Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Daled, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s section begins to explain the mishnah.

 

גמ׳ הא קטנות בכלל שמעת מינה קידושין שאין מסורים לביאה הוו קידושין

הכא במאי עסקינן כשאין שם אלא גדולה וקטנה

 

GEMARA. But minors are included? This proves that kiddushin that cannot be followed by intercourse is kiddushin?

The circumstances are that there is only one bogeret and one minor.

 

When a man says I betrothed my daughter without specifying which, he cannot be referring to his daughter who is a bogeret, but he can be referring to his minor daughter. But this implies that all of his minor daughters are impacted by his statement, even though, if he has more than one, this is a case of kiddushin that cannot be followed by intercourse because any one girl could be his wife s sister. Thus we could learn that in such cases the kiddushin is at least doubtfully valid each minor daughter is doubtfully betrothed. To recall, this was a major topic discussed earlier in the tractate and thus we do not want this mishnah to answer the question.

The Talmud answers that there was only one minor. Thus there is no doubt that she is the one who is betrothed.

 

והא בוגרות קתני מאי בוגרות בוגרות דעלמא

 

But bogrot is taught! By bogrot , bogrot in general are meant.

 

The mishnah did not mean that there was more than one bogeret, such that by implication there would also be more than one minor daughter. It only meant bogrot in general, meaning any daughter who fits into that category.

פשיטא בוגרות מאי עבידתייהו

הכא במאי עסקינן דשויתיה שליח מהו דתימא כי מקבל קידושי אדעתא דידה קא מקבל קמ"ל לא שביק איניש מידי דאית ליה הנאה מיניה ועביד מידי דלית ליה הנאה מיניה

 

It is obvious: what do bogrot belong here?

What are we dealing with here? Where she appointed him [her father] to be an agent [to accept her kiddushin]. What might I have thought? That when he accepted kiddushin he did so on her behalf; hence it teaches us that a person does not put aside something by which he benefits to do something by which he does not benefit.

 

A father cannot marry off his daughter once she is a bogeret, a girl of majority age. So this mishnah is too obvious obviously the bogeret cannot be the girl who is betrothed.

To make the mishnah less obvious (and therefore not extraneous) the Talmud suggests that this was a case where the bogeret appointed her father to accept her kiddushin on her behalf. The mishnah rules that if the father does not remember which girl he betrothed, we can assume that he did not betroth the bogeret. The assumption is that since if he marries off his younger daughters, he would receive the betrothal money, he must have married off one of them and not the older daughter who appointed him as an agent.

מי לא עסקינן דאמרה ליה קדושיי לך אפ"ה לא שביק איניש מצוה דרמיא עליה ועביד מצוה דלא רמיא עליה

 

But do we not refer [even] to where she said to him, Let my kiddushin be yours!

Even so, a man does not put aside a mitzvah which rests on him and perform one which does not rest on him.

 

Even if the bogeret says that the father can keep the kiddushin money, we still assume he married off the younger daughter because marrying her off is his responsibility, whereas marrying off the bogeret is not his responsibility.