Kiddushin, Daf Nun Aleph, Part 4
Introduction
The Talmud continues to discuss betrothal that cannot be followed by intercourse.
ת"ש המקדש את בתו סתם אין הבוגרות בכלל הא קטנות בכלל ואמאי קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה נינהו
ותיובתא דרבא
Come and hear: If one gives his daughters in betrothal without specifying which, the adult daughters are not included.
But the minors are included. Yet why, seeing that it is kiddushin which cannot be followed by intercourse? This refutes Rava.
If one betroths one of his daughters but does not remember which one (wife is not going to be happy about this situation!), we are not concerned that he betrothed one of the adult daughers, because he cannot marry off his adult daughters. But we are concerned about the minors. Any one of them might be the one betrothed. However, this is a case of kiddushin that cannot be followed by intercourse. The man cannot have intercourse with any of the minor sisters lest she is his wife s sister (meaning he actually married the other one).
אמר לך רבא הכא במאי עסקינן כשאין שם אלא גדולה וקטנה
Rava would answer you: We are dealing here with a case where there is only one adult [daughter] and one minor [daughter].
Rava says the mishnah refers to a case where there is only one of each kind of daughter. In this case, the man who betrothed the minor daughter could have intercourse with her (once they get married).
הא בוגרות קתני מאי בוגרות בוגרות דעלמא
אי הכי מאי למימרא
הכא במאי עסקינן דשויתיה שליח מהו דתימא כי מקבל קידושי אדעתה דידה קא מקבל קמ"ל דלא שביק איניש מידי דאית ליה הנאה מיניה
But it teaches adult daughters (bogrot) !
What is bogrot? Bogrot in general.
If so, what does this even state?
Here we are dealing with a case where she [the bogeret] appointed him [her father] as an agent. I might have thought that when he accepted kiddushin he did it on her behalf: hence we are informed that a man does not put aside that by which he benefits.
The Talmud raises a difficulty how can we say there was only one adult daughter when the mishnah uses the plural?
The answer is that the mishnah refers to laws concerning adult daughters in general, not this specific case. The plural is a category not a detail of the case.
But now the mishnah is overly simple clearly the father meant to betroth the younger daughter, the only daughter he has the power to betroth?
To resolve this, the Talmud says that the actual case is where the adult daughter appointed the father to betroth her. In this case, the father does have the power to betroth her. Nevertheless, we assume he betrothed the minor daughter because he has the benefit there of receiving the kiddushin money.
מי לא עסקינן דאמרה ליה קידושי לדידך
אפ"ה לא שביק איניש מצוה דרמיא עליה ועביד מצוה דלא רמיא עליה
But do we not refer [even] to a case where she said to him, Let my kiddushin money be yours!
Even so, a person does not leave abandon a mitzvah which falls on him, and perform a mitzvah which does not.
Even if the adult daughter told the father he could keep the kiddushin money, we still assume he married off the younger daughter because he has a mitzvah to marry her off. There is no mitzvah to marry off the older daughter.