Chapter 9 examines competing or unidentified , the legal effect of agents and personal claims, and when public reports or surrounding evidence create a genuine marital concern.
פרק ט31 halachosShabbat, September 5, 2026כ״ג באלול תשפ״ו◷ Estimated study time: 75–95 min
אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.
Chapter progress 0 of 31 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
When Two Individually Possible Marriages Cannot Coexist
,—
If a man consecrates two women simultaneously when the laws of forbid him from marrying both of them,
.
neither woman is .
Either woman could have been to him individually. The problem is that he attempted, through one act, to create two marital relationships that cannot legally exist together. Because the cannot take effect as he expressed them, they do not take effect with either woman.
?
What is an example?
,
He a woman and her daughter,
—
or two sisters, simultaneously—
.
not one of them is .
A man cannot be married simultaneously to a woman and her daughter or to two sisters. Since he did not designate one woman alone but attempted to both together, neither takes effect.
◇A helpful concept
This case must be distinguished from attempted with a woman whom the man can never , such as his own sister or a woman who is already married. Here, either woman could ordinarily become to him. It is the attempted combination of the two relationships that makes the act ineffective.
Synopsis
When one act of simultaneously includes two women whom the man cannot lawfully marry together, neither woman is .
If a man many women simultaneously and said, “All of you are hereby to me,”
,—
and the group included two sisters, a woman and her daughter, or another comparable pair,
.
none of them is .
His declaration included every woman together as part of one undivided act. Since the cannot take effect with the entire group as stated, they do not take effect even with the women who were otherwise eligible.
״״—
But if he said to them, “Whoever among you is fit for marital relations with me is to me,”
,
then all the eligible women are ,
,.
except for the sisters, the woman and her daughter, and other comparable pairs.
The words “whoever among you is fit” make eligibility part of the declaration itself. Rather than attempting to the entire group without distinction, he expressly limits the to those women with whom it can take effect. The incompatible pairs are therefore excluded without preventing the of the others.
״״,
Similarly, if he said to a group of women, “All of you are hereby to me,”
,
and the group included a maidservant, a non-Jewish woman, or one woman forbidden to him as an ,
—
such as a married woman, his daughter, his sister, or another comparable relative—
.
none of them is .
In these examples, cannot take effect at all with the ineligible woman. Because his unrestricted declaration included her together with everyone else, the declaration does not take effect with any member of the group.
״״—
But if he said, “Whoever among you is fit for marital relations with me is to me,”
,
then all the eligible women are to him,
.
except for the woman with whom cannot take effect.
His qualification separates the valid portion of the declaration from the invalid portion. The ineligible woman is excluded by his own words, while the take effect with the others.
◇A helpful concept
The phrase do not take effect with her means that the attempted create no marital bond at all. This applies, for example, to a married woman and to certain relatives whom the permanently forbids the man from marrying.
Synopsis
An unrestricted act of group fails when it includes women who cannot be as stated. If the man expressly limits his declaration to those who are eligible, the take effect with the eligible women alone.
🔎Dig DeeperSeparating Eligible Women Within Group
Separating Eligible Women Within Group
The compares this ruling with a law concerning the acquisition of property. When someone says, “You and this animal shall acquire this object,” the person can acquire a share even though the animal cannot acquire anything. This raises a difficulty: Why should the eligible women here not become even though the others cannot?
The Maggid Mishneh answers that monetary acquisitions and are governed by different principles. The ( 41:4) records both the ’s position and an opposing view that the unrelated, eligible women are . Because of this dispute, it rules that their must be treated as doubtful.
If a man said to two sisters, “One of you is hereby to me with this,”
and gave them a ,
,
or one sister received it on behalf of herself and the other,
״״,
and similarly, if a man said to a father, “One of your daughters is to me,”
—
and the father accepted her —
,
all of the possible women require a from him,
,
and he is forbidden to have relations with any of them,
,
because the took effect with one of them,
וְאַף עַל פִּי.
even though he cannot have relations with any one of them.
This differs from the preceding cases: the man did not attempt to both relatives. He only one of them, so the can take effect. The problem is that he never identified which woman was intended.
Each possible woman might therefore be the one who was and must receive a . He cannot marry either one, because the other might be his actual wife, making her sister—or corresponding relative—forbidden to him.
Synopsis
When one woman from a related group is validly but her identity was never specified, every possible woman requires a , and the man may not marry any of them.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Woman Was Never Identified
When the Woman Was Never Identified
The ( 37:16) rules that the man cannot resolve the uncertainty by later declaring which sister he originally intended. The woman had to be identified when the were performed; a later statement cannot retroactively supply the missing designation.
The adds that when a man tells a father, “One of your daughters is to me,” every daughter included among the possible subjects of the father’s acceptance requires a . This applies even if the man had previously been matched with one particular daughter, since he did not identify her at the time of .
If a man appoints an agent to a particular woman on his behalf,
,
and the agent went to her for him,
,
while the himself that woman’s mother, daughter, or sister,
—
and it is unknown which of the two women was first—
,
both women require a ,
.
and both are forbidden to him.
Whichever occurred first took effect. Once that woman was , the attempted afterward with her close relative could no longer take effect.
Since the sequence is unknown, each woman might be the one validly and therefore requires a . After both receive , he still cannot marry either one, because she might be the close relative of the woman he actually divorced.
,
Similarly, if a woman appointed an agent to accept on her behalf,
,
and she then accepted from another man herself,
—
and it is unknown which of the two occurred first—
;
both men must give her a .
One of the two acts of certainly occurred first and took effect, but it is unknown which man became her husband. She therefore requires a from both before she may marry anyone else.
,.
If they wish, one may give her a and the other may marry her.
If the man who gives the was her actual husband, she is now free to marry the other. If the other man was already her actual husband, the given by the first man changes nothing, and she may remain with her husband.
Synopsis
When it is uncertain which of two acts of occurred first, every possible must be addressed with a . If the two men are unrelated, one may give the and the other may marry her.
The option for one man to give a and the other to marry her applies only when her possible marriage and divorce from one man would not create a prohibition involving the other.
But if the agent her to a father,
,
while she herself to the father’s son or brother,
—
or in another comparable situation—
,
both men must give her a ,
.
and she is forbidden to both of them.
Each man must give her a because either one might be the man whose took effect first. Neither may subsequently marry her: if the other man was her true husband, she is now forbidden to him because of the close family relationship between the two men.
Synopsis
When the two possible husbands are close relatives, both must give the woman a , and neither may subsequently marry her.
If a man says to his agent, “Go and a woman for me,”
,
and the agent dies,
יוֹדֵעַ—
and the man does not know whether the agent a woman for him,
;
he is presumed to have one,
.
because an agent is presumed to carry out his assignment.
The man cannot assume that nothing happened merely because the agent died before reporting back. Since an agent ordinarily fulfills an accepted mission, the man must conduct himself as though the agent performed on his behalf.
,
Since it is unknown which woman the agent for him,
בְּכָל,
the man is forbidden to marry any woman who has relatives whose relationship with him could constitute ,
בַּת;
such as a woman who has a daughter, mother, sister, or another comparable relative.
The concern is that the agent may have one of those relatives. If so, the woman whom the man now wishes to marry would be forbidden to him because of her relationship to the woman already to him.
This concern applies when the relative could have been by the agent. A relative who was not eligible for during the relevant period does not create the same uncertainty.
״״—
For if it were said, “Let him marry this woman,”
.
perhaps his agent had her mother, her sister, or her daughter for him.
If the agent one of those relatives, the man’s marriage to the woman now before him would create a prohibited relationship.
.
He may marry a woman who has no relatives of these kinds.
When there is no relative whom the agent might have and whose would prohibit this woman to him, there is no basis for restricting the marriage.
,,
If she does have a relative, such as a sister, mother, or another comparable relative,
,
but that relative was a married woman when he appointed the agent,
—
then even if she was divorced before the agent died,
.
the man is permitted to marry the woman.
At the time the agent was appointed, the relative was married and could not become to the . She was therefore outside the presumed scope of the agent’s mission.
:,
We do not say that perhaps the agent her relative after the relative was divorced,
,
because she was not eligible when the agency was established,
,
and a person does not appoint an agent to for him
.
any woman other than one whom he could when he appointed the agent.
The agency is understood according to the circumstances that existed when it was created. It is not presumed to expand automatically to include a woman who became eligible only afterward.
Synopsis
When an agent dies before reporting whether he fulfilled an unrestricted mission to arrange , the must presume that he did. The resulting restrictions extend only to women whom the agent could have under the agency as it existed when he was appointed.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen an Agent’s Unknown Actions Restrict Marriage
When an Agent’s Unknown Actions Restrict Marriage
The ( 35:11), citing , addresses a possible resolution of the uncertainty. If the relevant relatives state that the agent never them, and the man marries the woman on the strength of their statements, the couple may remain married. Their direct denial can therefore affect the practical consequences of the original presumption.
and all of them appointed their father as an agent to wives for them,
and the sons’ father said to a man who had five daughters,
״״,
“One of your daughters is to one of my sons,”
—
and the daughters’ father accepted the —
,
each daughter requires five , one from each of the brothers,
.
since all the brothers authorized their father to arrange for them.
The declaration does not reveal which daughter was or which son became her husband. Each daughter might be the woman who was , and any one of the five sons might be her husband.
Consequently, every daughter must receive a from every son. A from only one son would not be enough, because one of the other brothers might be the man to whom she was actually .
The daughters must also have been within their father’s authority. This could mean that they had not yet reached , or that daughters who had reached appointed him to accept on their behalf.
,
If one of the brothers died,
,
each daughter requires four ,
.
and from one of the brothers.
Each daughter requires a from all four surviving brothers because any one of them might be her husband. She must also receive from one survivor because the brother who died might have been her actual husband. If so, she became bound to his surviving brother through the laws of .
Here, each daughter might be the deceased brother’s widow. from one surviving brother releases that possible bond, while the four address the possibility that one of the surviving brothers is her husband.
Synopsis
When neither the daughter nor the son to whom she was was identified, each daughter requires a from every possible husband. If one brother dies, each daughter requires from the four survivors and because she may be the deceased brother’s widow.
An Unspecified Daughter Means the One Under His Authority
בַּת,
If a father had a minor daughter,
,
or a who remained under his authority,
,
as well as a daughter who was a ,
A has completed the stage of na’arut—ordinarily at twelve and a half after showing the required signs. Her father no longer has independent authority over her . He may act for her only if she appoints him as her agent.
,
and the authorized her father to her,
—
and the father “his daughter” to a man without specifying which daughter he meant,
,
the is not included in that designation,
unless he explicitly states,
״״.
“My daughter who is a and who appointed me as her agent.”
The father occupies two different legal roles. He possesses his own authority to the younger daughter, but he can act for the only as her appointed agent.
An unspecified reference to “my daughter” is therefore understood as an exercise of his own paternal authority. It is not assumed to refer to an agency that the adult daughter separately granted him.
,
Therefore, the is not ,
.
and her sister is .
There is no unresolved uncertainty between the two daughters. Unless the father specifically identifies the and mentions her appointment of him, the apply to the younger daughter who remains under his authority.
Synopsis
When a father may his younger daughter by his own authority but acts for his adult daughter only as her agent, an unspecified reference to “my daughter” means the younger daughter.
🔎Dig DeeperAn Unspecified Daughter Means the One Under His Authority
An Unspecified Daughter Means the One Under His Authority
51b explains that a person is presumed not to set aside a that is his own responsibility in favor of one that is not. Arranging the younger daughter’s falls within the father’s own authority and responsibility, while arranging the ’s is an agency he accepted from her. His unspecified words are therefore understood to refer to the younger daughter.
The ( 37:15) limits this ruling when the specifically instructed her father to her to a particular man. If the father then performs unspecified with that same man, the circumstances connect the act to the as well, and she also requires a .
“My Oldest” and “My Youngest” Identify One Daughter
,
If a man has two groups of daughters from two wives,
,
and all of them remain under his authority,
None of the daughters has reached , so the father has the authority to accept for each of them.
and he one of them,
and, at the time of the , said to the husband,
״״—
“I have my oldest daughter to you,”
:
although it might have been suggested:
,
perhaps he the older daughter in the older group,
,
or the older daughter in the younger group,
or the younger daughter in the older group,
—
since she is older than the older daughter in the younger group—
,
all the daughters are permitted to marry others,
,
except for the older daughter in the older group,
.
and she alone is .
The description “older” could theoretically apply to several daughters when each is compared with someone younger. Nevertheless, in this context, “my oldest daughter” means the one daughter who is older than every other daughter in the family.
◇A helpful concept
The “older group” and “younger group” are the two sets of daughters born to the two wives. Within each group there is an older and a younger daughter. This produces several daughters who could be called “older” or “younger” in a relative sense—but only one is the oldest of all, and only one is the youngest of all.
—
Similarly, if he “his youngest daughter,”
:
although it might have been suggested:
,
perhaps he meant the younger daughter in the younger group,
,
or the younger daughter in the older group,
or the older daughter in the younger group,
—
since she is younger than the younger daughter in the older group—
,
all the daughters are permitted to marry others,
,
except for the younger daughter in the younger group,
;
and she alone is .
Here too, the description is absolute rather than relative. “My youngest daughter” identifies the one daughter who is younger than all her sisters.
,
For “my oldest daughter” means
;
the daughter among whom none of his daughters is older than she;
,
and “my youngest daughter” means
.
the daughter among whom none is younger than she.
The ’s concluding language removes the possible ambiguity: these descriptions identify the two endpoints within the family as a whole.
Synopsis
When a father with two groups of daughters consecrates “my oldest daughter” or “my youngest daughter,” his words identify the single oldest or single youngest daughter in the entire family.
🔎Dig Deeper“My Oldest” and “My Youngest” Identify One Daughter
“My Oldest” and “My Youngest” Identify One Daughter
The ( 37) explains that this ruling requires all the daughters to remain within their father’s authority; none may have reached . The discusses this qualification because a daughter who has reached can no longer be through her father’s independent authority.
A father is believed when he says of his daughter, before she reaches ,
,
that she is ,
.
and thereby renders her forbidden to everyone.
Because the gives a father authority over his daughter’s until she reaches , it also gives legal force to his statement that she has been .
If he says only that she was without identifying the husband, she may not marry any man, since each man might be someone other than her actual husband. The following explains how the father may subsequently identify the man to whom he her.
Synopsis
Before his daughter reaches , a father is believed when he states that she has been . Until her husband is identified, she is forbidden to marry anyone.
🔎Dig DeeperA Father May Establish His Daughter’s Status
A Father May Establish His Daughter’s Status
64a derives this authority from the verse, “I gave my daughter to this man” ( 22:16). The words “I gave my daughter” establish that a father’s statement can confirm that his daughter was and thereby prohibit her to others. The words “to this man” establish that he can also identify the person to whom he her—a principle applied in the following .
A Father May Identify His Daughter’s Unknown Husband
״יוֹדֵעַ״—
If a father says, “I my daughter, but I do not know to whom I her,”
,
she remains forbidden to every man indefinitely,
״״,
until the father says, “I have learned that I her to this particular man,”
His original statement established that she was , but it did not identify her husband. She therefore cannot marry anyone until the uncertainty is resolved.
The father may later identify the husband because her prohibited status was established through his testimony about the . His word is therefore also accepted when he clarifies the identity of the man involved.
.
and she then requires a from that man alone.
Once the father identifies him, the uncertainty concerning every other man is removed. Only the identified man must give her a before she may marry someone else.
וְאַף עַל פִּי.
This applies even if the father learned his identity only after she reached .
Reaching ends the father’s authority to perform new for his daughter. Here, however, he is not creating or changing her status after . He is identifying the man involved in that he says occurred earlier, while she was still under his authority.
Synopsis
When a father says that he his daughter but cannot identify the husband, she is forbidden to every man until he identifies him. Once he does, she requires a from that man alone, even if the identification occurs after she reaches .
If the father says, “I do not know to whom I her,”
״״—
and one man comes and says, “I am the one who her,”
,
he is believed even to marry her,
His statement is accepted not only for the limited purpose of giving her a . He may proceed on the basis that he performed the original and complete the marriage.
The possibility that he falsely claimed her out of personal desire is not sufficient to prevent the marriage. A false claimant risks being contradicted if the father remembers or otherwise recognizes that he was not the man involved.
.
and he does not need to perform new .
He claims that the original were performed by him. Since that claim is accepted, the existing are sufficient.
Synopsis
When a father cannot identify the man to whom he his daughter, a single man who claims to be that husband is believed and may marry her without performing again.
🔎Dig DeeperA Sole Claimant May Marry the Unidentified Woman
A Sole Claimant May Marry the Unidentified Woman
63b explains why the claimant is not suspected of lying merely because he desires the woman. A false claimant would risk being contradicted by the father if the father remembers the man’s identity. That possibility gives credibility to his claim and allows him not only to release her with a but also to marry her.
Each man’s claim creates the possibility that he is her husband. She therefore requires a from both possible husbands before she may marry anyone else.
,
If they wish,
one may write a ,
.
and the other may marry her.
Once one claimant gives her a , the other may marry her. If the first man was her true husband, his released her. If the second man was her true husband, the first man’s did not affect their existing .
As explained below, the man who will marry her should first perform new . This ensures that the marriage is valid even if the man who gave the was actually her original husband.
,
After one of them married her,
״״—
and another man subsequently comes and says, “I am the one who her,”
,
he is not believed,
.
and he does not render her forbidden to her husband.
Once the earlier claims were addressed and she married one of the original claimants, a new claimant cannot reopen the uncertainty merely through his unsupported statement. Otherwise, anyone could disrupt an established marriage by claiming to have performed the original .
Synopsis
When two men each claim to be the unidentified husband, both must give the woman a before she may marry someone else. Alternatively, one may give a and the other may marry her following new . A later claimant cannot disrupt that marriage.
🔎Dig DeeperCompeting Claims Require Before Marriage
Competing Claims Require Before Marriage
The and ( 37:22) state that the claimant who marries her after the other gives a must first perform new . If the man who gave the was her original husband, that ended the original marriage; the remaining claimant therefore needs new to marry her.
The states that a third claimant is not believed once one of the first two men has married her. The Rashba maintains that the same protection applies even before the marriage has been completed, once the court has permitted one of the original claimants to marry her. The ( 37:23) records both positions but appears to favor the Rambam’s formulation.
A Woman’s Claimant May Release Her but Not Marry Her
״״,
If a woman says, “I was , but I do not know to whom I was ,”
״״—
and one man comes and says, “I am the one who you,”
,
he is believed for the purpose of giving her a ,
.
and she then becomes permitted to every man except him.
Her own statement established that she was to an unknown man. The claimant’s statement is accepted to remove that prohibition through a , but not to permit him to marry her.
,
He is not, however, believed to marry her,
This differs from the preceding case, in which the woman’s father performed the . There, the father might remember the husband’s identity and contradict a false claimant. Here, the woman herself does not know whom she married, so no informed person is available to challenge the man’s assertion.
because perhaps his inclination overpowered him,
.
and she encouraged him to make this claim in order to permit her.
There is a concern that he falsely claimed to be her husband because he desired her, while she encouraged the false claim so that his would free her from the restriction created by her original statement.
He may therefore help release her through a , since this does not allow him to benefit from his claim. He may not use the same claim as the basis for marrying her himself.
Synopsis
When a woman cannot identify the man to whom she was , a man who claims to be her husband may give her a and thereby permit her to others. He may not marry her because the claim might have been motivated by desire or collusion.
🔎Dig DeeperA Woman’s Claimant May Release Her but Not Marry Her
A Woman’s Claimant May Release Her but Not Marry Her
The rules that although the claimant may not initially marry her, if he nevertheless married her and they are already living together as husband and wife, the court does not compel them to separate merely because of this suspicion. The ( 37:24) accepts this ruling.
while she is permitted to marry his close relatives.
According to his own statement, she is his wife. He must therefore observe every prohibition that would result from that marriage, including the prohibition against marrying those of her relatives who would be forbidden to him as relatives of his wife.
She denies that any occurred. His unsupported statement cannot impose the consequences of marriage upon her, so she remains permitted to his relatives.
◇A helpful concept
A person’s admission can legally bind that person even when it is not accepted against someone who denies it. Consequently, the two parties can receive different rulings in the same disputed case: each is subject to the consequences of his or her own statement.
״״,
If she says, “You me,”
״״—
and he says, “I did not you,”
,
he is permitted to marry her close relatives,
.
while she is forbidden to marry his close relatives.
The result is reversed because she is now the person claiming that the occurred. She is bound by her statement, but her claim cannot impose marital restrictions upon the man who denies it.
״״,
If he says, “I you,”
״״—
and she says, “You did not me, but rather my daughter,”
,
he is forbidden to marry the adult woman’s close relatives,
Here, , “the adult woman,” refers to the mother who is speaking. According to his claim, he her, so he is bound by the restrictions involving her relatives.
;
while the adult woman is permitted to marry his close relatives.
She denies that she was and is therefore not bound by his claim.
,
He is permitted to marry the daughter’s close relatives,
This means relatives who are not already forbidden to him because of his own claim that he the mother. The permission does not override a prohibition created by that claim.
.
and the daughter is permitted to marry his close relatives.
Although the mother claims that her daughter was , the mother’s statement cannot independently establish her daughter’s marital status. The daughter is therefore not bound by it.
״״,
If he says, “I your daughter,”
״״—
and she says, “You did not anyone but me,”
,
he is forbidden to marry the daughter’s close relatives,
His own statement binds him to observe the restrictions that would result from with the daughter.
;
while the daughter is permitted to marry his close relatives.
His unsupported claim cannot establish the daughter’s marital status against her.
,
He is permitted to marry the mother’s close relatives,
This permission applies only to relatives who are not already forbidden to him because of his claim that he the daughter. It does not remove restrictions produced by his own statement.
.
while the mother is forbidden to marry his close relatives.
The mother claims that she was to him, so she must observe the restrictions created by her own statement. He denies having her, so her claim cannot impose additional restrictions upon him.
Synopsis
When people disagree about whether occurred or which woman was , each person is bound by the consequences of his or her own claim. One person’s unsupported statement does not ordinarily impose those consequences upon someone who denies it.
🔎Dig DeeperEach Person Is Bound by His or Her Own Claim
Each Person Is Bound by His or Her Own Claim
In his ( 3:11), the explains why the mother’s claim cannot establish that her daughter was . The gives a father special authority to make binding statements concerning his daughter’s marital status, but it does not give a mother corresponding authority—not even under Rabbinic law.
All the people who make the claims of described above
,
are speaking of cases in which the claimant asserts that the took place before ,
.
but the traveled to another country or died.
The preceding rulings concern claims that legally valid took place, although the are no longer available to testify. The claimant’s statement may bind that person to observe the resulting restrictions, even though it does not necessarily prove the against someone who denies them.
—
If, however, they acknowledge that the took place without ,
,
there are no ,
כְּמוֹ.
as we have explained.
The presence of is not merely needed to prove afterward that the occurred. It is an essential requirement for creating the . Even if both parties agree that a ceremony took place, it creates no marital bond if it occurred without .
וְכָל״״,
Whenever a woman says to a man, “You me,”
״״—
and he says, “I did not you,”
we ask him to write her a
,
so that she may become permitted to everyone else,
.
because this causes him no loss.
The woman is bound by her own statement and cannot marry anyone else without a . The man denies that the occurred and therefore maintains that no is necessary. Nevertheless, the court asks him to provide one so that the restriction created by her own statement can be removed.
The says that he is asked to give the , not compelled. Although giving it causes him no direct financial loss, it may restrict his ability to marry certain relatives of the woman.
,
If he gives her a on his own initiative,
.
we compel him to pay her .
This ruling applies when circumstances have created an actual obligation. As explained below, alone do not ordinarily obligate the man to pay a .
Synopsis
The disputed claims discussed above presuppose that valid were present but are now unavailable. without have no effect. When a woman claims and the man denies them, he is asked—but not compelled—to give her a ; if he gives it voluntarily, he may be required to pay her .
🔎Dig DeeperDisputed Claims Assume Before
Disputed Claims Assume Before
The and ( 48:6) explain why the man is asked but not compelled to give the . Although it costs him no money, the may forbid him from marrying certain relatives of the woman. That consequence is not considered significant enough to prevent the court from asking him to help her, but it is sufficient to prevent the court from forcing him.
and the disagree about this consequence. They maintain that when the man gives the only as a favor to the woman, it does not prohibit her relatives to him.
The Maggid Mishneh further explains that the ruling applies only when a obligation already exists—for example, if the man wrote and delivered a together with the . Ordinarily, the obligation to pay a begins only with . The case may also involve a place where were customarily written before , allowing the man to deny the despite the existence of a written . Because this ruling applies only under limited circumstances, the does not record it.
and the agent goes and consecrates her for himself,
.
she is to the agent.
The appointment authorized the agent to act for the , but it did not itself create between the and the woman. When the agent instead performed valid with her on his own behalf, the took effect between the woman and the agent.
His betrayal of the ’s trust is a serious wrongdoing, but it does not invalidate that were otherwise validly performed.
.
It is forbidden to act this way.
The legal effectiveness of the act does not make the conduct permissible. The agent used an opportunity entrusted to him for his own benefit.
וְכָל
Anyone who does this or something comparable
,
in other matters of buying and selling
.
is called wicked.
The same principle applies in business. A person entrusted to acquire something for another may not exploit that assignment to secure the opportunity for himself. Even when his acquisition is legally effective, his betrayal of trust earns him the designation “wicked.”
Synopsis
An agent who was sent to arrange for another man but instead the woman to himself has effected valid . Nevertheless, betraying an agency in this way—whether in or commerce—is forbidden and earns the designation “wicked.”
When the Agent and Woman Disagree About the Husband
,
If a man appoints an agent to a woman for him,
,
and the agent goes and performs the ,
״״,
but the agent says, “I her for myself,”
״״:
while the woman says, “I became to the first man, who sent him,”
The parties agree that the agent performed an act of , but they disagree about whom he represented. The agent claims that he acted for himself; the woman claims that he acted for the .
The ruling depends upon whether the agent’s appointment to act for the was established through .
,
if the did not appoint the agent in the presence of ,
,
the agent is forbidden to marry her close relatives,
;
while she is permitted to marry his close relatives.
The agent claims that he her to himself, so he is bound by the marital restrictions created by his own statement. She denies being to him, so his claim does not prohibit his relatives to her.
,
The woman is forbidden to marry the ’s close relatives,
.
while the is permitted to marry her close relatives.
She claims that she became to the and must therefore observe the restrictions created by her statement. The is not bound by her unsupported claim when the agent’s appointment was not established through .
This follows the principle established in Halachah 15: each person is bound by his or her own admission, but that admission does not ordinarily impose the same status upon someone who denies it.
,
But if the agent’s appointment was established through ,
.
she is to the first man, the .
The witnessed appointment establishes the agent’s authorization to perform for the . The woman says that she accepted the on that basis. Together, these establish her to the despite the agent’s claim that he acted for himself.
Synopsis
When an agent claims that he the woman to himself but she claims that she was to the , each is initially bound by his or her own statement. If the agency was established through , the woman is considered to the .
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Agent and Woman Disagree About the Husband
When the Agent and Woman Disagree About the Husband
The maintains that an appointment to arrange must always be made in the presence of . He therefore understands the phrase “the agent was established through ” to mean that the appointment was publicly known, rather than merely witnessed.
The adds that even when the woman is considered to the , the agent remains forbidden to marry her relatives because of his own statement that he her to himself. The ( 35:15) records this ruling.
disputes the ’s ruling. In his view, once the agent expressly denies that he the woman for the , the cannot be treated as binding upon the .
Sources:Raavad and Maggid Mishneh, 9:18; Rama, 35:15; Rabbenu Asher
This continues the preceding case. The agent claims that he performed the for himself, while the woman is uncertain whether she was to him or to the .
,
if the agent’s appointment was not established through ,
;
she is to the second man—the agent.
The agent states that he acted for himself, and the woman does not contradict him. Without an established appointment connecting his act to the , the are attributed to the agent.
,
But if it was established that he was the ’s agent,
.
both men must give her a .
The established agency supports the possibility that the agent acted for the . The agent’s own statement supports the competing possibility that he acted for himself. Because the woman cannot identify which man became her husband, she requires a from both before she may marry someone else.
,
If they wish,
one may give her a
.
and the other may marry her.
If the man who gives the was her actual husband, the releases her and she may marry the other. If the man who remains was already her actual husband, the given by the other man does not affect their marriage.
Synopsis
When a woman does not know whether the agent her to himself or to the , she is considered to the agent if his agency was not established. If the agency was established, both men must give her a , or one may give a and the other may marry her.
but while he was on his way, she canceled the agency and withdrew her authorization,
and it is unknown whether she withdrew before he accepted the for her
—
or only after the ,
.
her status is that of a woman whose are doubtful.
There are two possible sequences:
If she canceled the agency before the agent accepted the , he no longer possessed authority to act for her and the did not take effect.
If he accepted the before she canceled the agency, she was already and her subsequent withdrawal could not undo the completed .
Because the sequence cannot be determined, both possibilities must be respected. She cannot marry another man without first receiving a from the man who might be her husband. At the same time, the existing cannot be relied upon as certainly valid. If the couple wishes to complete the marriage, they must perform new .
,
The same applies if a man appointed an agent
.
and then withdrew the appointment.
If it cannot be determined whether the agent performed the before or after the man canceled his authority, the are likewise doubtful. The same two-sided consequences apply: a is needed before the woman may marry someone else, while new are needed if the original couple wishes to proceed.
Synopsis
When an agency is canceled but it is unknown whether the cancellation occurred before or after the agent performed the , the are doubtful. A is required before the woman may marry someone else, while new are required if the couple wishes to proceed together.
If a man one of five women but does not know which of them he ,
וְכָל,״״—
and each woman says, “He me,”
;
he is forbidden to marry the relatives of all of them.
One of the five is certainly to him, but her identity is unknown. Consequently, each woman must be treated as possibly being his wife, and he may not marry any relative whom he would be forbidden to marry if that woman were indeed his wife.
,
He must give a to each and every one,
Each woman needs a because any one of them may be the woman he . Giving a to all five releases the woman who was actually and removes the doubt surrounding the others.
.
and he places the amount of one among them and withdraws.
The obligation is certain, but the identity of the woman entitled to receive it is not. He therefore provides the amount of one rather than paying five separate obligations.
,
But if he performed the through intimate relations,
.
the Sages penalized him by requiring him to pay a to each and every woman.
The Sages disapproved of performing through intimate relations. Because he used that method and then created uncertainty about the woman’s identity, they imposed a financial penalty beyond the single payment that would otherwise have been required.
,,
The circumstances are that it is known that the he wrote for one of them was lost,
This explains why a payment is at issue even though the case concerns : it is known that he undertook such an obligation toward the woman he , but the document identifying her is no longer available.
וְכָל״״.
and each woman says, “I am the one whom you , and you wrote a for me, but my was lost.”
Synopsis
When the identity of the one woman among five is unknown, the man must give each a but ordinarily provides only one payment. If he performed the through intimate relations, the Sages penalized him by requiring payment to all five.
🔎Dig DeeperOne Certain Among Five Possible Women
One Certain Among Five Possible Women
The maintains that a written is not essential to this case; a verbal undertaking made at the time of could also create the financial obligation. The explains that the would agree and mentioned a lost written as one possible circumstance in which the ruling applies.
The ( 49:2) questions why each woman receives a payment as a penalty without taking an oath. In the comparable case of a person who admits stealing from one of five people but cannot identify the victim, each claimant must take an oath before receiving payment. The Beit Shmuel leaves the difference unresolved.
Sources:Raavad and Maggid Mishneh, 9:21; Beit Shmuel 49:2; Rambam, Gezeilah 4:9 and 10:11
If a report circulates that a woman is to a particular man,
,.
she is presumed to be , even though there is no conclusive evidence.
This presumption does not prove that the reported occurred. It requires the court to account for that possibility: she may not marry someone else without first resolving the reported , while the reported man must perform new before marrying her.
וְכָל,
But any report that has not been substantiated in court,
.
is disregarded.
A rumor alone cannot restrict a woman’s marital status. The court must first determine that the report has the characteristics described below.
?
What sort of report can establish a presumption that she is ?
,
For example, two men came and testified that they saw lamps burning and couches arranged,
,
with people entering and leaving,
,
and women celebrating with her,
״״.
and saying, “So-and-so was today! So-and-so was today!”
The are not testifying that they saw the themselves. They are testifying to a public celebration and an announcement that the had already occurred. Together, these circumstances can substantiate the report in court.
״תִּתְקַדֵּשׁ״—
If they heard the women saying, “So-and-so will be today,”
,
the report is disregarded,
;
because they may have assembled to conduct the , but she may not actually have become .
Preparations and expectations demonstrate only that were planned. They do not establish that the required act was completed.
.
The report is not recognized unless they hear that she was .
״כְּמוֹ,
Similarly, if two men came and said, “We saw what appeared to be a celebration of , and we heard a public commotion,
Here refers to , the first and legally binding stage of marriage.
and we heard from one person, who had heard from another,
,
that a particular woman was in the presence of two identified ,
״,״״—
and those went away to another country,” or, “They died,”
.
this is a report that establishes the presumption that she is .
Although the original cannot testify, the combination of the public celebration and a specific account of before identified gives the report sufficient substance to be recognized.
Synopsis
A report of restricts a woman only when it is substantiated in court by circumstances and testimony indicating that actually occurred. Mere rumor, preparations, or an announcement that will take place is insufficient.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen a Report of Has Legal Weight
When a Report of Has Legal Weight
The ( 46:1) explains that a woman subject to such a report is treated like one whose are doubtful. She may not marry another man. Even if she wishes to marry the man named in the report, he must first perform new because the original were never established with certainty.
In describing the celebration, the records the announcement that the woman was but does not repeat that the man’s identity was announced. The and maintain that the report must identify the man as well; otherwise it cannot establish her as to a particular person.
The Rambam also accepts a report transmitted through one person who heard it from another. The and require the underlying report to have been spread by at least two people. The records the Rambam’s position, while the cites the differing view.
When the report was not accompanied by a qualifying explanation.
,
But if there was a qualifying explanation,
—
and that qualification was heard at the same time as the report that she was ,
.
she is not presumed to be .
Because the uncertainty was part of the report from the outset, there was never an unqualified public account of valid upon which to base the presumption.
?
What constitutes such a qualifying explanation?
,
A report that so-and-so was subject to a condition,
The condition may not have been fulfilled. The report therefore does not establish that the became binding.
—
or that her were themselves doubtful.
For example, there might have been uncertainty whether the item used for was worth a , or whether the male who performed the had reached adulthood.
,
She is not thereby presumed to be .
שׁוֹאֲלִין,,
Instead, the court questions her and relies upon her account,
Her word is accepted here because the report never became strong enough to establish her as . The qualification was part of the information heard from the beginning, rather than a later attempt to retract an established report.
,.
since there is neither conclusive evidence nor a firmly established report.
Synopsis
When a report of is accompanied from the outset by a credible qualification—such as an unfulfilled condition or uncertainty about the —the report does not establish the woman as , and the court may rely upon her account.
If a report circulated that a woman was to a particular man,
:
and several days later a qualifying explanation was offered,
Unlike the preceding , the original report was initially heard without any qualification. The later explanation must therefore be examined rather than accepted automatically.
—
if the circumstances demonstrate to the court that the explanation is true,
,
the court relies upon that explanation,
;
and she is not presumed to be .
A later explanation can overcome the original report when objective circumstances make its truth apparent to the court.
,
But if the circumstances do not support it,
—
since the qualifying explanation was not heard when the report of the was first heard,
.
the court gives no weight to that explanation.
The timing matters because an explanation included in the original report defines what the public account actually claimed. A later explanation may instead be an attempt to undo a report that had already become established, so it requires independent indications of truth.
Synopsis
A qualifying explanation offered only after an unqualified report of is accepted only when the circumstances convince the court that it is true. Otherwise, the original report remains in force.
An incident occurred involving a woman about whom a report circulated that she had been to the son of a particular man.
After some time, they questioned the son’s father,
״,
and he said, “She was to him subject to a certain condition,
״,
and that condition was not fulfilled.”
If accepted, this explanation would mean that the did not become binding. It was not, however, part of the original report and was offered only later.
,
The Sages did not rely upon his statement.
His unsupported assertion did not provide the court with sufficient grounds to overturn the already established report.
:,
Instead, they ruled that the woman was doubtfully ,
.
as though no qualifying explanation had been given.
The father’s statement was not necessarily treated as false. Rather, because it was an unsupported qualification offered only after the original report had become established, it was insufficient to remove the resulting doubt.
Synopsis
When a father later claimed that his son’s reported had depended upon an unfulfilled condition, the Sages rejected the unsupported explanation and continued to treat the woman as doubtfully .
If a report circulated that a woman was to a particular man,
—
and a second man subsequently her in our presence,
The first are known only through a court-recognized report, whereas the act of the second was witnessed directly. The second act is therefore certain to have occurred, although whether it could take effect still depends upon whether the woman was already to the first man.
,:
the court investigates the first man’s , which are known only through a report.
The later, confirmed act of does not permit the court to disregard the earlier report. The court must first determine whether evidence can establish that the first actually occurred.
,
If come with conclusive testimony that she was to the first man,
;
the second man’s are of no consequence.
Once it is established that the first were valid, she was already when the second man attempted to her. with another man cannot take effect while she remains to the first.
—
But if no such evidence is produced,
,
the first man, whose are known only through the report, must give her a ,
The resolves the possibility raised by the report. It does not mean that the first have been proved; it releases her from the possibility that they occurred.
.
and the second man, whose are certain, may marry her.
Once the possible bond to the first man has been removed through a , the second man may proceed with the marriage. His are described as “certain” because their performance was directly witnessed, unlike the first man’s , which are known only through a report.
,
If the second man divorces her,
—
the first man may not marry her,
,
lest people say that he took back a woman whom he had divorced after ,
.
after she had become to another man.
Observers could misunderstand the sequence. They might believe that the first man’s were valid, that he divorced her, and that after she became to the second man and was divorced again, the first man remarried her. Because this would appear to be a prohibited remarriage, the first man may not marry her.
Synopsis
When confirmed follow an earlier report of , the court investigates the first report. If the first are proved, the second are invalid. Otherwise, the first man gives a and the second may marry her; if the second later divorces her, the first may not marry her.
🔎Dig DeeperA Confirmed Following an Earlier Report
A Confirmed Following an Earlier Report
The ( 46:5) rules that the second man may not marry her until she receives a from the first. If he disregards this requirement and marries her beforehand, the Sages require him to divorce her and forbid her to remain with him.
The concern about the first man subsequently marrying her reflects the prohibition discussed in 11:12. A man may not remarry a woman whom he divorced if she became to another man in the interim. Here, the court acts to prevent conduct that would publicly appear to violate that prohibition.
If a report circulated that a woman was to one man,
—
and another report of equal strength subsequently circulated that she was to someone else,
Neither report provides conclusive proof, but each creates a legally significant possibility of . Her status must therefore be resolved with respect to both men.
one of the men gives her a ,
,
and the other may marry her,
The removes the possible bond to the man who gives it. The remaining man may then marry her, but because his own reported were never conclusively established, he must perform definite before proceeding to .
.
whether the man who marries her is the first or the latter.
Because both claims rest upon reports of equal legal weight, neither man has priority. Either one may give the , allowing the other to marry her.
Synopsis
When equally substantial reports associate a woman with two different men, one must give her a , after which the other may marry her. Either the first or the second man may be the one who marries her.
In a place where it is customary to send gifts to a bride after she becomes ,
—
and testify that they saw such gifts being brought to her,
,
the court is concerned that she may already have become ,
The did not see an act of . Nevertheless, because gifts of this kind are sometimes sent only after , their delivery raises the possibility that an earlier occurred without the court’s knowledge.
,
and she requires a because of the doubt.
The is necessary to remove the possibility that she became before receiving the gifts.
.
This applies even though most of the city’s residents send such gifts only before .
Although the majority practice would suggest that no had yet occurred, a minority of the community follows the opposite order. Because this particular man may have followed that minority practice, the court remains concerned.
But in a place where everyone customarily sends the gifts first
,
and performs the afterward,
—
if gifts were seen being sent,
.
there is no concern that she was .
Here the local practice is uniform. Since the gifts normally precede and no one in that place follows the opposite order, the gifts provide no indication that have already taken place.
Synopsis
Engagement gifts create a concern about previous whenever some members of the community send such gifts only after . If everyone sends the gifts before , their delivery creates no such concern.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen Engagement Gifts Suggest Earlier
When Engagement Gifts Suggest Earlier
explains that although law ordinarily follows the majority, the Sages were stringent here because of the seriousness of marriage and divorce law. Thus, even when most residents send gifts before , the minority practice of sending them afterward creates a concern.
offers a different explanation: this majority is not fixed, because people may freely change how they conduct themselves. A flexible pattern of personal behavior does not provide the same certainty as a stable majority.
If the existence of a woman’s written has been established,
The document itself does not prove when occurred. Its significance depends upon the accepted order of events in that community.
—
if some people in that place customarily perform and write the afterward,
;
the court is concerned that she may have been .
Because at least some residents write a only after , the existence of her may indicate that her have already occurred.
וְאַף עַל פִּי,
This concern applies even if there is no regular scribe in that place.
:;
We do not say, “Perhaps he happened to find a scribe and therefore arranged to have the written early.”
The unusual opportunity to obtain a scribe does not allow the court to assume that he departed from the local sequence and wrote the before performing . Since some people normally write it afterward, the possibility of prior remains.
,
But if everyone in that place customarily writes the before ,
.
there is no concern that she was .
When the local practice is uniform, the is fully consistent with preparations being made before . It therefore provides no indication that the have already occurred.
Synopsis
A written creates a concern that occurred if some residents customarily write it only after . If everyone writes the beforehand, the document creates no such concern.
Positive Testimony Is Not Refuted by “We Did Not See”
״״,
If two say, “We saw her become on a particular day,”
״״,
and two others say, “We did not see her become ,”
The second pair does not testify that the event could not have happened. They state only that they did not personally observe it.
—
even though all four live in the same courtyard,
Their shared surroundings might suggest that the second pair would probably have noticed the . Nevertheless, that likelihood is not strong enough to contradict who testify that they actually saw it.
;
the woman is considered .
The affirmative testimony establishes the . The other ’ failure to observe the event does not create an equal conflict in testimony.
״״,
For “We did not see it” is not evidence that it did not occur,
.
because people commonly perform privately.
may be conducted quietly in the presence of the required without the knowledge of neighbors. The second pair’s lack of awareness is therefore entirely compatible with the first pair’s testimony.
Synopsis
Two who affirm that they saw are not contradicted by two neighbors who merely say that they did not see it. Since are commonly conducted privately, failure to observe the event is not proof that it never occurred.
A single witness cannot establish her as when she directly denies his testimony. She therefore remains permitted to marry without first receiving a .
״״,
If one witness says, “She is ,”
״״—
and another witness says, “She is not ,”
;
she should not marry;
That is, she should not marry anyone other than the man to whom the first witness says she was . Although her denial is supported by the second witness, the opposing testimony creates enough uncertainty to prevent her from marrying someone else initially.
,,
but if she married, she is not required to leave her husband,
״״.
because she says, “I was not .”
Her denial, supported by the witness who says that she was not , is sufficient to allow an existing marriage to continue, even though the unresolved testimony initially prevented her from entering that marriage.
״״,
If a woman said, “I am ,”
Her statement initially establishes that she may not marry anyone else, even though she does not identify the man to whom she claims to be .
:
and after some time she proceeded to accept from another man,
,
if she provides a credible explanation for her earlier statement,
״״,
saying, “For this particular reason, I originally said that I was ,”
—
and the court finds substance in her explanation,
The court does not accept any convenient excuse. Her explanation must credibly account for why she previously described herself as even though she was not.
;
she is permitted to the second man.
A substantial explanation allows the court to accept that her original statement was made for another reason and was not a truthful acknowledgment of existing . The second may therefore stand.
,
But if she provides no explanation,
—
or she provides an explanation that has no substance,
,
she remains forbidden to marry,
Her original statement continues to bind her. Since she declared herself , she cannot simply disregard that status and marry another man.
.
and the second man’s are considered doubtful .
The second cannot be dismissed entirely, but neither can they permit her to the second man while her original claim remains unresolved. Both possible bonds must therefore be taken into account.
,
Therefore, the second man must give her a ,
The releases her from the possible bond created by his .
but she remains forbidden to him and to everyone else
.
until the man to whom she was originally comes forward.
The second man’s resolves only his possible . Her original declaration that she was already remains in force, so she cannot marry anyone until the identity and status of the first man are clarified.
״״,
The same applies to a woman who arrived and said, “I am a married woman,”
״״—
and later retracted and said, “I am unmarried.”
Her later retraction is not accepted merely because she changed her account. She must provide a convincing reason for having made her original statement.
If she provides a credible explanation for her earlier statement,
,
and her explanation has substance,
.
she is believed.
A persuasive explanation can show that her first statement was made for a particular protective or practical reason rather than as a truthful acknowledgment that she was married.
Synopsis
One witness cannot establish against a woman’s direct denial. Conflicting may prevent her from marrying initially but do not necessarily end an existing marriage. A woman who previously declared herself or married may retract that declaration only by providing a substantial and credible explanation.
🔎Dig DeeperConflicting Testimony and a Woman’s Own Statement
Conflicting Testimony and a Woman’s Own Statement
The explains that when a single witness says that the woman was and she denies it, the witness is not believed. If her denial were false, she ordinarily would not dare contradict the witness directly.
The and other authorities dispute the ’s ruling in the case of two conflicting . They argue that if the woman’s denial is accepted when no witness supports her, it should certainly be accepted when another witness agrees with her. They therefore understand the Talmudic case differently: a man threw the toward the woman, one witness says that they landed closer to her, another says that they landed closer to him, and the woman herself does not know what occurred. The ( 47:3) accepts this interpretation.
22a provides an example of a substantial . An attractive woman initially claimed to be because the men pursuing her were unsuitable and she wished to discourage them. When a suitable man later approached her, she accepted his and explained why she had made her original statement. The Sages accepted her explanation.
The ( 47:4) limits this law to a woman who initially said only, “I am ,” without identifying the man. If she named the person who had supposedly her, her later retraction is not accepted even when she offers a substantial explanation.
Translation and elucidation: Independently prepared for Rambam, Clearly in contemporary English. Translation follows the Rambam’s words; elucidation supplies only the context needed to understand them.
Word cards and glossary: Hebrew word cards distinguish a word’s basic meaning from its meaning in the particular phrase. Shared glossary entries explain recurring terms; biography entries identify the cited authorities.
Explain and Background: Explain provides context needed for the ruling. Optional Background panels provide additional context that can be skipped without losing the essential explanation.
Synopsis: A short summary follows each halachah. It is a guide to the central ruling, not a replacement for the full text and its qualifications.
Dig Deeper: Based on the classic commentaries named inside each panel. Editorial explanations are not presented as quotations.
Live It: Where present, these panels connect a particular halachah to a suggested personal reflection and an action to try. Original applications are labeled as suggested reflections. They are distinct from the ruling and are not attributed to the Rebbe merely because his guidance supports seeking a practical lesson.
Measurements: Modern equivalents draw on Chabad.org’s measurement glossary and cited halachic calculations. They show a range when major accepted calculations differ. Monetary equivalents fluctuate with the price of silver.
The Rebbe’s teachings and guidance: Source links accompany the completion teachings and the guidance inside Dig Deeper and Live It. Quotations, translations, and adaptations are identified; the general guidance is separate from the sources for a panel’s particular discussion.
Editorial responsibility: Created and prepared for this project by Levi Gelb. Corrections and suggestions can be submitted below. This presentation supports learning; practical halachic questions should be brought to a qualified rav.
Chapter 9 at a glance
When uncertainty changes what may happen next
This chapter follows the practical consequences of when the woman, the man, the timing, or even the existence of the original act cannot be established with certainty.
that attempt to create incompatible marriages together may fail completely, while an unidentified but valid can require multiple .
An agent’s actions and the timing of an appointment or cancellation can create binding presumptions or doubtful .
A person may be bound by his or her own claim even when that claim is not accepted against someone who denies it.
A court-recognized report of is more than gossip, but it remains weaker than direct testimony.
Local customs, documents, gifts, and credible qualifying explanations help determine whether a reported must be taken seriously.
פרק ט
End of chapter.
You have reached the end of all thirty-one halachos.