Kiddushin, Daf Mem Vav, Part 1

 

Introduction

Today s sugya discusses a girl who is betrothed without her father s consent. All agree that if her father wants to prevent the marriage he can. Since she is a minor, he needs to consent to her actions. The question is whether she can prevent the marriage. In other words, if her father is okay with the match, can she change her mind?

 

איתמר קטנה שנתקדשה שלא לדעת אביה

אמר רב בין היא ובין אביה יכולין לעכב

ורב אסי אמר אביה ולא היא

 

It was stated: If a minor became betrothed without her father s knowledge:

Rav said: Both she and her father can prevent [it].

R. Assi said: Her father, but not her.

 

Rav argues that either her father or she can prevent the marriage. Essentially, since her father did not agree, the betrothal is simply not valid. But R. Assi would argue that only her father can undo the marriage, not she.

 

איתיביה רב הונא לרב אסי ואמרי לה חייא בר רב לרב אסי (שמות כב, טז) אם מאן ימאן אביה אין לי אלא אביה היא עצמה מנין ת"ל אם מאן ימאן מ"מ

 

R. Huna, and others say, Hiyya b. Rav raised an objection to R. Assi: If her father refuses [to give her to him] (Exodus 22:16): I only know that her father [can refuse]: how do I know [it of] herself? Because it is stated: If he utterly refuses [implying] in all cases!

 

The verse from Exodus refers to a case where a man had sex with a young virgin without her father s permission (the rabbis call this a case of seduction). The Torah says that the father can refuse the marriage. The rabbis add that the girl can as well. This is analogous to a case where a girl was betrothed without her father s consent. Even if she originally consented, she may revoke it at a later period.

 

אמר להו רב לא תיזלו בתר איפכא יכול לשנויי לכו כגון שפיתה שלא לשום אישות

 

Rav said to them Do not follow sources that can be interpreted in an opposite manner: He could resolve for you that it refers to a case where he seduced her not for the purpose of marriage.

 

Rav resolves the difficulty raised on R. Assi. The baraita could refer to a case where the man seduced her not for the sake of marriage, but just for sex. In this case, there never was a betrothal, so of course she can refuse the marriage.

 

פיתה שלא לשום אישות קרא בעי

אמר ר"נ בר יצחק לומר שמשלם קנס כמפותה

 

If he did not seduce her for the sake of marriage, is a verse even necessary!

R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: [It is necessary] to teach that he [her seducer] must pay the fine as for a seduced young girl.

 

Obviously, if he seduced her without the intent of marriage, then she is not married. The rabbis do not believe that premarital sex causes a marital bond. So then why would we even need this verse? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak argues that the verse is necessary to teach that he pays the fine, even though she refused to subsequently get married and her father consented to the marriage. Without this verse we might have thought that he pays the fine only if the father refuses the marriage, not she.

 

א"ל רב יוסף אי הכי היינו דתנינא (שמות כב, טו) מהר ימהרנה לו לאשה שצריכה הימנו קידושין ואם פיתה לשום אישות קידושין למה לי

 

R. Joseph said to him: If so, this is what was taught: He shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife (Exodus 22:15): [this means] that she needs kiddushin from him.

But had he seduced her with marital intent, why is kiddushin required?

 

If the previous baraita referred to a case where he seduced her without the intent to marry her, then we learn the same thing in another baraita. This baraita requires that the seducer betroth her before marrying her. But if he seduced her with the intent to betroth her, then why does she need another betrothal. She is already betrothed! Thus the Torah refers to a situation where he did not seduce her for the sake of marriage.

א"ל אביי צריכה קידושין לדעת אביה

 

Abaye said: She needs kiddushin with her father’s knowledge.

 

Abaye argues with R. Joseph. Even if the man seduced her with the intent of betrothal, she still needs kiddushin with her father s knowledge. Thus this latter baraita could refer to a case where the seducer had the intent of betrothal and would not be a support for Rav s interpretation of the first baraita.