Kiddushin, Daf Mem Het, Part 2

Introduction

The Talmud now suggests another way of interpreting the dispute in the baraita over whether a woman can be betrothed with a document.

ואיבעית אימא כגון שכתבו שלא לשמה ובדר"ל קמיפלגי דבעי ר"ל שטר אירוסין שכתבו שלא לשמה מהו הויה ליציאה מקשינן מה יציאה בעינן לשמה אף הויה נמי בעינן לשמה או דלמא הויות להדדי מקשינן מה הויה דכסף לא בעינן לשמה אף הויה דשטר לא בעינן לשמה

בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה (דברים כד, ב) ויצאה והיתה מקיש הויה ליציאה מר אית ליה דר"ל ומר לית ליה דר"ל

Alternatively, it was a case where it was not written specifically for her sake, and they differ in respect to Resh Lakish s [statement]. For Resh Lakish asked: What if a deed of betrothal is not written expressly for her [the betrothed’s] sake? Do we compare betrothal to divorce: just as divorce must be expressly for her sake, so must betrothal be expressly for her sake; or perhaps, [different] forms of betrothal are compared to each other: just as betrothal by money need not be for her sake, so betrothal by deed need not be for her sake?

After asking the question, he resolved it: Betrothal is compared to divorce, [for Scripture writes] and when she goes . . . and she becomes [another man’s wife] (Deuteronomy 24:2). One Master agrees with Resh Lakish; the other does not.

The next suggestion is that the document here is a document of betrothal, but one that was not written with her in mind. All agree that a divorce document must be written for the woman who is being divorced. The question is whether the same is true for a document of betrothal. After asking this question, Resh Lakish affirms that a deed of betrothal must be written with her in mind. R. Meir would agree with him and R. Elazar would not.

ואי בעית אימא דכ"ע אית להו דר"ל והכא במאי עסקינן שכתבו לשמה ושלא מדעתה ובפלוגתא דרבא ורבינא ורב פפא ורב שרביא קמיפלגי דאיתמר כתבו לשמה ושלא מדעתה רבא ורבינא אמרי מקודשת רב פפא ורב שרביא אמרי אינה מקודשת

Alternatively, all agree with Resh Lakish, and what are we dealing with here? Where he wrote it for her sake but without her knowledge, and they differ in the same dispute as Rava and Ravina, R. Papa and R. Sheravia. For it was stated: If it is written for her sake but without her knowledge, Rava and Ravina maintain: She is betrothed; R. Papa and R. Sheravia rule: She is not betrothed.

Perhaps all tannaim agree that a betrothal document must be written for her sake, but they disagree, as do amoraim, whether it can be written without her knowledge. R. Meir would say that it cannot, but R. Elazar would say that it can.