Kiddushin, Daf Heh, Part 1
Introduction
Today s sugya discusses how we know that a woman can be betrothed through a document.
ומנין שאף בשטר ודין הוא ומה כסף שאין מוציא מכניס שטר שמוציא אינו דין שמכניס
And from where do we know that [a woman may be acquired] by a document? This is derived through logic: if money, which does not take her out of marriage, brings her in; then a document, which does take her out, can surely bring her in.
The law that betrothal can be done through deed is derived from a kal vehomer from divorce. If a document works to divorce but money does not, then since money works for betrothal, all the more so a document should as well.
מה לכסף שכן פודין בו הקדש ומעשר שני תאמר שטר שאין פודין בו הקדש ומעשר שני דכתיב (ויקרא כז, יט) ונתן הכסף וקם לו
[No]. As for money, that is because one can use it to redeem sacred property and second tithe. Can you say the same for a deed, which cannot be used to redeem sacred property and second tithe, as it is written, And he will give the money and it will be assured to him (Leviticus 27:19).
The Talmud now refutes the argument. Money can be used for betrothal because it can also be used to redeem sacred property and second tithe (the money becomes holy and the things become not-holy). But documents cannot be used to redeem sacred things and therefore there is no reason to assume that documents may be used to betroth a woman.
אמר קרא (דברים כד, ב) ויצאה והיתה מקיש הויה ליציאה מה יציאה בשטר אף הויה נמי בשטר
Therefore the verse says, And she goes out [of his house] and then she becomes [another man’s wife] (Deuteronomy 24:2): the verse compares her becoming [betrothal] with her going out [divorce]; just as the going out is by deed, so is becoming is by deed.
Having rejected logic as a source, the Talmud now brings in a verse to prove that she can be betrothed through a document. The verse compares being married with being divorced just as she is divorced through a document, so too she is betrothed through a document.
ואקיש נמי יציאה להויה מה הויה בכסף אף יציאה בכסף
אמר אביי יאמרו כסף מכניס כסף מוציא סניגור יעשה קטיגור
Then let him also compare going out with becoming : just as becoming may be performed with money, so going out may be effected by money?
Abaye said: Then they will say: Money brings in [a wife] and money sends out [a wife]. Shall the defender become the prosecutor!
If we re going to compare means of divorce with means of betrothal, then why not say that just as she can be betrothed through money, so too she can be divorced through money. Abaye responds that were this to be so, then the defender money used for betrothal would become the prosecutor money used for divorce.
אי הכי שטר נמי יאמרו שטר מוציא שטר מכניס קטיגור יעשה סניגור
מילי דהאי שטרא לחוד ומילי דהאי שטרא לחוד
הכא נמי האי כספא לחוד והאי כספא לחוד טיבעא מיהא חד הוא
If so, with regard to a document as well: Document sends out and a document brings in: shall the prosecutor become the defender!
The contents of each document are different.
So too, this money is different from that money!
Nevertheless, the stamp [on the coin] is the same.
The next difficulty is obvious if the defender cannot become the prosecutor then how can the prosecutor (document) also become the defender a document used for betrothal.
The resolution is that the documents are different, whereas all coins are the same. So the fact that a document can be used for both betrothal and divorce is not a problem of the prosecutor becoming the defender. But money is all the same, so it would be a problem.
רבא אמר אמר קרא (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה בכתיבה מתגרשת ואינה מתגרשת בכסף
Rava said: The verse says, Then he shall write her [a writ of divorce] (Deuteronomy 24:1): She can be divorced by writing, not by money.
Rava cites a midrash to prove that she cannot be divorced through money the Torah says that the husband writes her a divorce. He does not give her money.
ואימא בכתיבה מתגרשת ואינה מתקדשת בכתיבה הא כתיב (דברים כד, ב) ויצאה והיתה מקיש וכו’
But why not say she can be divorced by writing but not betrothed by writing?
It is written, and she goes out and she becomes comparing [divorce with betrothal].
Why not read the verse another way as if it says that she is divorced through money but not betrothed.
The resolution is the same comparison just as she can be divorced through a document, so too she can be betrothed.
ומה ראית מסתברא קאי בגירושין ממעט גירושין קאי בגירושין וממעט קידושין
And why do you choose to read this way? It is logical: when discussing divorce, the Torah excludes [a particular method of] divorce; but when discussing divorce, would it exclude [a form of] marriage?
We could have read the verses in another way. The verse that juxtaposes divorce and marriage would teach that just as she can be betrothed through money so too she can be divorced. Then the verse about divorce would teach that she cannot be betrothed by document.
The Talmud resolves this by saying that a verse that is talking about divorce must be excluding a means of divorce, not a means of marriage. So that verse must mean that she can be divorced by document and not by money. And then the comparison verse must teach that just as she can be divorced through money so too she can be betrothed through money.