Kiddushin 46a

קידושין מ״ו ע״א

Learn Kiddushin 46a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Kiddushin 46a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

A minor's betrothal without her father's consent, and betrothing a woman with several dates

Overview

The amud opens by closing an earlier argument: the גמרא sides with the junior scholar, and רבא explains why רב הונא held his view. Next comes a new dispute about a קטנה who accepted קידושין without her father's consent. רב says both she and her father can block it, while רב אסי says only her father can. A ברייתא about a מפותה is brought against רב אסי, but רב himself shows it is no proof, and רב יוסף and אביי argue over how to read it. Then a new משנה teaches how a man betroths a woman with several dates, and how the exact wording decides whether their values add up to a פרוטה. The גמרא ties the first case to רבי שמעון's rule about oaths. It then struggles over which case the 'eating one by one' clause belongs to, and רבי יוחנן admits he cannot explain it. רב and שמואל answer that it belongs to the first case, while רבי אמי says it belongs to the joined case and only the last date counts. רבא learns rules about betrothing with a loan from רבי אמי, and the third rule continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (20)

1. ConclusionThe student's view is accepted
2. Statementרבא explains רב הונא's reasoning
3. StatementDispute: who can cancel a minor's betrothal done without her father
4. ChallengeA challenge to רב אסי from the seduced girl
5. Rejectionרב rejects the proof that seems to help him
6. ChallengeWhy would a verse be needed for that?
7. ResolutionThe verse teaches that he still pays the fine
8. Proofרב יוסף supports this from another ברייתא
9. Rejectionאביי: she needs betrothal with her father's consent
10. StatementThe משנה: Betrothing a woman with several dates
11. QuestionWhich תנא holds that repeating the phrase splits the betrothal?
12. Responseרבה: It is רבי שמעון
13. QuestionWhich case does the eating clause refer to?
14. ChallengeIt cannot refer to the first case
15. ResolutionIt refers to the latter case
16. ChallengeBut the first date is only a loan!
17. Challengeרבי יוחנן: Everything is here, yet we cannot explain it
18. Resolutionרב and שמואל: the eating clause belongs to the first case after all
19. Resolutionרבי אמי: the eating clause belongs to the second case, and only the last date counts
20. Statementרבא draws lessons from רבי אמי's explanation