Kiddushin, Daf Yod Het, Part 6

 

Introduction

The sugya continues to discuss whether designation creates betrothal or marriage.

 

ת"ש אין מוכרה לקרובים משום רבי אליעזר אמרו מוכרה לקרובים ושוין שמוכרה אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט

 

Come and hear: He [the father] may not sell her to relatives. In the name of R. Eliezer they said: He may sell her to relatives.

And both agree that he may sell a widow to a High Priest, and a divorcee, or a halutzah to a common priest.

 

The baraita discusses whether a father can sell his daughter to someone she may not marry. According to the first opinion, if the marriage would be a high level prohibition, punishable by karet or death, then he may not sell her to this man. But if it is a lower level prohibition, such as a divorcee to a Kohen, then he may. R. Eliezer says he always may sell her to a man whom she may not marry.

 

האי אלמנה היכי דמי אילימא דקדיש נפשה אלמנה קרי לה

 

Now [as to] this widow, what is the case? If we say that she accepted kiddushin for herself: can she be called a widow!

 

The Talmud now tries to figure out what this case of the widow is. She could not have betrothed herself because she is a minor (otherwise the father could not be selling her).

ואלא דקדשה אביה מי מצי מזבין לה והא אין אדם מוכר את בתו לשפחות אחר אישות

 

Rather, if it means that her father betrothed her but a man cannot sell his daughter for servitude after marriage!

 

It also cannot be a case where the father betrothed her, because once he betroths her, he cannot sell her.

 

ואמר רב עמרם א"ר יצחק הכא בקדושי יעוד ואליבא דרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה דאמר מעות הראשונות לאו לקידושין ניתנו

 

And R. Amram said in the name of R. Yitzchak: Here we are dealing with kiddushin of designation, and [this was taught] according to R. Yose son of R. Judah, who said: The original money was not given as kiddushin.

 

R. Amram explains that this girl became a widow through designation. I.e. she was sold and then designated to be the wife, and then the master or his son died. The Talmud adds that the original money, the sale, was not given as kiddushin, and therefore, new kiddushin money would have to be given when he designates her. Thus the sale was not kiddushin and therefore the father can betroth her again should she be widowed.

[The Talmud will return to discussing the issue of whether the original money counts as kiddushin later on daf 19]

 

ואי אמרת נישואין עושה כיון שנישאת שוב אין לאביה רשות בה

 

But if you say: It effects marriage: once she is married, her father no longer has any authority over her!

 

It cannot be that the designation effects marriage, because once a girl is married her father can no longer sell her off.

 

ואלא מאי אירוסין עושה ושוין שמוכרה הא אין אדם מוכר את בתו לשפחות אחר אישות

 

What then: it effects betrothal? [But] and both agree that he may sell her but a man cannot sell his daughter to servitude after marriage!

 

The problem is that if designation counts as kiddushin, then we still need to ask how could her father again sell her. Once a girl has been betrothed, she may no longer be sold.

 

אלא מאי אית לך למימר שאני אירוסין דידה מאירוסין דאביה

אפילו תימא נישואין עושה שאני נישואין דידה מנישואין דאביה

 

Then what can you say: her own betrothal differs from her father’s?

Then even if you say that it effects marriage: her own marriage differs from her father’s.

 

We could try to get out of the problem by saying that while her father cannot sell her after he accepts her betrothal, he can sell her after she accepts her own betrothal from her master (designation). But then we could say the same thing if designation effected marriage he can t resell her after he marries her off, but he can after she marries herself off. So this again leaves us with no answer to our question.

 

האי מאי בשלמא אירוסין מאירוסין שאני אלא נישואין מנישואין מי שאני

 

How now? It makes sense for betrothal [by her father] to differ from betrothal [by her] but can marriage differ from marriage?

 

The different forms of betrothal can be different from one another in one case the father betroths her to someone else, and in another the master betroths her without the father s participation. But why should there be different forms of marriage? Marriage is simply the coming together of the couple (intercourse).

 

ולרב נחמן בר יצחק דאמר אפילו לרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מעות הראשונות לקידושין ניתנו במאי מוקים לה מוקים לה כרבי אליעזר דאמר לשפחות אחר שפחות הוא דלא מצי מזבין לה אבל לשפחות אחר אישות מצי מזבין לה

Now, according to R. Nahman b. Yitzchak, who said: Even according the view of R. Yose son of R. Yehudah, the original money was given for kiddushin, how can he explain it? He can explain it as agreeing with R. Eliezer, who held: For servitude after servitude he may not sell her, but he may sell her for servitude after marriage.

 

R. Nahman b. Yitzchak says that R. Yose b. R. Yehudah holds that the original sale money counts as kiddushin money. Should the master designate her, he need not give more kiddushin money. But then we have a problem the father essentially betrothed her when he sold her? How can he sell her again?

The answer is that this baraita agrees with R. Eliezer who had said that a father may sell his daughter for servitude after marriage.