Si un homme autorisait un messager à fiancer sa fille et que lui (le père lui-même) allait la fiancer —si ses (fiançailles) sont arrivées en premier, ses fiançailles tiennent; et si son messager (fiançailles) est venu en premier, ses fiançailles (du messager) se tiennent. Et s'il n'est pas connu (ce qui a précédé), les deux donnent un get. Et s'ils le souhaitent, l'un donne un get et l'autre l'épouse. De même, si une femme autorisait son messager à la fiancer et qu'elle allait se fiancer—si elle (les fiançailles) est venue en premier, ses fiançailles tiennent; et si son messager (fiançailles) est venu en premier, ses fiançailles tiennent. Et si ce n'est pas connu (ce qui a précédé), les deux lui donnent un get. Et s'ils le souhaitent, l'un lui donne une chance et l'autre l'épouse. [Le tanna doit nous informer à la fois du fait que le père autorise un messager à fiancer sa fille et qu'une femme autorise un messager à se fiancer elle-même. Car s'il ne nous informait que du père, nous pourrions penser que, comme il connaît le pedigree, lorsqu'il a trouvé un homme de race et l'a fiancée à lui, il a (par là) annulé le messager; mais que la femme, ne connaissant pas le pedigree, bien qu'elle se soit fiancée, ne comptait pas entièrement sur ses fiançailles et n'annulait pas le messager, pensant qu'il pourrait trouver un homme plus noble que celui qu'elle avait trouvé. Et si nous n'étions informés que d'elle, nous pourrions penser que puisqu'une femme est particulière dans le choix d'un mari, quand elle s'est fiancée, elle a annulé le messager, mais que le père, n'étant pas le particulier dont sa fille s'est mariée, n'a pas annulé le messager, et ne l'a fiancée que si le messager ne trouve personne. Nous devons donc être informés des deux cas.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Kiddushin
וכן האשה שנתנה רשות לשלוחה – it was necessary for the Tanna [of our Mishnah] to inform us that the father that made [someone] his agent to betroth his daughter and a woman that made [someone] her agent to betroth herself, for had [the Mishnah] only mentioned [the case of] the father, I would think that the father that has established his traced genealogy, and when he found that he is of legitimate descent, he betrothed her to himself. And the case where say that he annulled his agent, but a woman who does not establish a traced genealogy, even though she betrothed herself, we don’t rely upon her betrothal, nor did she annul the agent, for she thought that perhaps, the agent would find a person of greater connection than this. And if we only mention about the woman, I would think that because the woman carefully investigates and marries, when she betroths herself, she voids the agent. But the man, who is not strict about his daughter, if she marries any husband, he has not voided the agency of the agent, and he who came first and betrothed her, though that perhaps he is not found. It is necessary. (See Tractate Kiddushin 79a)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
Introduction
Our mishnah deals with a scenario whereby a father sent an agent to betroth his daughter to a certain man and then the father betrothed her to a different man.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
If a man gives permission to his agent to give his daughter in betrothal, and then he himself goes and gives her in betrothal to another, if his [betrothal] was first, his betrothal is valid; if the agent’s was first, his betrothal is valid. And if it is unknown, both must give her a divorce. And if they wish, one gives a divorce, and the other marries her. The ruling in this mishnah is straightforward: she is betrothed to who ever betrothed her first. Without the mishnah we might perhaps have thought that when the father sends an agent to betroth his daughter, and then he himself does that very same act, that he is in essence canceling the agent’s authority. Were that the case, then even if the agent’s betrothal came first, the daughter would be betrothed to the man the father betrothed her to. The mishnah teaches us that this is not so, and therefore whichever betrothal comes first is the betrothal that is valid. If it is unknown which came first, then they are both potentially married to her. Therefore, both of them must divorce her, or alternatively, one may divorce her and then the other can marry her.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
Similarly, if a woman gives permission to her agent to give her in betrothal, and she goes and betroths herself [to another]: if her own preceded, her betrothal is valid; if her agent’s preceded, his betrothal is valid. And if they do not know, both must give her a divorce. And if they wish, one gives a divorce and the other marries her. This halakhah is the same, but from the woman’s perspective. She sends out an agent to accept betrothal on her behalf and then she changes her mind and accepts betrothal from someone else. The ruling is the same as above.
