Rather, is it not referring to a case where he said to them: One of you is betrothed, and it teaches that the sisters are not betrothed, because with regard to the sisters the betrothal is not given to consummation? The Gemara comments: If so, the first clause of the mishna is difficult for Rava, while the last clause is difficult for Abaye. The Gemara presents a resolution: Abaye explains the last clause according to his line of reasoning, and Rava explains the first clause according to his line of reasoning.

Abaye explains it according to his line of reasoning, as follows: In the case of one who betroths a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister in one act of betrothal neither of them is betrothed. But if he betrothed one of a pair consisting of a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister by saying: One of you is betrothed to me, each of them is betrothed as a matter of uncertainty and requires a bill of divorce, despite the fact that the betrothal is not given to consummation, in case he is in fact betrothed to the other one.

The Gemara continues Abaye’s explanation: And if he explicitly said: The one of you fit for sexual intercourse shall be betrothed to me, neither of them is betrothed, as he cannot engage in intercourse with either, not knowing which of them is his betrothed and which is his betrothed’s relative. And an incident also occurred involving five women, and among them were two sisters. And one man gathered a basket of figs and said: The one among you fit for intercourse with me shall be betrothed to me with this basket, and the Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed.

And Rava explains according to his line of reasoning: In the case of one who betroths one of a pair consisting of a woman and her daughter or one of a pair consisting of a woman and her sister it becomes as one who simultaneously betrothed a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister, and they are not betrothed, since betrothal that is not given to consummation is not considered betrothal. And an incident also occurred involving five women, and among them were two sisters. And one man gathered a basket of figs and said: All of you, and one of the two sisters, are hereby betrothed to me with this basket. And the Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed. Since the mishna can be read in either of these two ways, nothing can be proven from it with regard to the issue of betrothal that is not given to consummation.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (64b): In the case of one who betroths his daughter to a man without specification, i.e., without specifying which daughter he meant, the grown women are not included among those who might be betrothed, since he does not have the right to betroth them. The Gemara analyzes this: One can infer that the minor daughters are included, and each is betrothed as a matter of uncertainty. But why are the minor daughters betrothed? Each of these betrothals is a betrothal that is not given to consummation, since he did not specify which of his minor daughters he had in mind. Therefore, according to Rava betrothal should not take effect with regard to any of them, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you: With what are we dealing here? It is when there is only one adult daughter and one minor daughter. Consequently, once the adult daughter is removed from consideration, it is clear that the father has betrothed the minor daughter, and the betrothal is given to consummation.

The Gemara questions this explanation: But that mishna teaches: Grown women, in the plural. The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of grown women? Grown women in general. In other words, whenever people betroth their daughters without further specification, only the minor daughters, and not the adult daughters, are included. The Gemara asks: If so, that there are only two daughters, what is the purpose of stating this; what novel halakha does it teach?

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a situation where his adult daughter designated him as her agent to betroth her. Lest you say that when he accepts betrothal from someone on behalf of his daughter without further specification he accepts it with her in mind, and he intended to betroth her rather than his minor daughter, the mishna therefore teaches us that a person does not set aside something from which he has benefit, e.g., the betrothal of his minor daughter, where he keeps the betrothal money, in favor of something from which he has no benefit, e.g., the betrothal of his adult daughter, where she keeps the betrothal money.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Aren’t we also dealing with a case where the adult daughter said to him: When you betroth me, my betrothal money is for you? Accordingly, he derives benefit from her betrothal as well. The Gemara explains: Even so, the father would not have intended to betroth his adult daughter, since a person does not set aside a mitzva that is incumbent upon him, e.g., the betrothal of his minor daughter, and perform a mitzva that is not incumbent upon him, e.g., the betrothal of his adult daughter.

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (64b): With regard to one who has two groups of daughters from two women, e.g., he has multiple daughters from his first wife, and after his first wife died he remarried and had multiple daughters with his second wife, and he said: I betrothed my elder daughter to someone, but I do not know if it was the eldest of the older group of daughters or if it was the eldest of the younger group of daughters, or if it was the youngest of the older group, who is nevertheless older than the eldest of the younger group; all the daughters are prohibited from marrying someone else without first receiving a bill of divorce, except for the youngest of the younger group, who is certainly not betrothed. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. This betrothal is not given to consummation, since each daughter could be the sister of his actual betrothed, and yet the betrothal is considered valid, as otherwise they would all be permitted to marry without requiring a bill of divorce.

The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? It is a situation where they were identified and later intermingled. In other words, this mishna is not dealing with one who betrothed a daughter without specifying which one; rather, he initially stated which daughter he intended to betroth but subsequently forgot. The actual betrothal is given to consummation, so the daughters are betrothed due to the uncertainty. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches that he said: I do not know, in the first person and in the present tense, indicating that he did know who it was at one point but does not know now, and it does not teach that he said: It is not known. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the language of the mishna that we are indeed dealing with a case where the daughters were intermingled after they were identified.

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this; what novel halakha does it teach? The Gemara answers: The mishna serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: A person does not place himself into a situation of uncertainty, and when he said elder daughter he must have meant the eldest of the older group, who is the absolute eldest. Rabbi Meir teaches us that a person does place himself into a situation of uncertainty, and the uncertainty applies to each of his daughters, except for the youngest of the younger group.

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Yevamot 23b): In the case of one who betrothed one of two sisters and he does not know which one he betrothed, he must give a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one, due to the uncertainty. This betrothal is not given to consummation, so why do they require bills of divorce? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is when they were identified and later intermingled. The actual betrothal was given to consummation, so the sisters are betrothed due to the uncertainty. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches the phrase: He does not know, indicating that he did know who it was at one point but now does not know, and it does not teach the phrase: It is not known.

The Gemara poses a question: If so, what is the purpose of stating this; what novel halakha does it teach? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the latter clause of that mishna: If this man died and he had one brother, the brother performs ḥalitza with both of the sisters, but he cannot perform levirate marriage with either because one of them is the sister of his yevama, who is forbidden to him by rabbinic law. If he had two brothers, one of them performs ḥalitza with one of the sisters but may not take her in levirate marriage, due to the possibility that she is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. And then one takes the other in levirate marriage if he so desires. If both brothers married the sisters before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from their marriage and they are permitted to remain married. Although the first couple should have performed ḥalitza, the court does not force them to divorce.

The Gemara explains the novelty of the latter clause: This is effective specifically if one brother first performs ḥalitza and afterward the second brother performs levirate marriage, but if one brother first performs levirate marriage and afterward the other brother performs ḥalitza, the levirate marriage would not take effect, as he is possibly encountering the sister of the woman bound to him by ties of levirate marriage. Until the yevama is released through ḥalitza, her sister is considered, to a certain extent, the sister of his wife, due to the ties of levirate marriage. The one who performs levirate marriage might have chosen the sister of the woman betrothed by the dead brother.

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of that mishna: In the case of two unrelated men who betrothed two sisters, where this one does not know which sister he betrothed and that one does not know which sister he betrothed, this one gives two bills of divorce, one to each of the women, and that one gives two bills of divorce. Their betrothal is not given to consummation, so according to Rava why do they require a bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: Here too, it is discussing a case where they were identified and later intermingled. The actual betrothal was given to consummation, so the sisters are betrothed due to the uncertainty. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches using the phrase: Does not know, indicating that at one point he did know who it was but now does not know, and it does not teach: It is not known. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that we are indeed dealing with a case where the sisters were identified and later intermingled.

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this; what novel halakha does it teach? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the latter clause of that mishna: If each man died before he divorced, and this one had a brother and that one had a brother, then this brother performs ḥalitza with both of them, and that brother performs ḥalitza with both of them. Neither man may perform levirate marriage, lest he perform levirate marriage with the sister of his yevama. If this one had one brother and that one had two brothers,