Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 29, 2016 | 讬状讟 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Kiddushin 18

Which slaves can be inherited upon death of the owner? 聽Do laws of inheritance apply to non Jews? 聽Can a convert inherit from his parents? 聽Can his children who converted with him inherit from him? 聽More differences between Jewish male and female slaves are discussed.

Study Guide Kiddushin 18


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讻讗谉 砖讛讜专转讜 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讜诇讬讚转讜 讘拽讚讜砖讛

And here it is referring to a case where he was not conceived in sanctity, i.e., his mother conceived him before she converted, and only his birth was in sanctity, as she converted when pregnant. It is appropriate to return money to this individual.

专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讻专讬 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬专砖讛 诇注砖讜 谞转转讬 讗转 讛专 砖注讬专 讜讚诇诪讗 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚 砖讗谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讻讬 诇讘谞讬 诇讜讟 谞转转讬 讗转 注专 讬专砖讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: By Torah law a gentile inherits from his father, as it is written: 鈥淏ecause I have given mount Seir to Esau as an inheritance鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:5). The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is different with regard to an apostate Jew? In other words, it is possible that Esau was not considered a gentile but rather Jewish, like the Patriarchs. Consequently, he is categorized as an apostate Jew. Rather, the proof is from here: 鈥淏ecause I have given Ar to the children of Lot as an inheritance鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:9), and the descendants of Lot were certainly gentiles.

讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讞砖讘 注诐 拽谞讛讜 讜诇讗 注诐 讬讜专砖讬 拽讜谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: And Rav 岣yya bar Avin, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rava, who derives the inheritance of gentiles from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall reckon with his purchaser鈥 (Leviticus 25:50)? The Gemara answers: Is it written explicitly in the Torah: And he shall reckon with his purchaser and not with the heirs of his purchaser? This proof is based on an exposition, not on an explicit source.

讜专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚讗讘专讛诐 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara further asks: And Rava, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rav 岣yya bar Avin? The Gemara answers: Perhaps due to the honor of Abraham it is different. It is possible that for the sake of Abraham an inheritance was given to the members of his family. The same may not apply to gentiles in general.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬砖 讘注讘专讬 砖讗讬谉 讘注讘专讬讛 讜讬砖 讘注讘专讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讘注讘专讬 讬砖 讘注讘专讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘注讘专讬讛 讜讬砖 讘注讘专讬讛 砖讛专讬 注讘专讬讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讜讗讬谞讛 谞诪讻专转 讜谞砖谞讬转 讜诪驻讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻讜专讞讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘注讘专讬

The Sages taught: There are details of the halakhot of a Hebrew slave that do not apply to the case of a Hebrew maidservant and there are details of the halakhot of a Hebrew maidservant that do not apply to a Hebrew slave. The baraita elaborates: There are unique details in the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew slave, as he leaves through serving a term of six years, and he leaves through the Jubilee Year, and he leaves through the death of the master, which is not the case for a Hebrew maidservant. And there are unique details in the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew maidservant, as a Hebrew maidservant leaves through signs indicating puberty, and she is not sold for a second time, and one can redeem her against his will, as the Gemara will explain, which is not the case for a Hebrew slave.

讗诪专 诪专 讬砖 讘注讘专讬 砖讗讬谉 讘注讘专讬讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讬转讬专讛 注诇讬讜 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 砖拽讜谞讛 注爪诪讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 砖讬注讚讛

The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said above: There are details of the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew slave that do not apply to the case of a Hebrew maidservant. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna: A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than him, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. The expression: More than him, indicates that all of the modes through which a Hebrew slave can be freed apply to a Hebrew maidservant as well. Rav Sheshet said: This baraita is referring to a case where the master designated her to marry him during the six years. Consequently, she cannot be released from his authority by all of the modes through which a Hebrew slave can be freed, as she is his wife.

讬注讚讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讙讬讟讗 讘注讬讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讘讟诇讛 讛讬诇讻转讗 诪讬谞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讬讜爪讗讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讬注讚讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讗祝 讘住讬诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: If he designated her, it is obvious that she cannot be released in the manner of a slave, as she is his wife and therefore requires a bill of divorce. The Gemara says: It is necessary to state this explicitly, lest you say that the primary halakha is not nullified with regard to her, i.e., even after she has been designated she can still be freed as a slave would be, without a bill of divorce. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case. The Gemara asks: If so, that this is referring to a case where he designated her, why does she leave through signs indicating puberty? If he designated her she becomes his wife, and signs indicating the onset of puberty should not affect her status. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: If he did not designate her, she leaves also through signs indicating puberty.

讜讗讬谞讛 谞诪讻专转 讜谞砖谞讬转 诪讻诇诇 讚注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞诪讻专 讜谞砖谞讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讙谞讘转讜 讜诇讗 讘讻驻讬诇讜 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讜诇讗 讘讝诪诪讜 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讻讬讜谉 砖谞诪讻专 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讜讘 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜讻专讜

搂 The baraita teaches: And a Hebrew maidservant is not sold a second time. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the baraita says this about a Hebrew maidservant, it can be inferred that a Hebrew slave can be sold a second time. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the verse: 鈥淎nd he is sold for his theft鈥 (Exodus 22:2), means that he can be sold to pay for the items that he has stolen but not to pay for his double payment? Although one can be sold into slavery to reimburse the owner for the principal of his theft, he cannot be sold to pay the fine. Furthermore, 鈥渇or his theft鈥 indicates: But not to pay for his conspiring testimony. If he is a conspiring witness, who is required to pay the value of what he testified that another had stolen but he does not have the money to do so, he is not sold as a slave. Additionally, the phrase 鈥渇or his theft鈥 teaches that he can be sold for stealing only once, and once he has been sold one time you may not sell him again.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讗讞转 讻讗谉 讘砖转讬 讙谞讬讘讜转

Rava said: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to one theft, i.e., he stole a large amount but he is not worth enough as a slave for the proceeds of his sale to repay his entire debt. In that case he cannot be sold a second time. There, in the first baraita, it is referring to two thefts, as he may be sold a second time if he stole once, was sold, and subsequently stole again.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讟讜讘讗 诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讻讗谉 讘砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Abaye said to Rava: The expression 鈥渇or his theft鈥 indicates even many thefts. Rather, Abaye said: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to one who stole from one person. This thief cannot be sold a second time even for several thefts. There, in the first baraita, it is referring to thefts from two people.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙谞讬讘讜 讗诇祝 讜砖讜讛 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 谞诪讻专 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞诪讻专 讙谞讬讘讜 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讜砖讜讛 讗诇祝 讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 讻诇诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讙谞讬讘讜 讻谞讙讚 诪诪讻专讜 谞诪讻专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专

The Sages taught: If the property he stole was worth one thousand and as a slave he is worth only five hundred, he is sold and sold again. If the property he stole was worth five hundred and he is worth one thousand, he is not sold at all. Rabbi Eliezer says: If the property he stole was exactly equal to his value if he were sold, he is sold; and if not, he is not sold.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讛讗 讝讻谞讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙谞讬讘讜 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讜砖讜讛 讗诇祝 讚讗讬谉 谞诪讻专 讚谞诪讻专 讻讜诇讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讞爪讬讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞诪讻专 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 谞诪讻专 讘讞爪讬 讙谞讬讘转讜

Rava said: In this case Rabbi Eliezer triumphed over the Rabbis, as what is different in a case where the property he stole is worth five hundred and he is worth one thousand that they concede that he is not sold? The reason is that the Merciful One states that he is sold in his entirety, and not part of him. So too, if he is worth less than the value of the property he stole, one can say: The Merciful One states that he is sold for his theft, and he is not sold for part of his theft.

讜诪驻讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 住讘专 专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讚讗讚讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讚讻转讘谞讗 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讗讚诪讬讛 讗诪讗讬 谞拽讬讟 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 讞住驻讗

搂 The baraita further teaches: And one can redeem a Hebrew maidservant against his will. Rava thought to say that this means against the will of the master, i.e., she can be redeemed even if he refuses. Abaye said to him: What is the mechanism for emancipating her against the will of her master? Is it that one writes a document to him for her value, and when she has the money she repays this debt? Why should it be possible to force the master to free her in this manner? He is holding a pearl [marganita] in his hand and one gives him a shard instead, as this document is currently useless.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讚讗讘 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞诪讬 谞讻驻讬谞讛讜 诇讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛 讛讚专 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讝讘讬谉 谞驻砖讬讛

Rather, Abaye said: She can be redeemed against the will of her father, due to the family flaw, i.e., the harm caused to the family name by her status. The court pressures the father as much as possible to redeem her, as it is disgraceful to a family if one of its daughters is a maidservant. The Gemara asks: If so, one should force the family of a Hebrew slave to redeem him also, due to the family flaw. The Gemara answers: There is a concern that he will go back and sell himself and earn money in this manner at his family鈥檚 expense.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讚专 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讛 谞诪讻专转 讜谞砖谞讬转 讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讜讻专 讗讚诐 讗转 讘转讜 诇讗讬砖讜转 讜砖讜谞讛 诇砖驻讞讜转 讜砖讜谞讛 诇讗讬砖讜转 讗讞专 砖驻讞讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讞专 讗讬砖讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讞专 讗讬砖讜转 讻讱 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讞专 砖驻讞讜转

The Gemara asks: Here too, in the case of a Hebrew maidservant, the father might go back and sell her as a maidservant again and receive money for her a second time. The Gemara answers that it is taught: A maidservant is not sold a second time. And whose opinion is this? It is that of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: One can sell, i.e., transfer, his young daughter in marriage and go back and betroth her again if she was divorced or widowed. Likewise, he can sell her into slavery and transfer her again, this time for marriage, after he sold her into slavery. But one cannot sell his daughter into slavery after marriage. Rabbi Shimon says: Just as a person cannot sell his daughter into slavery after marriage, so too, a person cannot sell his daughter into slavery after slavery.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讘讙讚讜 讘讛

The Gemara comments: And this issue is taught in the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淗e shall have no power to sell her to a foreign people, seeing that he has dealt deceitfully with her [bevigdo vah]鈥 (Exodus 21:8).

讻讬讜谉 砖驻讬专砖 讟诇讬转讜 注诇讬讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜讻专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讘讙讚讜 讘讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讘讙讚 讘讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜讻专讛

This verse indicates that once the master has spread his garment over her, thereby designating her as his wife, her father may no longer sell her. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who interprets bevigdo as related to beged, meaning garment. Rabbi Eliezer says: 鈥Bevigdo vah means that since the father dealt deceitfully [bagad] with her and sold her once, he cannot sell her again.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜诇诪住讜专转

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the spelling of the words. One relies on the way a word is written, without the traditional vocalization, and therefore it is read as though it were vocalized as bevagdo, which refers to betrayal, not a garment. And Rabbi Akiva maintains that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, meaning that one derives halakhot based on the pronunciation of the words, although it diverges from the spelling, and since one pronounces the term as bevigdo, it is related to the word beged, meaning garment. And Rabbi Shimon maintains that both the vocalization of the Torah and the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written are authoritative. Consequently, she cannot be sold as a slave after she has been taken as a wife, nor can she be sold again after she has already been sold once.

讘注讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬注讜讚 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讬讜专砖讛 讜诇讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜诇讛驻专 谞讚专讬讛 诪讗讬

Rabba bar Avuh raises a dilemma: Does designation of a Hebrew maidservant for betrothal by her master effect marriage or does it effect only betrothal? The practical difference of the outcome of this dilemma is whether he inherits her property, i.e., does her husband inherit her property if she dies as he would if she were married to him; and whether he is obligated to become impure to bury her when she dies, if he is a priest; and whether he can nullify her vows on his own without her father, as is the case with a married woman. What is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讘讘讙讚讜 讘讛 讻讬讜谉 砖驻讬专砖 讟诇讬转讜 注诇讬讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜讻专讛 讝讘讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛 讛讗 讬注讜讚讬 诪讬讬注讚 诇讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讬砖讗转 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讗讘讬讛 专砖讜转 讘讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma. Bevigdo vah means: Once her master has spread his garment over her, the father may no longer sell her. The Gemara analyzes this statement: This indicates that her father cannot sell her afterward, but he can designate her for another man if the master dies or divorces her. And if you say that designation effects marriage, once she is married her father no longer has authority over her. Rather, is it not correct to learn from this that designation effects only betrothal?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖诪住专讛 讗讘讬讛 诇诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讘砖讗专讛 讻住讜转讛 讜注讜谞转讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇诪讜讻专讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this argument can be refuted. Here, the baraita is dealing with the ordinary betrothal of one鈥檚 daughter, not to one who sells his daughter as a maidservant. And this is what the baraita is saying: Since her father gave her, i.e., betrothed her, to one who is obligated to provide her food, her clothing, and fulfill her conjugal rights, he can no longer sell her. Therefore, this baraita proves nothing with regard to the issue of whether or not designation effects marriage.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专讜 诪讜讻专讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪讜讻专讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara cites another relevant source. Come and hear: A father cannot sell his daughter as a maidservant to relatives with whom she is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse, as they cannot fulfill the mitzva of designation. They said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: He can sell her to relatives, because designation is merely an option and its inapplicability does not negate the possibility of a sale. And they agree that he can sell her to a High Priest if she is a widow, or to a common priest if she is a divorc茅e or a yevama who performed 岣litza [岣lutza]. Although it is prohibited for her to marry these men, their betrothal is effective, and therefore designation is not entirely impossible in these cases.

讛讗讬 讗诇诪谞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讚讬砖 谞驻砖讛 讗诇诪谞讛 拽专讬 诇讛 讜讗诇讗 讚拽讚砖讛 讗讘讬讛 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讞专 讗讬砖讜转

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this widow? If we say that she betrothed herself when she was a minor and her husband died, is she called a widow? Since the initial betrothal was entirely ineffective, as a minor cannot accept betrothal independently, she would not be considered his wife. Rather, one must say that her father betrothed her and she was subsequently widowed. But if that is the case, can he sell her? But it was taught that a person cannot sell his daughter into slavery after marriage.

讜讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘拽讚讜砖讬 讬注讜讚 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪注讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 诇讗讜 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讬砖讗转 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讗讘讬讛 专砖讜转 讘讛

And Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Here, it is referring to a woman widowed from betrothal of designation, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: The original money of the sale of the maidservant was not given for the purpose of betrothal but as payment for her work, and if the master wishes to designate her he must give her additional money for that purpose. The relevance of this assertion will be clarified below. The Gemara explains the proof from this baraita: And if you say that designation effects marriage, once she is married her father no longer has authority over her. How can he sell her a second time after the death of her first husband?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪讜讻专讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讞专 讗讬砖讜转 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讚讬讚讛 诪讗讬专讜住讬谉 讚讗讘讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 砖讗谞讬 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讚讬讚讛 诪谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讚讗讘讬讛

The Gemara asks from the other perspective: Rather, what will you say, that designation effects only betrothal? If so, why does the baraita state: And they agree that he can sell her? After all, a person cannot sell his daughter into slavery after matrimony. This baraita also refers to a case where a woman was betrothed but the marriage was not consummated. Rather, what have you to say? Betrothal effected by her is different from betrothal effected by her father. Since the marriage was not performed through her father but by the master giving her additional money, as held by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, the principle that one cannot sell his daughter into slavery after betrothal does not apply. But by the same reasoning, even if you say that designation effects marriage, you can argue that marriage effected by her is different from marriage effected by her father.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讗诇讗 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬砖讜讗讬谉

This challenge is rejected: What is this comparison? Granted, one form of betrothal is different from the other betrothal, i.e., there is a difference between standard betrothal with the father鈥檚 consent and betrothal through designation, which is performed upon the master鈥檚 initiative. After that type of betrothal the father can, in fact, sell her a second time. But with regard to one mode of effecting marriage in relation to another mode of effecting marriage,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 18

讜讻讗谉 砖讛讜专转讜 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讜诇讬讚转讜 讘拽讚讜砖讛

And here it is referring to a case where he was not conceived in sanctity, i.e., his mother conceived him before she converted, and only his birth was in sanctity, as she converted when pregnant. It is appropriate to return money to this individual.

专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讻专讬 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬专砖讛 诇注砖讜 谞转转讬 讗转 讛专 砖注讬专 讜讚诇诪讗 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚 砖讗谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讻讬 诇讘谞讬 诇讜讟 谞转转讬 讗转 注专 讬专砖讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: By Torah law a gentile inherits from his father, as it is written: 鈥淏ecause I have given mount Seir to Esau as an inheritance鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:5). The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is different with regard to an apostate Jew? In other words, it is possible that Esau was not considered a gentile but rather Jewish, like the Patriarchs. Consequently, he is categorized as an apostate Jew. Rather, the proof is from here: 鈥淏ecause I have given Ar to the children of Lot as an inheritance鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:9), and the descendants of Lot were certainly gentiles.

讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讞砖讘 注诐 拽谞讛讜 讜诇讗 注诐 讬讜专砖讬 拽讜谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: And Rav 岣yya bar Avin, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rava, who derives the inheritance of gentiles from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall reckon with his purchaser鈥 (Leviticus 25:50)? The Gemara answers: Is it written explicitly in the Torah: And he shall reckon with his purchaser and not with the heirs of his purchaser? This proof is based on an exposition, not on an explicit source.

讜专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚讗讘专讛诐 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara further asks: And Rava, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rav 岣yya bar Avin? The Gemara answers: Perhaps due to the honor of Abraham it is different. It is possible that for the sake of Abraham an inheritance was given to the members of his family. The same may not apply to gentiles in general.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬砖 讘注讘专讬 砖讗讬谉 讘注讘专讬讛 讜讬砖 讘注讘专讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讘注讘专讬 讬砖 讘注讘专讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘注讘专讬讛 讜讬砖 讘注讘专讬讛 砖讛专讬 注讘专讬讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讜讗讬谞讛 谞诪讻专转 讜谞砖谞讬转 讜诪驻讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻讜专讞讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘注讘专讬

The Sages taught: There are details of the halakhot of a Hebrew slave that do not apply to the case of a Hebrew maidservant and there are details of the halakhot of a Hebrew maidservant that do not apply to a Hebrew slave. The baraita elaborates: There are unique details in the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew slave, as he leaves through serving a term of six years, and he leaves through the Jubilee Year, and he leaves through the death of the master, which is not the case for a Hebrew maidservant. And there are unique details in the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew maidservant, as a Hebrew maidservant leaves through signs indicating puberty, and she is not sold for a second time, and one can redeem her against his will, as the Gemara will explain, which is not the case for a Hebrew slave.

讗诪专 诪专 讬砖 讘注讘专讬 砖讗讬谉 讘注讘专讬讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讬转讬专讛 注诇讬讜 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 砖拽讜谞讛 注爪诪讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 砖讬注讚讛

The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said above: There are details of the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew slave that do not apply to the case of a Hebrew maidservant. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna: A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than him, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. The expression: More than him, indicates that all of the modes through which a Hebrew slave can be freed apply to a Hebrew maidservant as well. Rav Sheshet said: This baraita is referring to a case where the master designated her to marry him during the six years. Consequently, she cannot be released from his authority by all of the modes through which a Hebrew slave can be freed, as she is his wife.

讬注讚讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讙讬讟讗 讘注讬讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讘讟诇讛 讛讬诇讻转讗 诪讬谞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讬讜爪讗讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讬注讚讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讗祝 讘住讬诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: If he designated her, it is obvious that she cannot be released in the manner of a slave, as she is his wife and therefore requires a bill of divorce. The Gemara says: It is necessary to state this explicitly, lest you say that the primary halakha is not nullified with regard to her, i.e., even after she has been designated she can still be freed as a slave would be, without a bill of divorce. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case. The Gemara asks: If so, that this is referring to a case where he designated her, why does she leave through signs indicating puberty? If he designated her she becomes his wife, and signs indicating the onset of puberty should not affect her status. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: If he did not designate her, she leaves also through signs indicating puberty.

讜讗讬谞讛 谞诪讻专转 讜谞砖谞讬转 诪讻诇诇 讚注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞诪讻专 讜谞砖谞讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讙谞讘转讜 讜诇讗 讘讻驻讬诇讜 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讜诇讗 讘讝诪诪讜 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讻讬讜谉 砖谞诪讻专 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讜讘 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜讻专讜

搂 The baraita teaches: And a Hebrew maidservant is not sold a second time. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the baraita says this about a Hebrew maidservant, it can be inferred that a Hebrew slave can be sold a second time. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the verse: 鈥淎nd he is sold for his theft鈥 (Exodus 22:2), means that he can be sold to pay for the items that he has stolen but not to pay for his double payment? Although one can be sold into slavery to reimburse the owner for the principal of his theft, he cannot be sold to pay the fine. Furthermore, 鈥渇or his theft鈥 indicates: But not to pay for his conspiring testimony. If he is a conspiring witness, who is required to pay the value of what he testified that another had stolen but he does not have the money to do so, he is not sold as a slave. Additionally, the phrase 鈥渇or his theft鈥 teaches that he can be sold for stealing only once, and once he has been sold one time you may not sell him again.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讗讞转 讻讗谉 讘砖转讬 讙谞讬讘讜转

Rava said: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to one theft, i.e., he stole a large amount but he is not worth enough as a slave for the proceeds of his sale to repay his entire debt. In that case he cannot be sold a second time. There, in the first baraita, it is referring to two thefts, as he may be sold a second time if he stole once, was sold, and subsequently stole again.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讟讜讘讗 诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讻讗谉 讘砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Abaye said to Rava: The expression 鈥渇or his theft鈥 indicates even many thefts. Rather, Abaye said: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to one who stole from one person. This thief cannot be sold a second time even for several thefts. There, in the first baraita, it is referring to thefts from two people.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙谞讬讘讜 讗诇祝 讜砖讜讛 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 谞诪讻专 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞诪讻专 讙谞讬讘讜 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讜砖讜讛 讗诇祝 讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 讻诇诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讙谞讬讘讜 讻谞讙讚 诪诪讻专讜 谞诪讻专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专

The Sages taught: If the property he stole was worth one thousand and as a slave he is worth only five hundred, he is sold and sold again. If the property he stole was worth five hundred and he is worth one thousand, he is not sold at all. Rabbi Eliezer says: If the property he stole was exactly equal to his value if he were sold, he is sold; and if not, he is not sold.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讛讗 讝讻谞讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙谞讬讘讜 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讜砖讜讛 讗诇祝 讚讗讬谉 谞诪讻专 讚谞诪讻专 讻讜诇讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讞爪讬讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞诪讻专 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 谞诪讻专 讘讞爪讬 讙谞讬讘转讜

Rava said: In this case Rabbi Eliezer triumphed over the Rabbis, as what is different in a case where the property he stole is worth five hundred and he is worth one thousand that they concede that he is not sold? The reason is that the Merciful One states that he is sold in his entirety, and not part of him. So too, if he is worth less than the value of the property he stole, one can say: The Merciful One states that he is sold for his theft, and he is not sold for part of his theft.

讜诪驻讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 住讘专 专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讚讗讚讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讚讻转讘谞讗 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讗讚诪讬讛 讗诪讗讬 谞拽讬讟 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 讞住驻讗

搂 The baraita further teaches: And one can redeem a Hebrew maidservant against his will. Rava thought to say that this means against the will of the master, i.e., she can be redeemed even if he refuses. Abaye said to him: What is the mechanism for emancipating her against the will of her master? Is it that one writes a document to him for her value, and when she has the money she repays this debt? Why should it be possible to force the master to free her in this manner? He is holding a pearl [marganita] in his hand and one gives him a shard instead, as this document is currently useless.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讚讗讘 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞诪讬 谞讻驻讬谞讛讜 诇讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛 讛讚专 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讝讘讬谉 谞驻砖讬讛

Rather, Abaye said: She can be redeemed against the will of her father, due to the family flaw, i.e., the harm caused to the family name by her status. The court pressures the father as much as possible to redeem her, as it is disgraceful to a family if one of its daughters is a maidservant. The Gemara asks: If so, one should force the family of a Hebrew slave to redeem him also, due to the family flaw. The Gemara answers: There is a concern that he will go back and sell himself and earn money in this manner at his family鈥檚 expense.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讚专 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讛 谞诪讻专转 讜谞砖谞讬转 讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讜讻专 讗讚诐 讗转 讘转讜 诇讗讬砖讜转 讜砖讜谞讛 诇砖驻讞讜转 讜砖讜谞讛 诇讗讬砖讜转 讗讞专 砖驻讞讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讞专 讗讬砖讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讞专 讗讬砖讜转 讻讱 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讞专 砖驻讞讜转

The Gemara asks: Here too, in the case of a Hebrew maidservant, the father might go back and sell her as a maidservant again and receive money for her a second time. The Gemara answers that it is taught: A maidservant is not sold a second time. And whose opinion is this? It is that of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: One can sell, i.e., transfer, his young daughter in marriage and go back and betroth her again if she was divorced or widowed. Likewise, he can sell her into slavery and transfer her again, this time for marriage, after he sold her into slavery. But one cannot sell his daughter into slavery after marriage. Rabbi Shimon says: Just as a person cannot sell his daughter into slavery after marriage, so too, a person cannot sell his daughter into slavery after slavery.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讘讙讚讜 讘讛

The Gemara comments: And this issue is taught in the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淗e shall have no power to sell her to a foreign people, seeing that he has dealt deceitfully with her [bevigdo vah]鈥 (Exodus 21:8).

讻讬讜谉 砖驻讬专砖 讟诇讬转讜 注诇讬讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜讻专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讘讙讚讜 讘讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讘讙讚 讘讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜讻专讛

This verse indicates that once the master has spread his garment over her, thereby designating her as his wife, her father may no longer sell her. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who interprets bevigdo as related to beged, meaning garment. Rabbi Eliezer says: 鈥Bevigdo vah means that since the father dealt deceitfully [bagad] with her and sold her once, he cannot sell her again.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜诇诪住讜专转

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the spelling of the words. One relies on the way a word is written, without the traditional vocalization, and therefore it is read as though it were vocalized as bevagdo, which refers to betrayal, not a garment. And Rabbi Akiva maintains that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, meaning that one derives halakhot based on the pronunciation of the words, although it diverges from the spelling, and since one pronounces the term as bevigdo, it is related to the word beged, meaning garment. And Rabbi Shimon maintains that both the vocalization of the Torah and the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written are authoritative. Consequently, she cannot be sold as a slave after she has been taken as a wife, nor can she be sold again after she has already been sold once.

讘注讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬注讜讚 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讬讜专砖讛 讜诇讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜诇讛驻专 谞讚专讬讛 诪讗讬

Rabba bar Avuh raises a dilemma: Does designation of a Hebrew maidservant for betrothal by her master effect marriage or does it effect only betrothal? The practical difference of the outcome of this dilemma is whether he inherits her property, i.e., does her husband inherit her property if she dies as he would if she were married to him; and whether he is obligated to become impure to bury her when she dies, if he is a priest; and whether he can nullify her vows on his own without her father, as is the case with a married woman. What is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讘讘讙讚讜 讘讛 讻讬讜谉 砖驻讬专砖 讟诇讬转讜 注诇讬讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜讻专讛 讝讘讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛 讛讗 讬注讜讚讬 诪讬讬注讚 诇讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讬砖讗转 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讗讘讬讛 专砖讜转 讘讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma. Bevigdo vah means: Once her master has spread his garment over her, the father may no longer sell her. The Gemara analyzes this statement: This indicates that her father cannot sell her afterward, but he can designate her for another man if the master dies or divorces her. And if you say that designation effects marriage, once she is married her father no longer has authority over her. Rather, is it not correct to learn from this that designation effects only betrothal?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖诪住专讛 讗讘讬讛 诇诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讘砖讗专讛 讻住讜转讛 讜注讜谞转讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇诪讜讻专讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this argument can be refuted. Here, the baraita is dealing with the ordinary betrothal of one鈥檚 daughter, not to one who sells his daughter as a maidservant. And this is what the baraita is saying: Since her father gave her, i.e., betrothed her, to one who is obligated to provide her food, her clothing, and fulfill her conjugal rights, he can no longer sell her. Therefore, this baraita proves nothing with regard to the issue of whether or not designation effects marriage.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专讜 诪讜讻专讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪讜讻专讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara cites another relevant source. Come and hear: A father cannot sell his daughter as a maidservant to relatives with whom she is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse, as they cannot fulfill the mitzva of designation. They said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: He can sell her to relatives, because designation is merely an option and its inapplicability does not negate the possibility of a sale. And they agree that he can sell her to a High Priest if she is a widow, or to a common priest if she is a divorc茅e or a yevama who performed 岣litza [岣lutza]. Although it is prohibited for her to marry these men, their betrothal is effective, and therefore designation is not entirely impossible in these cases.

讛讗讬 讗诇诪谞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讚讬砖 谞驻砖讛 讗诇诪谞讛 拽专讬 诇讛 讜讗诇讗 讚拽讚砖讛 讗讘讬讛 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讞专 讗讬砖讜转

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this widow? If we say that she betrothed herself when she was a minor and her husband died, is she called a widow? Since the initial betrothal was entirely ineffective, as a minor cannot accept betrothal independently, she would not be considered his wife. Rather, one must say that her father betrothed her and she was subsequently widowed. But if that is the case, can he sell her? But it was taught that a person cannot sell his daughter into slavery after marriage.

讜讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘拽讚讜砖讬 讬注讜讚 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪注讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 诇讗讜 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讬砖讗转 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讗讘讬讛 专砖讜转 讘讛

And Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Here, it is referring to a woman widowed from betrothal of designation, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: The original money of the sale of the maidservant was not given for the purpose of betrothal but as payment for her work, and if the master wishes to designate her he must give her additional money for that purpose. The relevance of this assertion will be clarified below. The Gemara explains the proof from this baraita: And if you say that designation effects marriage, once she is married her father no longer has authority over her. How can he sell her a second time after the death of her first husband?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪讜讻专讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讞专 讗讬砖讜转 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讚讬讚讛 诪讗讬专讜住讬谉 讚讗讘讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 砖讗谞讬 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讚讬讚讛 诪谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讚讗讘讬讛

The Gemara asks from the other perspective: Rather, what will you say, that designation effects only betrothal? If so, why does the baraita state: And they agree that he can sell her? After all, a person cannot sell his daughter into slavery after matrimony. This baraita also refers to a case where a woman was betrothed but the marriage was not consummated. Rather, what have you to say? Betrothal effected by her is different from betrothal effected by her father. Since the marriage was not performed through her father but by the master giving her additional money, as held by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, the principle that one cannot sell his daughter into slavery after betrothal does not apply. But by the same reasoning, even if you say that designation effects marriage, you can argue that marriage effected by her is different from marriage effected by her father.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讗诇讗 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬砖讜讗讬谉

This challenge is rejected: What is this comparison? Granted, one form of betrothal is different from the other betrothal, i.e., there is a difference between standard betrothal with the father鈥檚 consent and betrothal through designation, which is performed upon the master鈥檚 initiative. After that type of betrothal the father can, in fact, sell her a second time. But with regard to one mode of effecting marriage in relation to another mode of effecting marriage,

Scroll To Top