משנה: מִי שֶׁנָּתַן רְשׁוּת לִשְׁלוּחוֹ לְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ וְהָלַךְ הוּא וְקִידְּשָָׁהּ אִם שֶׁלּוֹ קָֽדְמוּ קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין וְאִם שֶׁלִּשְׁלוּחוֹ קָדַם קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ שְׁנֵיהֶן נוֹתְנִין גֵּט וְאִם רָצוּ אֶחָד נוֹתֵן גֵּט וְאֶחָד כּוֹנֵס. וְכֵן הַאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּֽתְנָה רְשׁוּת לִשְׁלוּחָהּ לְקַדְּשָׁהּ וְהָֽלְכָה וְקִידְּשָׁהּ אֶת עַצְמָהּ אִם שֶׁלָּהּ קָֽדְמוּ קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ קִידּוּשִׁין וְאִם שֶׁלִּשְׁלוּחָהּ קָדַם קִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ שְׁנֵיהֶן נוֹתְנִין גֵּט וְאִם רָצוּ אֶחָד נוֹתֵן גֵּט וְאֶחָד כּוֹנֵס. MISHNAH: If somebody empowered his agent to contract preliminary marriage for his daughter and then went himself and contracted for her, ifhe was first, his preliminary marriage is valid204Appointing an agent does not abolish the intrinsic right of a father to contract for his underage daughter’s marriage (to a different person)., but if his agent was first, that preliminary marriage is valid205If the father himself would marry his daughter successively to two different men, the second marriage would be nonexistent. The actions of father and agent can be considered as if all were actions of the father himself.. If precedence cannot be established, both give a bill of divorce or, if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and one marries definitively.
Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent to contract preliminary marriage for her and then went and contracted for herself, if she was first, her preliminary marriage is valid204Appointing an agent does not abolish the intrinsic right of a father to contract for his underage daughter’s marriage (to a different person)., but if her agent’s was first, that preliminary marriage is valid205If the father himself would marry his daughter successively to two different men, the second marriage would be nonexistent. The actions of father and agent can be considered as if all were actions of the father himself.. If precedence cannot be established, both give a bill of divorce or, if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and one marries definitively.
הלכה: וְכֵן הַאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּֽתְנָה רְשׁוּת כול׳. וְלֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אָדָם מְבַטֵּל שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ בִּדְבָרִים. פָּתַר לָהּ. מִשּׁוּם חוּמְרָא דַעֲרָיוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִִּי בּוּן שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן דְּבַתְרָה. וְכֵן הַאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּֽתְנָה רְשׁוּת לִשְׁלוּחָהּ לְקַדְּשָׁהּ וְהָֽלְכָה הִיא וְקִידְּשָׁהּ אֶת עַצְמָהּ. וְלֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אָדָם מְבַטֵּל שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ בִּדְבָרִים. פָּתַר לָהּ. מִשּׁוּם חוּמְרָא הוּא בָעֲרָיוֹת. HALAKHAH: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent,” etc. 219Since the argument is repeated for Mishnah 9, it is clear that the Halakhah refers both to Mishnah 8 and Mishnah 9. The statement of R. Joḥanan is in Gittin 4:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.4.1.2">Giṭṭin 4:1, see Kiddushin 4:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.4.1.1">Notes 2–3 there for explanation. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the latter part: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent to contract preliminary marriage for her and then went and contracted for herself.” Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest.