Kiddushin, Daf Gimmel, Part 6

 

Introduction

Yesterday s section concluded by positing that the biblical source for the idea that a father receives the betrothal money of his na arah (between 12 and 12.5) daughter is the verse in Numbers 30 according to which all of the financial advantages accrued to a young girl go to her father. In today s section the same law is learned from another verse, raising the question of which verse is the actual source.

 

ואלא הא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מנין שמעשה הבת לאב שנאמר (שמות כא, ז) וכי ימכור איש את בתו לאמה מה אמה מעשה ידיה לרבה אף בת נמי מעשה ידיה לאביה תיפוק ליה מבנעוריה בית אביה

 

But what about that which R. Huna said in the name of Rav: From where do we know that a daughter s handiwork belongs to her father? As it is said, And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant (Exodus 21:7): just as the handiwork of a maidservant belongs to her master so does the handiwork of a daughter belong to her father.

Now why do I need this verse, deduce it from Being in her youth in her father’s house ?

 

The work that a daughter produces, her earnings, belongs to her father. Rav deduces this from the fact that a man may sell his daughter to be a maidservant. But if the verse from Numbers teaches that all of the financial advantages of a daughter go to her husband, why does Rav need to prove that a daughter s handiwork goes to her father from that verse?

 

אלא בהפרת נדרים הוא דכתיב ה"נ בהפרת נדרים הוא דכתיב וכ"ת נילף מיניה ממונא מאיסורא לא ילפינן

 

Rather, that verse was written in connection only with the annulment of vows, [here too it was written in connection with vows].

And should you suggest that we might infer this from it, monetary matters cannot be inferred from ritual matters.

 

The Talmud now admits that the verse from Numbers does not have broader implications. It refers only to the annulment of vows and not to a father s right to his daughter s betrothal money. And should we suggest that just as a father has a right to annul his daughter s vows, so too he has right to his daughter s betrothal money, this must be rejected for one cannot derive laws regarding monetary matters from the laws of vows.

וכ"ת נילף מקנסא, ממונא מקנסא לא ילפינן!

 

 

And should you suggest that we might infer it from [the laws of] fines, monetary payments cannot be inferred from fines.

 

The Talmud suggests that we derive the fact that the father receives the betrothal money from the fact, learned earlier in Ketubot, that he receives any fines owed to her, such as those for rape and seduction. However, the laws of fines differ from the laws of monetary payments and therefore there is a rule that the latter cannot be derived from the former.

 

וכ"ת נילף מבושת ופגם, שאני בושת ופגם, דאביה נמי שייך בגוייהו!

 

And should you suggest that it might be inferred from [the laws of compensation for] shame and blemish, shame and blemish are different, since the father is also involved in it?

 

If a na arah is raped/seduced the payments for the shame and blemish go to her father (we learned this earlier in Ketubot). But this cannot be a source for the father s receiving the betrothal money because there is a difference with shame and blemish. The meaning of since the father is involved is not entirely clear. I believe that the words could mean that when she is shamed or blemished, the father also suffers. In any case, we still have no source for how we know that the father receives the betrothal money.

אלא מסתברא, דכי ממעט רחמנא – יציאה דכוותה קא ממעט.

 

Rather, it is logical that when the Torah excluded [one going out ] it excluded a going out that was similar.

 

The resolution of how we know that the father receives the money goes back to the original source the fact that when the daughter sold into slavery goes free, the master does not receive a payment. Had there been a payment, the master would have received it. Thus, logically, in the case of betrothal, where there is a payment, the money goes to the father, who is akin to the master.

 

והא לא דמיא האי יציאה להאי יציאה התם נפקא לה מרשות אדון לגמרי והכא אכתי מיחסרא מסירה לחופה

But this going out, is not like that of the other: For in the case of the master [the maidservant] goes entirely out of his control while in the going out from the control of her father she still needs to be brought into the huppah?

 

The problem is that the comparison between the two going outs is not precise. When the maidservant goes free, she becomes completely free. Her master retains no control. But betrothal is only a partial transfer of authority. Her father still retains some authority over her and will continue to do so until she enters the huppah. So how can the two be compared?

 

בהפרת נדרים מיהא נפקא לה מרשותיה דתנן נערה המאורסה אביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה

 

In respect of the annulment of vows, at any rate, she goes out of his control; for we have learned: In the case of a betrothed na arah, the father and her husband jointly annul her vows.

 

The answer is that in one respect, even though still living in her father s house, the father has lost control over her at betrothal he no longer has the right to unilaterally annul her vows. Once betrothed, the father and husband jointly annul her vows.