yechezkel 14:5).

These verses establish that idolatrous belief within the heart can itself affect a person’s spiritual status.

הַמְּקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְאָמַר ״סָבוּר הָיִיתִי שֶׁהִיא כּוֹהֶנֶת וַהֲרֵי הִיא לְוִיָּה״,

If a man consecrates a woman and says, “I thought that she was from a family of Kohanim, but she is actually from a family of Levi’im,”—

״לְוִיָּה וַהֲרֵי הִיא כּוֹהֶנֶת״,

or “I thought that she was from a family of Levi’im, but she is actually from a family of Kohanim,”—

״עֲנִיָּה וַהֲרֵי הִיא עֲשִׁירָה״,

or “I thought that she was poor, but she is actually wealthy,”—

״עֲשִׁירָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא עֲנִיָּה״ —

or “I thought that she was wealthy, but she is actually poor,”—

הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת,

she is consecrated,

His mistaken assumption does not invalidate the kiddushin because he did not expressly make the kiddushin dependent upon it.

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הִטְעַתּוּ.

because she did not mislead him.

The facts differed from what he privately believed, but she did not give him false information or make a false condition.

וְכֵן הִיא שֶׁאָמְרָה ״סְבוּרָה הָיִיתִי שֶׁהוּא כּוֹהֵן וַהֲרֵי הוּא לֵוִי״,

Similarly, if the woman says, “I thought that he was a Kohen, but he is actually a Levi,”—

״לֵוִי וַהֲרֵי הוּא כּוֹהֵן״,

or “I thought that he was a Levi, but he is actually a Kohen,”—

״עָשִׁיר וַהֲרֵי הוּא עָנִי״,

or “I thought that he was wealthy, but he is actually poor,”—

״עָנִי וַהֲרֵי הוּא עָשִׁיר״ —

or “I thought that he was poor, but he is actually wealthy,”—

הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת,

she is consecrated,

Her private misconception does not invalidate the kiddushin.

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הִטְעָה אוֹתָהּ.

because he did not mislead her.

Since he did not falsely claim the status or financial position that she attributed to him, her mistaken assumption does not become a condition of the kiddushin.