Kiddushin, Daf Ayin Tet, Part 2

 

Introduction

The Talmud begins by asking why we needed both sections of the mishnah the first where the father sends an agent to betroth her daughter (to a third party) and the second where the woman sends an agent to accept betrothal on her behalf. The ruling is the same in each case, so why do we need both.

 

גמ׳ .וצריכא דאי אשמעינן גבי דידיה משום דגברא קים ליה ביוחסין אבל איתתא דלא קים לה ביוחסין אימא לא ניהוו קידושיה קידושין

 

And [both] are necessary. For if it had taught us this of him [the father], that is because a man is well-informed in matters of lineage; but as for a woman, who is not well-informed in matters of lineage, I might say that her kiddushin is invalid.

 

If we had only had the first line of the mishnah, I might have said that if the father betroths her to someone else before the agent does, the betrothal is valid because we can assume that the father found someone for her of better lineage. Men know more about the lineage than do women (this is what we might have thought, but it s wrong). So we might have thought that if the woman sends an agent and then accepts kiddushin from someone else, the kiddushin she accepted is not valid because her agent would have, assumedly, married her to someone with better lineage.

 

ואי אשמעינן גבי דידה משום דאיתתא דייקא ומינסבא אבל איהו אימא לא איכפת ליה צריכא

 

And if we were told this of her, that is because a woman carefully investigates and [then] marries; but as for him [her father], I might argue that he does not care. Thus they are necessary.

 

If we only had the second clause, we might have thought that since she has more at stake in the marriage than others, she would not marry unless it was a good match. So the kiddushin she accepts is valid. But her father would not check so carefully so the kiddushin he accepts on her behalf is not valid. Therefore, the mishnah teaches us that in both cases, whichever kiddushin comes first is valid.

 

איתמר קידשה אביה בדרך וקידשה עצמה בעיר והרי היא בוגרת רב אמר הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו ושמואל אמר חיישינן לקידושי שניהם

 

It was stated: If her father gives her in betrothal on the road, and she betroths herself in the town [to another], and she is now a bogeret: Rav said: Behold, we have a bogeret in front of us!

Shmuel said: We are concerned about both kiddushin.

 

A father cannot marry off his bogeret daughter, a girl who is older than 12 and has reached puberty. In this case, Rav says that since she is a bogeret, we are not concerned about the kiddushin her father accepted. Shmuel rules that we must be concerned about both sets of kiddushin. This would mean she would need a divorce from both men.

 

אימת אילימא בתוך ששה בהא נימא רב הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו השתא הוא דבגרה אלא לאחר ששה בהא נימא שמואל חיישינן לקידושי שניהם והא אמר שמואל אין בין נערות לבגרות אלא ששה חדשים בלבד

 

When [did the betrothals take place]? If we say, within the six [months], in this case could Rav say, Behold, we have a bogeret in front of us surely she has only now become a bogeret! But if after six months, in this case could Rav say, We are concerned about both kiddushin, surely Shmuel said: Between a na’arah and bogeret there is only six months!

 

The Talmud struggles to figure out when this doubt arose. If it arose during the six months between when a girl becomes a na arah (first signs of puberty) and when she becomes a bogeret six months later, in such a case, how could Rav say she is a bogeret. But if it is after six months, then she s a bogeret. Why would Shmuel say we are concerned about her father s kiddushin?

 

לא צריכא דקדיש בההוא יומא דמשלים ששה רב אמר הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו מדהשתא בוגרת בצפרא נמי בוגרת ושמואל אמר השתא הוא דאייתי סימנים

 

It is only necessary if the betrothals took place on the day that completed the six [months]: Rav said: Behold, we have a bogeret in front of us, since she is now a bogeret, [we assume] she was a bogeret in the morning too. But Shmuel, she may have brought the signs of being a bogeret just now.

 

The Talmud limits the dispute to a case where the father betrothed her on the morning of the day that six months was completed but she betrothed herself later that day. Since in the evening we can see that she is a bogeret (which according to this sugya is accompanied by additional physical signs), Rav assumes that she was already a bogeret in the morning. Shmuel does not make this assumption.