משנה: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ כְּאַחַת אֵינָן מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים וּבָהֶן שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת וְלִיקֵּט אֶחָד כַּלְכָּלָה שֶׁל תְּאֵינִים מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן הָֽיְתָה וְשֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית הָֽיְתָה וְאָמַר הֲרֵי כּוּלְּכֶם מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת לִי בְּכַלְכָּלָה זוֹ וְקִיבְּלָתָהּ אַחַת מֵהֶן עַל יְדֵי כוּלָּם וְאָֽמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין הָאֲחָיוֹת מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת. MISHNAH: If somebody preliminarily marries a woman and her daughter152Forbidden in Leviticus.18.17">Lev. 18:17. or two sisters153Forbidden in Leviticus.18.18">Lev. 18:18. simultaneously153Forbidden in Leviticus.18.18">Lev. 18:18., they are not preliminarily married154If the action was not simultaneous, the first marriage would be valid and the second meaningless because impossible.. It happened to five women, among them two sisters, that a man collected a bag of figs from their own property in the Sabbatical year and said: All of you are preliminarily married to me by this bag, and one of them accepted for all of them. Then the Sages said, the sisters are not preliminarily married156The invalidity of the act for the two sisters has no influence on the validity for the others. Naturally the woman who acts as recipient cannot be one of the sisters..
הלכה: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא. אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ חָמֵשׁ. אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ שֶׁחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים מִתְקַדְּשׁוֹת כְּאַחַת. שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מְקַבֶּלֶת קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ וְקִידּוּשֵׁי חֲבֵירָתָהּ. וּמְקַדְּשִׁין בִּגְזֵילָה. וּמְקַדְּשִׁין בְּפֵירוֹת עֲבֵירָה. וְאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּעֲרָיוֹת. HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries a woman and her daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one understands from this five rules: One understands that five women can be preliminarily married simultaneously. That a woman may receive her own wedding gift and that of her companion. And one may use the spoils of robbery for a preliminary marriage157Since the Mishnah stated that the figs were the property of the women being married. It also states that this happened in a Sabbatical year. Since the produce of a Sabbatical year is ownerless, the Mishnah seems to contradict itself. One will have to explain that the women collected the figs and acquired them by the act of collection. Then the man came and took them away from them. The Mishnah only implies that a woman may be preliminarily married by objects robbed from herself since by accepting marriage she forgives the robber. It does not imply that objects obtained by robbery can be used to marry an uninvolved woman.
The Kiddushin.52a">Babli, 52a, comes to an opposite conclusion. It assumes that the figs grew in the women’s orchard and were collected as ownerless produce by the man. Then the conclusion is that in any other year the marriage would have been invalid, even involving the owners of the robbed object.. And one may preliminarily marry using produce acquired by a prohibited act158Sabbatical produce can only be used to be eaten under the rules of the Sabbatical. Using such produce for an act of acquisition is illicit. Nevertheless, the act remains valid.. And preliminary marriage is impossible in incest situations.
אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. בָּאֲחָיוֹת לֹא קִידֵּשׁ וּבַחַטָּאוֹת כִּיפֵּר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. שָׁחַט שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְשֵׁם חֵטְא אֶחָד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בּוֹרֵר אֶת הָרָאוּי לוֹ. שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת בָּאֲכִילָה. שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי אֲשָׁמוֹת לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם אֶחָד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בּוֹרֵר אֶת הָרָאוּי לוֹ. שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין בָּאֲכִילָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שָׁחַט אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְאֶת הַשֵּׁינִי לִשְׁמוֹ כִּיפֵּר. שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר אֶלָּא מִכֹּחַ שְׁמוֹ הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו. אֲבָל שָׁחַט הָרִאשׁוֹן לִשְׁמוֹ וְהַשֵּׁינִי שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ. אִם כִּיפֵּר הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל מַה הַשֵּׁינִי בָא וּמְכַפֵּר. עַל טוּמְאָה שֶׁאִירְעָה בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה. וּבִפְסָחִים לֹא כִיפֵּר. שֶׁאֵין הַפֶּסַח בָּא אֶלָּא לָאֲכִילַת בָּשָׂר. וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי נָתָן. דְּרִבִּי נָתָן אָמַר. יוֹצְאִין בִּזְרִיקָה בְלֹא אֲכִילָה. Rebbi Eleazar said, sisters are not preliminarily married but in the case of purification sacrifices it atoned159If a person simultaneously slaughters two purification sacrifices for one transgression, he has fulfilled his obligation. (Meilah 1:2" href="/Mishnah_Meilah.1.2">Mishnah Me‘ilah 1:2 describes this situation: A person dedicated an animal as purification sacrifice. Then this animal was lost, another was dedicated as replacement, and then the first one was found before the second was sacrificed. Each of the animals becomes the replacement of the other.) This statement is nontrivial since as a general rule an animal dedicated as purification sacrifice but whose owner then used another animal for the same purpose can no longer be used for anything.. How is that? If one slaughtered two purification offerings for one transgression160Simultaneously., the altar selects that which is appropriate161Expression of Zevachim 9:1" href="/Mishnah_Zevachim.9.1">Mishnah Zebaḥim9:1. Since both sacrifices have equal standing, there is no reason to prefer one to the other. Only selected parts of the purification offering are given to the altar; the remainder of the meat has to be eaten by the priest (Leviticus.6.17-23">Lev. 6:17–23).; both are forbidden to be eaten162The priests are commanded to eat the meat of the animal which effects the purification. But in this case it is impossible to determine which animal effects the purification.. If one slaughtered two reparation offerings for one damage, the altar selects that which is appropriate; both are forbidden to be eaten163The rules of reparation sacrifices follow those of purification sacrifices; Leviticus.7.7">Lev. 7:7.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the first164This deals with a separate case, that the animals were slaughtered one after the other. one was slaughtered not for its purpose but the second for its purpose, it did atone since the first, which was not for its purpose, becomes acceptable only through the purpose stated later165Zevachim 1:1" href="/Mishnah_Zevachim.1.1">Mishnah Zebaḥim 1:1 states that both purification and Passover sacrifices which were slaughtered not for their stated purpose are invalid and cannot be offered to the altar. Normally, a purification offering which is invalidated at the time of slaughter is burned outside the Temple precinct and another sacrifice is required independent of the first. But if the second sacrifice is slaughtered correctly immediately after the first, when its flesh is still in the Temple precinct, then the correct slaughter of the second rehabilitates the first, both sacrifices have their selected parts offered on the altar, and both are forbidden as food to the priests.. But if the first was slaughtered for its purpose but the second not for its purpose: if the first atoned for what may the second atone? For impurity which occured between the first and the second166This answer makes more sense in Šebuot 1:4 (33b 1.4) where the relative merit of the purification sacrifices on New Year’s day are discussed, one required for the New Moon and one for the holiday. If one sacrifice purifies, what is the use of the second? To atone for impurities which might have occurred in the meantime. In the case discussed here, the second sacrifice is invalid and useless.. But for Passover sacrifices it did not atone167The Passover sacrifice does not atone. He holds that people who bring a Passover sacrifice which cannot be eaten did not fulfill their duty, Pesachim 7:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.7.4.1">Mishnah Pesaḥim7:4. since the Passover sacrifice is only for the meat to be eaten. This does not follow Rebbi Nathan since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills one’s duty by sprinkling [the blood] without eating168Pesachim 7:5:2-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.7.5.2-7">Pesahim 7:5 (34b 1. 45), Kiddushin.78b">Babli 78b..