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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 14, 2016 | ื“ืณ ื‘ืื“ืจ ื‘ืณ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • 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 shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Kiddushin 3

Why did the mishna use the term derachim instead of devarim.ย  The gemara comparesย different mishnayot that employย the same term in order to resolve the question. Why does the mishna give numbers and not just cite the options. From where does the gemara learn that kiddushin can be done with money and that if the girls is a minor or a na’ara, that the money goes to the father?

Study Guide Kiddushin 3


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

ื”ืชื ื”ื ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื“ืจื›ื™ื” ื“ืืชืจื•ื’ ื›ื™ืจืง ืžื” ื™ืจืง ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื™ื’ื“ืœ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื•ื‘ืฉืขืช ืœืงื™ื˜ืชื• ืขื™ืฉื•ืจื• ืืฃ ืืชืจื•ื’ ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื™ื’ื“ืœ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื•ื‘ืฉืขืช ืœืงื™ื˜ืชื• ืขื™ืฉื•ืจื•

The Gemara explains: There, the mishna teaches us this, that the way an etrog grows is like a vegetable: Just as it is the way of a vegetable to grow by being watered by all water, i.e., in addition to rainwater it requires irrigation, and its tithing is according to when it is harvested, i.e., its tithing is based on when it is collected from the field, so too, it is the way of an etrog to grow by being watered by all water, as it requires more water than rain provides, and its tithing is according to the time when it is harvested. If, for example, a vegetable is collected during a year when poor manโ€™s tithe is given, that tithe is separated from it, even if it formed a bud during the previous year, when second tithe was separated. The same applies to an etrog. Therefore, the mishna specifically uses the term: Way, to allude to this reason.

ื•ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ื•ื™ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืฉื•ื” ืœื—ื™ื” ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืฉื•ื” ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืฉื•ื” ืœื—ื™ื” ื•ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉื•ื” ืœื ืœื—ื™ื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื•ืชื• ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื–ื• ืื—ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืฉืฉื•ื• ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืœืฉื—ืจื•ืจื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื

The Gemara further asks: But concerning that which we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 2:8): With regard to a koy, an animal whose classification was uncertain, as the Sages were unsure whether it is a domesticated or a non-domesticated animal, there are ways, i.e., halakhot, in which its halakhot correspond to those of a non-domesticated animal and there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of a domesticated animal. And there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of both a non-domesticated animal and a domesticated animal, and there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of neither a non-domesticated animal nor a domesticated animal. Let that mishna teach the term: Matters. And furthermore, with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Gittin 9a): This is one of the ways in which the halakhot of bills of divorce correspond to those of bills of manumission, let that mishna teach the word: Matters.

ืืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ืชื ื™ ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืชืจื•ื’ ืฉื•ื” ืœืื™ืœืŸ ืœื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanations, as the phraseology is not dependent on the nature of the topic at hand. Instead, anywhere that there is a distinction with regard to an issue the mishna teaches the term: Ways, as there are different ways or possibilities available. And anywhere that there is no distinction it teaches the word: Matters. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise in this regard, as it teaches in the latter clause of that mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: The halakhot of an etrog tree correspond to those of a tree with regard to every matter. This indicates that when no distinctions apply, the mishna will use the term matter. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this clause in the mishna that this explanation is correct.

ืžื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™ ืžื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™

ยง The Gemara continues to analyze the language of the mishna: With regard to the number in the first clause of the mishna, i.e., a woman is acquired in three ways, this serves to exclude what? The fact that the mishna mentions a number indicates that other modes of acquisition do not apply to betrothal. What mode is excluded? Similarly, the number in the latter clause of the mishna, that a woman acquires herself in two ways, serves to exclude what?

ืžื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื—ื•ืคื” ื•ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื•ืคื” ืงื•ื ื” ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™

The Gemara explains: The number in the first clause serves to exclude a wedding canopy, which does not effect betrothal. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Huna, who said: A wedding canopy acquires a woman, and it alone could be a mode of betrothal, as derived by an a fortiori inference (see 5a), this number serves to exclude what?

ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื’ืžืจ ืงื™ื—ื” ืงื™ื—ื” ืžืฉื“ื” ืขืคืจื•ืŸ ืžื” ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื™ื ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืืฃ ืืฉื” ื ืžื™ ืžืงื ื™ื ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara answers: The number serves to exclude acquisition through symbolic exchange, i.e., a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an article. Although a woman can be betrothed by means of money or an item of monetary value, she is not betrothed if she is given an item by symbolic exchange. The Gemara explains why this needs to be excluded: It might enter your mind to say that since the Sages derive the acquisition of a woman by verbal analogy between the term expressing taking stated with regard to betrothal from the term expressing taking with regard to the field of Ephron, it can be suggested that just as a field can be acquired through symbolic exchange, so too, a woman can be acquired through symbolic exchange. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that this is not the case.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืื™ืชื ื”ื• ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื•ืืฉื” ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”

The Gemara asks: And perhaps one should say that so too, it is possible to betroth a woman by means of symbolic exchange. The Gemara answers: This cannot be the case, as symbolic exchange is effective using an item worth less than the value of one peruta, and with an item worth less than the value of one peruta, a woman

ืœื ืžืงื ื™ื ื ืคืฉื”

does not render herself acquired by a man.

ืžื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืชื™ืชื™ ื‘ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืžื™ื‘ืžื” ืžื” ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื–ื• ืฉื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: The number in the latter clause of the mishna, that a woman acquires herself in two ways, serves to exclude what? The Gemara answers that it serves to exclude แธฅalitza, i.e., a woman is not released from marriage through แธฅalitza. Without this exclusion it might enter your mind to say that this can be derived through an a fortiori inference from the halakha of a yevama, as follows: Just as a yevama, who is not released from the yavam through a bill of divorce, is nevertheless released from him through แธฅalitza, with regard to this married woman, who can be released from her husband through a bill of divorce, is it not logical that she can be released from him through แธฅalitza? Therefore, the tanna teaches us that a married woman cannot be released from her husband by means of แธฅalitza.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืกืคืจ ื›ืจื™ืชืช ืกืคืจ ื›ื•ืจืชื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื›ื•ืจืชื”

The Gemara asks: And perhaps one should say that so too, this is the case, i.e., a married woman can be released from marriage through แธฅalitza. The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to divorce: โ€œA scroll of severanceโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:3), which teaches: A scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband, and nothing else severs her from him.

ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžื ื ืœืŸ ื•ืชื• ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืื‘ ื–ื›ืื™ ื‘ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืžื™ืงื ื™ื ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื›ืกืฃ ื“ืื‘ื•ื” ื”ื•ื

ยง The mishna teaches that a woman can be acquired with money. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that a woman can be acquired through money? And furthermore, with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 46b): A father has authority over his daughter with regard to her betrothal, whether it is through money, through a document, or through sexual intercourse, from where do we derive that she is acquired by her husband with money, and that this money is her fatherโ€™s?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื—ื ื ืื™ืŸ ื›ืกืฃ ืื™ืŸ ื›ืกืฃ ืœืื“ื•ืŸ ื–ื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ื›ืกืฃ ืœืื“ื•ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื•ืžืืŸ ื ื™ื”ื• ืื‘

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The reason is that the verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant acquiring freedom from her master: โ€œThen shall she go out for nothing, without moneyโ€ (Exodus 21:11). The extraneous phrase: Without money, indicates that there is no money for this master, i.e., in this case the master she leaves loses the money he paid for her, but there is money for a different master, i.e., another master receives money for her when she leaves his authority. And who is the other master who can transfer her to someone else and receives money for her? This is her father.

ื•ืื™ืžื ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ืื‘ื™ื” ืžืงื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืช ื‘ืชื™ ื ืชืชื™ ืœืื™ืฉ ื”ื–ื” ื•ืื™ื”ื™ ืฉืงืœื” ื›ืกืคื

The Gemara asks: But why not say that this money is given to her? The Gemara rejects this: How can one suggest this? Her father receives her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, when he marries her off to her husband, as it is written: โ€œI gave my daughter to this manโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:16), and shall she take the money? Since he is the one who marries her off, he is certainly entitled to the money of her betrothal.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื™ื“ ืœืงื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื ืขืจื” ื“ืื™ืช ืœื” ื™ื“ ืœืงื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ื”ื™ ื ืคืฉื” ื•ืชืฉืงื•ืœ ื›ืกืคื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื‘ื ืขืจื™ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื— ื ืขื•ืจื™ื ืœืื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: But why not say that this halakha applies only when she is a minor girl, as she does not have the power to receive her betrothal. Since she lacks the intellectual capacity, she likewise does not have the legal right to conduct this transaction. But with regard to a young woman, who does have the power to receive her betrothal, as a female older than twelve years is considered an adult, let her betroth herself and take the money. The Gemara answers that the verse states: โ€œBeing in her youth, in her fatherโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:17), which teaches: Any profit she gains in her youth belongs to her father.

ื•ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืžืขืฉื” ื”ื‘ืช ืœืื‘ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื›ืจ ืื™ืฉ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืœืืžื” ืžื” ืืžื” ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื” ืืฃ ื‘ืช ื ืžื™ ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ืžื‘ื ืขืจื™ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara questions this explanation: But with regard to that which Rav Huna says that Rav says: From where is it derived that the earnings of a daughter, i.e., the profit from her labor, belongs to her father? As it is stated: โ€œAnd if a man sells his daughter as a maidservantโ€ (Exodus 21:7). This comparison between a daughter and a Hebrew maidservant teaches the following: Just as with regard to a Hebrew maidservant, her earnings belong to her master, so too, with regard to a daughter, her earnings belong to her father. The Gemara now asks: Why does Rav Huna need this derivation? Let him derive this halakha from the verse โ€œbeing in her youth, in her fatherโ€™s house,โ€ which indicates that any profit from her earnings as a young woman belongs to her father.

ืืœื ื‘ื”ืคืจืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื”ืคืจืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ื™ืœืคื™ื ืŸ

Rather, Rav Huna maintains that that verse is written with regard to the nullification of vows, and it is not referring to the halakhot of acquisition. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then so too, with regard to her betrothal money, one can say that this verse is written only with regard to the nullification of vows and does not apply to betrothal money. And if you would say: Let us derive the halakha of her betrothal money from the halakha of the nullification of vows, i.e., just as a father has the right to nullify his daughterโ€™s vows when she is a young woman, so too, he has rights to her money, this is not possible, as there is a principle: We do not derive monetary matters from ritual matters.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืงื ืกื ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืงื ืกื ืœื ื™ืœืคื™ื ืŸ

And if you would say: Let us derive this halakha of the betrothal of a young woman from the halakha of fines, as it is stated explicitly in the Torah that a man who rapes a young woman must pay a fine to her father, there is another principle that is applicable here: We do not derive monetary matters from fines, as the imposition of a fine is considered a unique case from which ordinary monetary rights cannot be derived.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ืฉืื ื™ ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ื“ืื‘ื•ื” ืฉื™ื™ืš ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื™ื”ื•

And if you would say: Let us derive this halakha from the reimbursements for the humiliation and degradation of a young woman who was raped, which are also given to the father, one can answer that the following distinction applies: Reimbursement for humiliation and degradation are different, as her father has an interest in them. The father has the ability to derive benefit from her humiliation and degradation in other ways, e.g., by marrying her to a man afflicted with boils. which would humiliate her and cause a reduction in her value. Therefore, one cannot derive from the fact that the father receives the reimbursements for the humiliation and degradation of a young woman who was raped that he receives other monies due to her.

ืืœื ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ื›ื™ ืงื ืžืžืขื˜

Rather, the halakha that a young womanโ€™s betrothal money belongs to her father is derived from the verse: โ€œThen shall she go out for nothing, without moneyโ€ (Exodus 21:11), as previously stated. As for the question why the money does not belong to her, the Gemara answers that it is reasonable that when the verse excludes another situation and indicates that there is no money for this master but there is money for a different master,

  • 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 shleima 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 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 3

ื”ืชื ื”ื ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื“ืจื›ื™ื” ื“ืืชืจื•ื’ ื›ื™ืจืง ืžื” ื™ืจืง ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื™ื’ื“ืœ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื•ื‘ืฉืขืช ืœืงื™ื˜ืชื• ืขื™ืฉื•ืจื• ืืฃ ืืชืจื•ื’ ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื™ื’ื“ืœ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื•ื‘ืฉืขืช ืœืงื™ื˜ืชื• ืขื™ืฉื•ืจื•

The Gemara explains: There, the mishna teaches us this, that the way an etrog grows is like a vegetable: Just as it is the way of a vegetable to grow by being watered by all water, i.e., in addition to rainwater it requires irrigation, and its tithing is according to when it is harvested, i.e., its tithing is based on when it is collected from the field, so too, it is the way of an etrog to grow by being watered by all water, as it requires more water than rain provides, and its tithing is according to the time when it is harvested. If, for example, a vegetable is collected during a year when poor manโ€™s tithe is given, that tithe is separated from it, even if it formed a bud during the previous year, when second tithe was separated. The same applies to an etrog. Therefore, the mishna specifically uses the term: Way, to allude to this reason.

ื•ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ื•ื™ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืฉื•ื” ืœื—ื™ื” ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืฉื•ื” ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืฉื•ื” ืœื—ื™ื” ื•ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉื•ื” ืœื ืœื—ื™ื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื•ืชื• ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื–ื• ืื—ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืฉืฉื•ื• ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืœืฉื—ืจื•ืจื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื

The Gemara further asks: But concerning that which we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 2:8): With regard to a koy, an animal whose classification was uncertain, as the Sages were unsure whether it is a domesticated or a non-domesticated animal, there are ways, i.e., halakhot, in which its halakhot correspond to those of a non-domesticated animal and there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of a domesticated animal. And there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of both a non-domesticated animal and a domesticated animal, and there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of neither a non-domesticated animal nor a domesticated animal. Let that mishna teach the term: Matters. And furthermore, with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Gittin 9a): This is one of the ways in which the halakhot of bills of divorce correspond to those of bills of manumission, let that mishna teach the word: Matters.

ืืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ืชื ื™ ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืชืจื•ื’ ืฉื•ื” ืœืื™ืœืŸ ืœื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanations, as the phraseology is not dependent on the nature of the topic at hand. Instead, anywhere that there is a distinction with regard to an issue the mishna teaches the term: Ways, as there are different ways or possibilities available. And anywhere that there is no distinction it teaches the word: Matters. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise in this regard, as it teaches in the latter clause of that mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: The halakhot of an etrog tree correspond to those of a tree with regard to every matter. This indicates that when no distinctions apply, the mishna will use the term matter. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this clause in the mishna that this explanation is correct.

ืžื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™ ืžื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™

ยง The Gemara continues to analyze the language of the mishna: With regard to the number in the first clause of the mishna, i.e., a woman is acquired in three ways, this serves to exclude what? The fact that the mishna mentions a number indicates that other modes of acquisition do not apply to betrothal. What mode is excluded? Similarly, the number in the latter clause of the mishna, that a woman acquires herself in two ways, serves to exclude what?

ืžื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื—ื•ืคื” ื•ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื•ืคื” ืงื•ื ื” ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™

The Gemara explains: The number in the first clause serves to exclude a wedding canopy, which does not effect betrothal. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Huna, who said: A wedding canopy acquires a woman, and it alone could be a mode of betrothal, as derived by an a fortiori inference (see 5a), this number serves to exclude what?

ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื’ืžืจ ืงื™ื—ื” ืงื™ื—ื” ืžืฉื“ื” ืขืคืจื•ืŸ ืžื” ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื™ื ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืืฃ ืืฉื” ื ืžื™ ืžืงื ื™ื ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara answers: The number serves to exclude acquisition through symbolic exchange, i.e., a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an article. Although a woman can be betrothed by means of money or an item of monetary value, she is not betrothed if she is given an item by symbolic exchange. The Gemara explains why this needs to be excluded: It might enter your mind to say that since the Sages derive the acquisition of a woman by verbal analogy between the term expressing taking stated with regard to betrothal from the term expressing taking with regard to the field of Ephron, it can be suggested that just as a field can be acquired through symbolic exchange, so too, a woman can be acquired through symbolic exchange. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that this is not the case.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืื™ืชื ื”ื• ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื•ืืฉื” ื‘ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”

The Gemara asks: And perhaps one should say that so too, it is possible to betroth a woman by means of symbolic exchange. The Gemara answers: This cannot be the case, as symbolic exchange is effective using an item worth less than the value of one peruta, and with an item worth less than the value of one peruta, a woman

ืœื ืžืงื ื™ื ื ืคืฉื”

does not render herself acquired by a man.

ืžื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืชื™ืชื™ ื‘ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืžื™ื‘ืžื” ืžื” ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื–ื• ืฉื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: The number in the latter clause of the mishna, that a woman acquires herself in two ways, serves to exclude what? The Gemara answers that it serves to exclude แธฅalitza, i.e., a woman is not released from marriage through แธฅalitza. Without this exclusion it might enter your mind to say that this can be derived through an a fortiori inference from the halakha of a yevama, as follows: Just as a yevama, who is not released from the yavam through a bill of divorce, is nevertheless released from him through แธฅalitza, with regard to this married woman, who can be released from her husband through a bill of divorce, is it not logical that she can be released from him through แธฅalitza? Therefore, the tanna teaches us that a married woman cannot be released from her husband by means of แธฅalitza.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืกืคืจ ื›ืจื™ืชืช ืกืคืจ ื›ื•ืจืชื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื›ื•ืจืชื”

The Gemara asks: And perhaps one should say that so too, this is the case, i.e., a married woman can be released from marriage through แธฅalitza. The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to divorce: โ€œA scroll of severanceโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:3), which teaches: A scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband, and nothing else severs her from him.

ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžื ื ืœืŸ ื•ืชื• ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืื‘ ื–ื›ืื™ ื‘ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืžื™ืงื ื™ื ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื›ืกืฃ ื“ืื‘ื•ื” ื”ื•ื

ยง The mishna teaches that a woman can be acquired with money. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that a woman can be acquired through money? And furthermore, with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 46b): A father has authority over his daughter with regard to her betrothal, whether it is through money, through a document, or through sexual intercourse, from where do we derive that she is acquired by her husband with money, and that this money is her fatherโ€™s?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื—ื ื ืื™ืŸ ื›ืกืฃ ืื™ืŸ ื›ืกืฃ ืœืื“ื•ืŸ ื–ื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ื›ืกืฃ ืœืื“ื•ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื•ืžืืŸ ื ื™ื”ื• ืื‘

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The reason is that the verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant acquiring freedom from her master: โ€œThen shall she go out for nothing, without moneyโ€ (Exodus 21:11). The extraneous phrase: Without money, indicates that there is no money for this master, i.e., in this case the master she leaves loses the money he paid for her, but there is money for a different master, i.e., another master receives money for her when she leaves his authority. And who is the other master who can transfer her to someone else and receives money for her? This is her father.

ื•ืื™ืžื ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ืื‘ื™ื” ืžืงื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืช ื‘ืชื™ ื ืชืชื™ ืœืื™ืฉ ื”ื–ื” ื•ืื™ื”ื™ ืฉืงืœื” ื›ืกืคื

The Gemara asks: But why not say that this money is given to her? The Gemara rejects this: How can one suggest this? Her father receives her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, when he marries her off to her husband, as it is written: โ€œI gave my daughter to this manโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:16), and shall she take the money? Since he is the one who marries her off, he is certainly entitled to the money of her betrothal.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื™ื“ ืœืงื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื ืขืจื” ื“ืื™ืช ืœื” ื™ื“ ืœืงื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ื”ื™ ื ืคืฉื” ื•ืชืฉืงื•ืœ ื›ืกืคื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื‘ื ืขืจื™ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื— ื ืขื•ืจื™ื ืœืื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: But why not say that this halakha applies only when she is a minor girl, as she does not have the power to receive her betrothal. Since she lacks the intellectual capacity, she likewise does not have the legal right to conduct this transaction. But with regard to a young woman, who does have the power to receive her betrothal, as a female older than twelve years is considered an adult, let her betroth herself and take the money. The Gemara answers that the verse states: โ€œBeing in her youth, in her fatherโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:17), which teaches: Any profit she gains in her youth belongs to her father.

ื•ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืžืขืฉื” ื”ื‘ืช ืœืื‘ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื›ืจ ืื™ืฉ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืœืืžื” ืžื” ืืžื” ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื” ืืฃ ื‘ืช ื ืžื™ ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ืžื‘ื ืขืจื™ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara questions this explanation: But with regard to that which Rav Huna says that Rav says: From where is it derived that the earnings of a daughter, i.e., the profit from her labor, belongs to her father? As it is stated: โ€œAnd if a man sells his daughter as a maidservantโ€ (Exodus 21:7). This comparison between a daughter and a Hebrew maidservant teaches the following: Just as with regard to a Hebrew maidservant, her earnings belong to her master, so too, with regard to a daughter, her earnings belong to her father. The Gemara now asks: Why does Rav Huna need this derivation? Let him derive this halakha from the verse โ€œbeing in her youth, in her fatherโ€™s house,โ€ which indicates that any profit from her earnings as a young woman belongs to her father.

ืืœื ื‘ื”ืคืจืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื”ืคืจืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ื™ืœืคื™ื ืŸ

Rather, Rav Huna maintains that that verse is written with regard to the nullification of vows, and it is not referring to the halakhot of acquisition. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then so too, with regard to her betrothal money, one can say that this verse is written only with regard to the nullification of vows and does not apply to betrothal money. And if you would say: Let us derive the halakha of her betrothal money from the halakha of the nullification of vows, i.e., just as a father has the right to nullify his daughterโ€™s vows when she is a young woman, so too, he has rights to her money, this is not possible, as there is a principle: We do not derive monetary matters from ritual matters.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืงื ืกื ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืงื ืกื ืœื ื™ืœืคื™ื ืŸ

And if you would say: Let us derive this halakha of the betrothal of a young woman from the halakha of fines, as it is stated explicitly in the Torah that a man who rapes a young woman must pay a fine to her father, there is another principle that is applicable here: We do not derive monetary matters from fines, as the imposition of a fine is considered a unique case from which ordinary monetary rights cannot be derived.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ืฉืื ื™ ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ื“ืื‘ื•ื” ืฉื™ื™ืš ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื™ื”ื•

And if you would say: Let us derive this halakha from the reimbursements for the humiliation and degradation of a young woman who was raped, which are also given to the father, one can answer that the following distinction applies: Reimbursement for humiliation and degradation are different, as her father has an interest in them. The father has the ability to derive benefit from her humiliation and degradation in other ways, e.g., by marrying her to a man afflicted with boils. which would humiliate her and cause a reduction in her value. Therefore, one cannot derive from the fact that the father receives the reimbursements for the humiliation and degradation of a young woman who was raped that he receives other monies due to her.

ืืœื ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ื›ื™ ืงื ืžืžืขื˜

Rather, the halakha that a young womanโ€™s betrothal money belongs to her father is derived from the verse: โ€œThen shall she go out for nothing, without moneyโ€ (Exodus 21:11), as previously stated. As for the question why the money does not belong to her, the Gemara answers that it is reasonable that when the verse excludes another situation and indicates that there is no money for this master but there is money for a different master,

Scroll To Top