Kiddushin, Daf Daled, Part 1

 

Introduction

In yesterday s section, Exodus 21:11 was used as the basis for kiddushin being performed with money. Today s section notes that this verse was used for another purpose. This is a consistent question asked by the stam hatalmud the anonymous voice of the Talmud. While tannaim did not seem to have any problem learning two laws or more from one verse, the late Babylonian rabbis who composed the Talmud did.

 

והאי (שמות כא, יא) ויצאה חנם להכי הוא דאתא הא מבעי ליה לכדתניא דתניא ויצאה חנם אלו ימי בגרות אין כסף אלו ימי נערות

 

Now, this verse and she goes out for nothing , does it come to teach this? Surely it is needed for what was taught, And she goes out for nothing this refers to the days of bagrut [when she reaches majority age]; without money to the days of na arut!

 

This other midrash is more directly related to the verses of the Torah. The Torah specifies that a girl bought as a slave at a young age goes out if the master does not do certain things on her behalf (like marry her, or marry her off to his son). But there would seem to be the need for a time-limit. The rabbis invent such a time limit, and apply it here and elsewhere. A ketanah is a girl under 12. A girl between 12 and 12 is called a na arah and after that she becomes a bogeret. This midrash teaches that if the master has not done these things before she hits 12, she goes out free and need not pay any money for her manumission.

 

אמר רבינא אם כן לימא קרא אן כסף מאי אין כסף אין כסף לאדון זה אבל יש כסף לאדון אחר ומאן ניהו אב

 

Ravina said: If so, Scripture should have written, en kesef [without money] ; what does ey kesef mean? There is no money for this master, but there is money for another. And who is he? The father.

 

Ravina reads meaning into the letter yod found in the word eyn. The appearance of the letter yod allows two halakhot to be learned from this verse. This is of course an unusual derashah to say the least. Tannaim do not derive meaning from verses in this way. Even among late amoraim, which Ravina is, this is a strange derashah, which the Talmud will immediately notice.

 

וממאי דדרשינן הכי דתניא (ויקרא כב, יג) וזרע אין לה אין לי אלא זרעה זרע זרעה מנין ת"ל זרע אין לה עיין לה ואין לי אלא זרע כשר זרע פסול מנין ת"ל זרע אין לה עיין לה

 

And how do you know that we may derive from verses in this way? Because it was taught: [If a priest’s daughter is married to a non-priest, she may not eat of the sacred gifts. But if the priest’s daughter is a widow, or divorced,] and has no [eyn] child [. . . she may eat of her father’s food] (Leviticus 22:13). I only know [that] her own child [disqualifies her]; from where do I know [that she is disqualified] by her child’s child? From the verse: and has no [eyn] child , examine (ayen) her. Again, I only know [that] legitimate seed [disqualifies her]: from where do I know that illegitimate seed does as well? From the verse, and has no [eyn] child : examine her.

 

The midrash here teaches that if a daughter of a priest who is married to a non-priest and then the non-priest died had any offspring, even grandchildren or illegitimate offspring (such as mamzerim) she no longer may eat priestly food such as terumah. The midrash uses the letter yod in eyn as if the word was written ayen which means to search. Her lineage must be examined to see if she has any offspring. The reason this midrash is cited is to prove that derashot (rabbinic exegesis) may be based on the letter yod.

 

והא אפיקתיה לזרע זרעה זרע זרעה לא איצטריך קרא דבני בנים הרי הן כבנים כי איצטריך קרא לזרע פסול

 

But you have used this [derashah] for her child’s child? For her child’s child no verse is required, because grand-children are as children; the verse was required only for illegitimate offspring.

 

This very derashah undermines what the Talmud perceives to be a rule of exegesis no word may be interpreted twice. The word eyn was used to derive that both grandchildren and illegitimate offspring disqualify her from eating terumah. To resolve the difficulty, the Talmud says that the first derashah, concerning grandchildren, was not needed. Grandchildren are treated like children (usually treated much better than children, I might add). The derashah was needed to teach that illegitimate children also prevent her from eating terumah.

 

ותנא גופיה מנליה דדריש הכי אמרי כתיב (במדבר כב, יד) מאן בלעם (דברים כה, ז) ומאן יבמי דלא כתיב בהו יו"ד והכא כתיב ביה יו"ד ש"מ לדרשא הוא דאתא

 

 

Now, how does the tanna himself know that such exegesis is permissible? I can say to you It is written: Baalam refused (Deuteronomy 25:7), and my husband’s brother refused [me’en] neither of which contain a yod, whereas here [in the verses under discussion] a yod is written: Learn from this that it comes to make a derashah.

 

The Talmud now shows that sometimes the Torah writes words that have an ey sound without the letter you. The word me eyn does not have a yod, but eyn does. This, to the tanna, legitimates making exegetical conclusions from what it perceives to be an extraneous letter.

I should note that such derashot are never made in tannaitic literature. Tannaitic exegesis is based on units that have independent meaning, words, phrases, etc. Not on single letters such as this. This type of hyper-exegesis is found in the later stages of the Talmud. This is an issue that I will address in a forthcoming third volume of Reconstructing the Talmud.