Kiddushin, Daf Mem Heh, Part 1

Introduction

We continue with last week s discussion about the case where a minor betrothed herself without her father s awareness. Ulla had said that there is no validity to this marriage whatsoever. R. Hamnuna will raise a difficulty on him.

מתיב רב המנונא אין מוכרה לקרובים משום ר’ אלעזר אמרו מוכרה לקרובים ושוין שמוכרה אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט

R. Hamnuna objected: He [her father] may not sell her to a relative. In the name of R. Elazar it was said: He may sell her to a relative.

And both agree that he may sell her, as a widow, to a high priest, and as a divorcee or a halutzah, to an ordinary priest.

The baraita refers to the rights of a father to sell his daughter (Exodus 21). The issue is that the Torah refers to this girl as eventually marrying her master or her master s son. The first opinion holds that he may not sell her to an owner that cannot fulfill this aspect of the verse. R. Elazar holds that he can.

But both agree that if the prohibition is not first degree relative, but just one of the priestly prohibitions, he can sell her. A widow may not marry a high priest, but if she does, the marriage is valid. The same is true for a divorcee or a halutzah to an ordinary priest.

האי אלמנה היכי דמי אילימא דקדשה אביה מי מצי מזבין לה הא אין אדם מוכר את בתו לשפחות אחר אישות אלא לאו דקדיש איהי נפשה וקא קרי לה אלמנה

Now, this widow, what is the case? If we say that her father betrothed her, can he [subsequently] sell her? Behold a man cannot sell his daughter as a slave after she has already been married! Rather it must mean that she betrothed herself, and yet it calls her a widow?

A father can sell his daughter off only when she is a minor. So how can a father sell a widowed daughter? If he had married her off and then she was widowed, he no longer has the right to sell her. Rather, it must mean that she married herself off. Nevertheless, she is still called a widow, proving that there is some validity to such a marriage.

אמר רב עמרם אמר ר’ יצחק הכא בקידושי יעוד ואליבא דר’ יוסי בר’ יהודה דאמר מעות הראשונות לאו לקידושין ניתנו

R. Amram said in the name of R. Yitzchak: Here we are dealing with the kiddushin of designation, and it is in accordance with R. Yose son of R. Judah, who held: The original money was not given for the purpose of kiddushin.

R. Amram resolves the difficulty. She was widowed from a betrothal that was done in the form of designation meaning she was sold as a slave, and then the master designated her as his wife (like betrothal) and then died. But this betrothal was not done with the consent of the father. The kiddushin does not go into effect with the original sale to which the father did consent, so we have here a case of a girl who is a widow but her father is allowed to sell her again because he never consented to betroth her in the first place. But in a regular case of betrothal, a father could not sell his daughter after she had already been married.