Kiddushin 62: More About Double Formulations in Betrothal; Can One Betroth a Fetus?

The rabbis continue their conversation about conditional betrothals that include double formulations. One of these is the example of a man whose offers a condition regarding a woman not having dirtied herself by lying beneath a man.  If she has not done so, she is free.  And if she has been with a man, she should choke and die.  These results - choking and dying or being free - are based on proof texts where two words are very similar to each other, a gezeira shava.  

A new Mishna teaches us that a woman is betrothed even if her husband believed he was marrying a priest but she is a levite, or vice versa.  As long as this omission was not intentional, the betrothal holds.  However, if a man says that he will betroth a woman after something else has happened - for example, if you/I convert, if you/I are emancipated, after your husband or sister dies, when you are able to perform chalitza, or when another man's wife gives birth to a female - in all of these cases, there is no betrothal.

A betrothal requires that both the man and the woman becoming betrothed are able to perform the actions of betrothal.  If betrothal is impossible at that point in time, the betrothal cannot take place yet.  A person may or may not have the power to convene a court of three judges to convert him.  He cannot force a woman's husband to divorce her, either, and thus he cannot say "I am betrothed to you when you are divorced".  

The rabbis compare this with offering teruma from produce that is still attached to the ground.  Although such produce is not to be tithed, it can be tithed.  Why?  Because it can be cut from the ground at any time by its owner, the person who is giving the tithes.  Produce would have to have grown to at least one third of its height to be detached as tithes.  As well, produce that is still attached to the ground could be offered as tithes for detached produce.  

What about a fetus?  It both exists and does not yet exist.  The rabbis discuss this conundrum and come to a compromise.  If the fetus cannot be seen, or if a woman is not pregnant, there is no betrothal when a man says, "If your wife gives birth to a girl, I betroth her".  However, if the fetus shows - like the fodder of an irrigated field, which also exists and does not yet exist - then the betrothal is valid.  It is hard to imagine the trauma that could come about from a betrothal to a fetus still inside my body as my husband makes deals with a grown man.  The idea of selling a fetus, or potentially sexualizing a newborn (for of course the betrothal suggests a later wedding, but a wedding suggests sexual activity.  And in today's modern thought, newborns and promises of sexual relations in the future just seems wrong.

The last note of our daf teaches that an item which has not yet come into our world can be acquired, if not betrothed very early on.  We'll learn more about how this might come into play.