Kiddushin, Daf Mem Tet, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s sugya goes back to explaining the dispute in the mishnah. To recall, according to the tanna kamma, if the husband says that he is betrothing her with one thing and then it turns out he betrothed her with another, the betrothal is invalid. R. Shimon holds that if the thing used was better than what he stated, than she is betrothed.

 

אמר עולא מחלוקת בשבח ממון אבל בשבח יוחסין דברי הכל אינה מקודשת

מאי טעמא מסאנא דרב מכרעאי לא בעינא

תניא נמי הכי מודה ר’ שמעון אם הטעה לשבח יוחסים אינה מקודשת

 

Ulla said: The dispute [in the Mishnah] refers to a monetary improvement. But if the improvement is of lineage, all agree that she is not betrothed.

What is the reason? [She could say]: I do not want a shoe too large for my foot.

It was taught likewise. R. Shimon agrees that if he deceives her by a superiority of lineage she is not betrothed.

 

R. Shimon would agree that if he deceives her by presenting himself as being of lower lineage than he actually is, she is not betrothed. While R. Shimon believes that all women would agree to betrothal for a higher betrothal payment, not all women want to be married to a man of higher lineage. Some women might actually prefer the lower lineage, perhaps because they will not have to live up to such high expectations.

 

אמר רב אשי מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני ע"מ שאני כהן ונמצא לוי לוי ונמצא כהן נתין ונמצא ממזר ממזר ונמצא נתין ולא פליג ר"ש

 

R. Ashi said: This follows from our Mishnah too. For it states: On condition that I am a priest and he is found to be a Levite, or a Levite, and he is found to be a priest, a Natin, and he is found to be a mamzer, or a mamzer and he is found to be a Natin [she is not betrothed]; and R. Shimon does not disagree.

 

In the next mishnah, we learn of cases where a husband lies about his lineage. Even if he says that he was a Levite and it turns out he is a priest, a more prestigious lineage, she is not betrothed. R. Shimon does not disagree in this case. From here we can conclude that he only disagrees if the deception was with money. If the deception was with lineage, i.e. he has better lineage than he stated, she is not betrothed.

A natin is a category similar to a mamzer, both of whom have very limited marital prospects.

 

מתקיף לה מר בר רב אשי אלא דקתני ע"מ שיש לי בת או שפחה מגודלת ואין לו על מנת שאין לו ויש לו דשבח ממון הוא הכי נמי דלא פליג אלא פליג ברישא וה"ה לסיפא הכא נמי פליג ברישא וה"ה לסיפא

Mar bar R. Ashi, raised an objection: If so, when it is stated: On condition that I have a daughter or maidservant who is an adult, whereas he has none; or on condition that he has not, and he has, which is a monetary improvement, here too he does not disagree! Rather, he disagrees in the first clause, and the same is true of the second; so here too he disagrees in the first clause, and the same applies to the last clause.

 

Mar bar R. Ashi points out that in the next mishnah, there is a case of a man who claims to not have an adult daughter who and it turns out that he does. Having such a daughter seems to be some sort of a monetary advantage. According to Ulla and R. Ashi, R. Shimon should disagree if he deceives her and in reality has a monetary advantage, she is betrothed. But he does not disagree. This indicates that just because R. Shimon does not express his disagreement, does not mean that he does not disagree. R. Shimon, according to Mar bar R. Ashi, would hold that if he deceives her to her advantage, she is betrothed, even in the case of a deception involving lineage.

 

הכי השתא התם אידי ואידי דשבח ממון פליג ברישא והוא הדין בסיפא הכא דשבח יוחסים הוא אם איתא דפליג נתני

 

Is that really so! There, since both refer to a financial advantage, he disagrees in the first clause and the same is understood of the last.

Here, however, where the case is one of superiority of lineage, if it is so that he disagrees, it should be taught.

 

The Talmud rejects Mar bar R. Ashi. In the case of financial advantage, since the mishnah taught that R. Shimon disagrees with regard to the first clause, it assumes that the same dispute can be applied to the second clause. However, when the issue is one of lineage, if he disagrees then it should have taught his disagreement. The fact that it does not implies that R. Shimon agrees that if the deception was with regard to lineage, she is not betrothed.

 

איבעית אימא הכא נמי שבח יוחסים מי סברת מאי מגודלת גדולה ממש מאי מגודלת גדלת דאמרה היא לא ניחא לי דשקלה מילי מינאי ואזלא נדיא קמי שיבבותיי

 

Alternatively, here too superior birth [is meant]. Did you really think that megudelet literally means an adult; megudelet means one who braids hair, for she [the betrothed woman] can say: It does not please me that she should take up my words and carry them about to the neighbors.

 

The Talmud now interprets the word megudelet to mean something different from what we originally thought. It does not mean an adult daughter (like the word gedolah ) but rather a daughter that an braid hair. A woman might not want a hairdresser for a daughter for such a hairdresser might gossip about her to her neighbors.