Kiddushin, Daf Vav, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s sugya is based on a word from Leviticus 19:20, If a man has carnal relations with a woman who is a slave and has been designated for another man. The word for designate is נחרפת. Can this root be used for betrothal?

 

איבעיא להו חרופתי מהו

ת"ש דתניא האומר חרופתי מקודשת שכן ביהודה קורין לארוסה חרופה

ויהודה הויא רובא דעלמא ה"ק האומר חרופתי מקודשת שנאמר (ויקרא יט, כ) והיא שפחה נחרפת לאיש ועוד ביהודה קורין לארוסה חרופה ויהודה ועוד לקרא אלא ה"ק האומר חרופה ביהודה מקודשת שכן ביהודה קורין לארוסה חרופה

 

They asked the question: What about you are my harufah [designated] ?

Come and hear: For it was taught: If a man declares, you are my harufah, she is betrothed, for in Judea a betrothed woman is called harufah.

Is Judea then most of the world?

This is what it means: If he declares, you are my harufah, she is betrothed, for it is said: with a woman who is a slave and has been designated נחרפת for another man; moreover, in Judea a betrothed woman is called harufah.

[The practice in] Judea and Scripture!

Rather it means thus: If he says in Judea, You are my harufah, she is betrothed, because in Judea betrothed woman is called harufah.

 

In the beginning, the Talmud thinks this word can be used anywhere as a betrothal formula because it works in Judea and because it is used in Scripture. But in the end, the Talmud rules that this formula works only in Judea because in Judea the word harufah simply means betrothed and seems to be used frequently.

 

במאי עסקינן אילימא בשאין מדבר עמה על עסקי גיטה וקידושיה מנא ידעה מאי קאמר לה ואלא במדבר עמה על עסקי גיטה וקידושיה אע"ג דלא אמר לה נמי

דתנן היה מדבר עם אשה על עסקי גיטה וקידושיה ונתן לה גיטה וקידושיה ולא פירש ר’ יוסי אומר דיו ר’ יהודה אומר צריך לפרש

ואמר רב הונא אמר שמואל הלכה כר’ יוסי

 

What are we dealing with here? If we say that he was not speaking to her about her divorce or kiddushin, how does she know what he means?

But if he was speaking to her about her divorce or kiddushin, then even if he said nothing at all [but gave her money], she is also [betrothed].

For we have learned: If a man was speaking to a woman on matters concerning her divorce or betrothal, and gave her her get or kiddushin, but made no explicit declaration:

R. Yose said: It is sufficient; R. Judah said: He must make an explicit declaration.

And R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel: The halakhah agrees with R. Yose!

 

The Talmud here is asking about all of the unclear betrothal formulae we have seen over the past few sections. What was the context in which he gave the money to her and said these things. If they were talking about getting married, then even if he says nothing and gives her the money, she is married, at least according to R. Yose, whom the halakhah follows.

And if they were not talking about getting married, how is she supposed to know what he is saying. The formulas listed above do not sound completely like betrothal formulas.

 

אמרי לעולם במדבר עמה על עסקי גיטה וקידושיה ואי דיהיב לה ושתיק ה"נ הב"ע דיהב לה ואמר לה בהני לישני והכי קא מיבעי ליה הני לישני לקידושי קאמר לה או דילמא למלאכה קאמר לה תיקו :

I will tell you: Actually it refers to a case where he was speaking to her about her divorce or betrothal; had he given her [the money or the get] and remained silent, that indeed would be so.

But what are we dealing with here? When he gave [them] to her and made one of these declarations. And this is what we are asking: Did he use these expressions in the sense of kiddushin, or perhaps he meant them in reference to work? The question stands.

 

The Talmud answers that if he said nothing, and they were talking about betrothal, then they would be married. But since he used one of these confusing formulas, she might not have understood what she was saying yes to maybe she was agreeing to work for him. Therefore, they are considered of doubtful validity. In such a case the couple would either need to redo to betrothal or get divorced.