Siman 41

A man may betroth several women at once, provided that there is a perutah's value for each and every one, and he says to them, "Behold you are all betrothed to me with this money," or he specifies them by their names. One of them can receive the kiddushin on behalf of all of them when they agree, and she is considered like their agent for the receipt of the kiddushin, for a woman may become an agent for her fellow even in a situation where she becomes her rival wife, as written in siman 36, section 11; see there for further details of the laws regarding this. And it appears to me that with kiddushin of a shetar, he cannot betroth two with one shetar, for just as two women are not divorced with one get, as it is written "and he shall write for her" and not "for her and her fellow" as written in siman 130, and kiddushin of a shetar is similar to a get as written in siman 32. Therefore, if he wishes to betroth them with one shetar, he must write as will be explained there regarding a get, and one must deliberate on this for a practical ruling [it appears to me].

We hold that kiddushin that cannot lead to intercourse are valid kiddushin. The explanation of the matter is: for example, if one betrothed one of two sisters, or one of a woman and her daughter, or other arayot, and said, "one of you is betrothed to me," even though he cannot come upon either of them since perhaps she is an ervah to him—as perhaps at the time of the kiddushin he intended the second one, and he is not believed to say "I intended this one"—nevertheless, the kiddushin take effect. Both of them require a get and are forbidden to him forever, for perhaps she is the sister of his divorcee, and the law of arayot applies to both of them in every respect. Similarly, when he said to a father, "one of your daughters is betrothed to me," and the father accepted the kiddushin; and similarly, if two or three sisters or other arayot, one of them made her fellow an agent to receive her kiddushin, and he gave it into her hand and said to her, "one of you is betrothed to me"—all of them require a get and it is forbidden to come upon them. Or if two sisters were standing and he gave a perutah to this one and a perutah to that one and said, "one of you is betrothed to me," it is also so. However, if two sisters stood and he gave a perutah to one and said, "one of you is betrothed to me," it appears that the one who received the perutah is the one who is betrothed, for regarding the other there is no concern since he gave her nothing and she also did not make her an agent to receive kiddushin.

And there is a doubt if one said to a father, "One of your daughters is betrothed to me," and one of them was forbidden to him by a negative commandment—for example, she was divorced from erusin while still in her father's domain and he is a kohen—do we say he certainly intended for the permitted one and not for the forbidden one, or since kiddushin take effect with her, it is also a case of not being fit for intercourse? And it appears that this is so, for since he did not specify the second one by her name, perhaps his intention was for the divorcee, for if not so, why did he not specify her by her name?

And even though kiddushin that cannot lead to intercourse are kiddushin, nevertheless, if he betrothed both of them, such as two sisters or a woman and her daughter and other forbidden relations, and said "Behold both of you are betrothed to me" – they are not kiddushin and neither one of them requires a get. The reason is that just as if he had betrothed one of them and afterwards betrothed the second, the kiddushin would not take effect upon her, so too when he betrothed them as one. It is a great principle: anything that cannot be done one after the other, even simultaneously it cannot be done [see Tosafot Eruvin 49b, s.v. "mai ta'ama"]. And the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah wrote the reason is because it is written: "And a woman to her sister you shall not take to be a rival" (Leviticus 18:18); the Torah said that at the time they become rivals to one another, you shall have no taking of marriage even with one of them. And all forbidden relations we learn from a wife's sister. And even though perforce the verse is not speaking of this, for in the verse karet is written, and this only applies when he betrothed one of them first and afterwards had relations with her sister, yet you automatically hear from it that since the Torah said that with a wife's sister kiddushin do not take effect, if so, when he betrothed both of them as one, kiddushin do not take effect even in one. For if the kiddushin were to take effect in this one and not in that one, what did you see [to prefer one over the other] since he betrothed both? And that the kiddushin should take effect in both is impossible, for each one is his wife's sister, and perforce in both of them they do not take effect [as mentioned above to resolve the words of the Rambam and the Bartenura; and the Gemara 50a which rejects this reason means that it is impossible to say that the verse is speaking of this literally, but rather that you automatically hear from it, and it resolves it like Rava, meaning that just as Rava said "anything that cannot be etc.," so too here it is necessary to say so from the verse "to be a rival" as I wrote, and even if he does not hold like Rava in general, he was forced to this because of the difficulty raised by Tosafot in Eruvin there].

If one betrothed many women at once, and among them were two sisters or a woman and her daughter, and all the women made one of them an agent to receive the kiddushin on their behalf: if he said, "Those among you who are fit for intimacy are betrothed to me" – behold, all of them are betrothed to him with complete kiddushin except for the two sisters or the woman and her daughter, for he explicitly excluded them since he said "those who are fit for intimacy," and they are not fit even if he betrothed only one of them and did not specify which one she is. And if he said, "One of you all who is fit for intimacy is betrothed to me" – each one is betrothed out of doubt, for perhaps he intended her. And the two sisters do not require a get even though he betrothed "one of all of them"; it is no worse than one who betrothed one of two sisters, nevertheless, here where he said "who is fit for intimacy," his intention is proven that he came to exclude them, for if he intended one of them, behold she is not fit for intimacy [as above in the intention of the Derishah]. And there are those who say that in such a case even the sisters require a get, and this is like kiddushin that are not handed over for intimacy since he said "one of you" [Bach in the Kuntres Acharon]. And the mind inclines more toward the first opinion for the reason we explained; nevertheless, in practice, one should be stringent regarding kiddushin. And if there were among the women those liable for negative commandments and he said "who is fit for intimacy," there is reason to doubt if they too are included since kiddushin takes effect with them, or perhaps they are not called "fit for intimacy." And a niddah – she is certainly called "fit for intimacy" after she becomes pure [Makneh].

And if he said, "All of you are betrothed to me"—according to the opinion of several of the poskim, the unrelated women are betrothed and the sisters are not betrothed. This is like that which we establish in Choshen Mishpat siman 210 regarding "acquire you and a donkey," where even though the donkey is not a legal subject for acquisition, nevertheless the man acquires half of it; and here too, even though it is impossible for the sisters to be betrothed together and the kiddushin do not take effect regarding them, nevertheless the kiddushin take hold regarding the unrelated women. However, the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 9 and several of the poskim is that the kiddushin do not take effect for any of them, and it is not similar to "acquire you and a donkey" because those are two separate utterances, but since he said "all of you" and included them all in one utterance, it is impossible to fulfill half an utterance. And according to this, if he said, "The sisters and the unrelated women are betrothed to me"—the unrelated women are betrothed. However, there is yet another distinction between this law and "you and a donkey," for there they are two separate acquirers, he and the donkey, and there is no reason to say that since the donkey did not acquire, he also did not acquire; but here the husband is a single acquirer and he only desired to acquire all of them, and if not all of them, he does not desire even some of them [this is the intent of the Ran and the Maggid Mishneh, and the difficulty of the Lechem Mishneh is well-settled]. According to this, even if he separated them into two utterances they are not betrothed according to this opinion. And why do we not follow the intent of the seller in "acquire you and a donkey"? Because regarding this acquirer, the intent of the seller is indeed fulfilled, for he only intended to transfer ownership of half to him.

And since there is a dispute among the poskim regarding this, therefore the strangers are betrothed out of doubt, whether he included them all with the expression "all of you" or whether he said "strangers and sisters." And if he said "one of all of you is betrothed to me" – all of them are betrothed out of doubt, both the strangers and the sisters. And if he said "all of you and one of the sisters of the strangers" – they are betrothed with certainty, and both sisters require a get [Beit Shmuel], and this is not comparable to "acquire you and a donkey," for if they knew which of the sisters he betrothed, it would have been a complete betrothal for her as well, and now, due to the lack of knowledge of which one, both require a get out of doubt; but the strangers are betrothed with certainty.

And such is the law if there was among the women a maidservant or a gentile woman whom he betrothed, or one who is forbidden to him as an ervah, such as a married woman or his daughter or his sister and those similar to them, and he said, "The one among you who is fit for cohabitation is betrothed to me" – the remaining women are betrothed. And if he said, "All of you are betrothed to me" – the remaining women are betrothed out of doubt, according to the reasons that have been explained. [See Avnei Miluim, subsection 2, who cited from the Ritva regarding kiddushin that are not delivered for cohabitation; it requires further study, for if we say there is bereirah, it is kiddushin delivered from the outset, see there. And he labored much in this, and according to what I wrote in section 2, this has no relevance at all to bereirah, for we do not believe him, and perhaps at the time of the act he intended for the other. And it appears to me that this is the intention of the Tosafot Rid whom the Avnei Miluim cited, and he questioned him unnecessarily from bereirah, see there and examine carefully].