Kiddushin, Daf Mem Daled, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s section opens with a difficulty on Resh Lakish who holds that a na arah (girl age 12-12.5) can accept her own kiddushin.

 

תנן האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה בו ובשלוחו בו ובשלוחו אין בה ובשלוחה לא תיובתא דר"ל

 

We learned: A man may give his daughter in betrothal when she is a na’arah, himself or through his agent: himself or through his agent, yes, but not through herself or her agent. This refutes Resh Lakish.

 

The mishnah implies that when the girl is a na arah her father or his agent can marry her off, but she cannot accept her own kiddushin. Thus it contradicts Resh Lakish.

 

אמר לך ר"ל הא נמי רבי יהודה היא

 

Resh Lakish could say to you: This too is in accordance with R. Judah.

 

Again, Resh Lakish can deflect difficulties by ascribing them to R. Judah, who holds that only one person, the father, can accept her divorce and by extension, her kiddushin.

 

ומי מצית מוקמת לה כרבי יהודה והקתני סיפא האומר לאשה התקדשי לי בתמרה זו התקדשי לי בזו ואמרינן מאן תנא התקדשי התקדשי ואמר רבה ר"ש היא דאמר עד שיאמר שבועה לכל אחד ואחד

 

Can you really interpret this as R. Judah s [ruling]? But the second clause teaches: If one says to a woman, Be betrothed to me with this date, be betrothed to me with this one etc.

And we said: Which tanna teaches, Be betrothed, be betrothed? And Rabbah replied: It is R. Shimon, who maintained: Unless he declared to each separately, [I take] an oath.

 

The problem with ascribing the first clause of our mishnah to R. Judah is that the second clause is ascribed to R. Shimon. In this clause, a man says to a woman be betrothed to me with this date and be betrothed to me with this date. She is betrothed only if one of the dates is worth a perutah, the minimum measure for kiddushin. Had he said be betrothed only once, we could have added up the value of all the dates. Rabbah identifies this position with R. Shimon who holds that when one takes a false oath to multiple people he is liable for each false oath only if he reiterates the word oath.

 

וכי תימא כולה ר’ יהודה ובפרטי סבר לה כר"ש ומי סבר לה והתניא זה הכלל כלל אינו חייב אלא אחת פרט חייב על כל אחת ואחת דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר שבועה לא לך לא לך לא לך חייב על כל אחת ואחת רא"א לא לך לא לך לא לך ולא לך שבועה חייב על כל אחת ואחת ר’ שמעון אומר לעולם אינו חייב עד שיאמר שבועה לכל אחד ואחד

 

And should you answer: It is all the opinion of R. Judah, and in the matter of detailed enumeration he agrees with R. Shimon, yet does he really hold this? Surely it was taught: This is the general rule: If he made a comprehensive statement, he is liable for only one [sacrifice]; a detailed enumeration, he is liable for each one separately, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah said: [If he declares, I take] an oath [that I am] not indebted to you, not to you, not to you, he is liable for each one. R. Elazar said: [If he declares, I am] not [indebted] to you, not to you, not to you, and not to you: [for this I take] an oath he is liable for each one. R. Shimon said: He is never liable [for each separately] unless he declares [I take] an oath to each separately!

 

Perhaps R. Judah agrees with R. Shimon about the issue of detailed enumeration whether one must enumerate each issue for it to have legal significance. However, R. Judah does not require him to say oath to each person. We can see easily that R. Judah actually disagrees with R. Shimon on this very issue. So our whole mishnah cannot be R. Judah, and if the second half is not R. Judah, the first half cannot be his opinion.

אלא כולה ר’ שמעון היא ובשליחות סבר לה כרבי יהודה

 

Rather the whole mishnah accords with R. Shimon, and in the matter of agency he agrees with R. Judah.

 

The whole mishnah could, however, be R. Shimon. R. Judah would not agree with the second clause, but R. Shimon could agree with the first clause only the father may accept the kiddushin. But other rabbis (except R. Shimon) could hold like Resh Lakish, that both she and the father can accept kiddushin.

Now that s how you solve a difficulty folks!