Study Kiddushin folio 51B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 Talmud comments: If so, the first clause of the Mishnah is difficult for Rava,
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 sist
The Talmud continues Abaye’s explanation: And if he explicitly said: The one of you fit for sex shall be betrothed to me, neither of them is betrothed, as he cannot have sex with either, not knowing which of them is his betrothed and which is his betrothed’s relative. And an incident also occurred
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 the
The Talmud suggests: Come and hear a proof from a Mishnah (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 be