Kiddushin 44

קטנה מן האירוסין אין עושים בה מאמר אלא מדעת אביה והנערה בין מדעת עצמה בין מדעת אביה (מה שאין כן בקידושין)

If a minor girl was widowed after her betrothal, a surviving brother of her betrothed can perform levirate betrothal only with the consent of her father. And in the case of a young woman, he can do so either with her consent [mida’at atzmah] or with the consent of her father, unlike the halakha with regard to standard betrothal. This indicates that a young woman can accept levirate betrothal on her own, despite the fact that it removes her from her father’s authority.

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מאי טעמיה דרבי יוחנן אליבא דרבנן קידושין דמדעתה אביה ולא היא גירושין דבעל כרחה בין היא בין אביה

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: What is the reason of Rabbi Yoḥanan, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? With regard to betrothal, which takes effect only with the consent of the one who accepts the betrothal, her father can accept it but not her, since betrothal requires his approval. With regard to a bill of divorce, which can be given without her consent, either she or her father can receive it.

הרי מאמר דמדעתה וקתני בין היא ובין אביה התם במאמר דבעל כרחה ורבי היא דתניא העושה מאמר ביבמתו שלא מדעתה רבי אומר קנה וחכמים אומרים לא קנה

The Gemara asks: But isn’t levirate betrothal valid only with her consent, like other betrothals, and yet it teaches in the baraita that either she or her father can accept it? The Gemara answers: There it is referring to levirate betrothal that is performed against her will, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita: If a yavam performs levirate betrothal with his yevama without her consent, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The yavam acquires her. And the Rabbis say: He does not acquire her.

מאי טעמיה דרבי גמר מביאה דיבמה מה ביאה דיבמה בעל כרחה אף הכא נמי בעל כרחה ורבנן סברי ילפינן מקידושין מה קידושין דמדעתה אף הכא נמי דמדעתה

The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He derives the halakha of levirate betrothal from the halakha of sexual intercourse that a yavam engages in with a yevama: Just as intercourse with the yevama renders her acquired even if it is done against her will, so too here, in the case of levirate betrothal, the yavam can betroth her against her will. And the Rabbis hold that we derive the halakha of levirate betrothal from standard betrothal: Just as betrothal can be performed only with her consent, so too here, levirate betrothal can be performed only with her consent.

במאי קמיפלגי רבי סבר מילי דיבמה מיבמה הוה ליה למילף ורבנן סברי קידושין מקידושין הוה ליה למילף

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one should derive matters involving a yevama from other matters involving a yevama, and the marriage between a yevama and a yavam can be formalized against her will. And the Rabbis hold that one should derive matters involving betrothal from the halakhot of betrothal, as levirate betrothal is structured like standard betrothal in other respects.

הכי נמי מסתברא כדקא מתרץ רבי יוחנן מדקתני סיפא מה שאין כן בקידושין אלא נימא תיהוי תיובתא דריש לקיש אמר לך ריש לקיש הא מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר אין שתי ידים זוכות כאחת

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to rule with regard to betrothal as Rabbi Yoḥanan explains, that only the father can accept betrothal, from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita that with regard to levirate betrothal, in the case of a young woman, the yavam can perform it either with her consent or with the consent of her father, unlike the halakha with regard to standard betrothal. This indicates that she can be betrothed in standard betrothal only with her father’s agreement. The Gemara asks: Then shall we say that this should be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, who holds that according to the Rabbis a young woman can also accept her own betrothal? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: Two hands do not acquire an item as one.

אי רבי יהודה מה שאין כן בקידושין מה שאין כן בגירושין מיבעי ליה אין הכי נמי איידי דתנא מאמר דדמי לקידושין תנא נמי מה שאין כן בקידושין

The Gemara asks: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why does the baraita state: Unlike the halakha with regard to standard betrothal? It should have stated: Unlike the halakha with regard to divorce, as Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion in the mishna with regard to divorce, not betrothal. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, it should have referred to divorce, but since it taught the halakha of levirate betrothal, which is similar to betrothal, it also taught: Unlike the halakha with regard to standard betrothal.

ורבי יהודה מאי שנא מאמר הואיל וזקוקה ועומדת השתא דאתית להכי רבי יוחנן נמי לא תיקשי לך מעיקרא שאני מאמר הואיל וזקוקה ועומדת

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, in what way is levirate betrothal different from divorce? Why can a young woman accept the former but not receive a bill of divorce, when both levirate betrothal and divorce can be performed without her consent? The Gemara answers: The halakha of levirate betrothal is different. Since she is bonded to the yavam and standing in wait for him, acceptance of the betrothal money by the yevama suffices to effect the levirate betrothal. The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan also should not pose a difficulty for you from the outset. One cannot question his statement with regard to the Rabbis’ opinion in the case of betrothal. Levirate betrothal is different, since the yevama is bonded to the yavam and standing in wait for him.

תנן האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה בו ובשלוחו בו ובשלוחו אין בה ובשלוחה לא תיובתא דריש לקיש אמר לך ריש לקיש הא נמי רבי יהודה היא

We learned in the mishna that a man can betroth his daughter to a man when she is a young woman, by himself or by means of his agent. The Gemara analyzes this: Yes, he can betroth her by himself or by means of his agent, but no, she cannot become betrothed by herself or by means of her agent. This is a conclusive refutation of Reish Lakish, who holds that according to the opinion of the Rabbis a young woman can accept her own betrothal. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: This mishna too is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

ומי מצית מוקמת לה כרבי יהודה והקתני סיפא האומר לאשה התקדשי לי בתמרה זו התקדשי לי בזו ואמרינן מאן תנא התקדשי התקדשי

The Gemara asks: But can you establish this mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But the last clause, in the following mishna (46b), teaches: In the case of one who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with this date and adds: Be betrothed to me with that date, she is betrothed only if one of them is worth one peruta on its own. And we say: Who is the tanna who taught that the two dates are valued separately only if he said: Become betrothed and: Become betrothed, in a separate statement when giving each date, but that if he said: Become betrothed, only once, the value of the two dates are added together?

ואמר רבה רבי שמעון היא דאמר עד שיאמר שבועה לכל אחד ואחד

And Rabba said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who says that one is not liable to bring multiple offerings for taking false oaths to multiple people in the same utterance. For example, if one says: I take an oath that I do not have your item, nor yours, nor yours, he brings a single offering. This is the halakha unless one states an expression of an oath to each and every one of the plaintiffs, by stating: I take an oath I do not have yours; I take an oath I do not have yours, in which case he brings multiple offerings. Consequently, the tanna of this mishna is Rabbi Shimon, not Rabbi Yehuda.

וכי תימא כולה רבי יהודה ובפרטי סבר לה כרבי שמעון ומי סבר לה

And if you would say that the tanna of the entire mishna concerning betrothal is Rabbi Yehuda, and that with regard to the specification of separate oaths he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, this cannot be. But does he in fact hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the specification of separate oaths?

והתניא זה הכלל כלל אינו חייב אלא אחת פרט חייב על כל אחת ואחת דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר שבועה לא לך לא לך לא לך חייב על כל אחת ואחת רבי אליעזר אומר לא לך לא לך לא לך ולא לך שבועה חייב על כל אחת ואחת רבי שמעון אומר לעולם אינו חייב עד שיאמר שבועה לכל אחד ואחד

But isn’t it taught in a baraita: This is the principle with regard to one’s liability to bring offerings for a false oath: If he included all the statements in one oath he is liable for only one oath, but if he specified them, he is liable for each and every one; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one said: I take an oath that I do not have your deposit, nor yours, nor yours, nor yours, and he was found to have taken a false oath, he is liable to bring an offering for each and every one. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he said: I do not have yours, nor yours, nor yours, and nor yours, I take an oath, then he is liable for each and every one. Since he stated the oath at the end, it refers back to each element of his statement. Rabbi Shimon says: He is liable to bring more than one offering only if he states an expression of an oath for each and every one. This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Shimon with regard to the question of when oaths are considered distinct.

אלא כולה רבי שמעון היא ובשליחות סבר לה כרבי יהודה

Rather, the Gemara explains in the opposite manner: The tanna of the entire mishna concerning betrothal is Rabbi Shimon, and with regard to the halakha of agency he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that only the father of a young woman can appoint an agent to accept her betrothal or receive her bill of divorce.

רבי אסי לא על לבי מדרשא אשכחיה לרבי זירא אמר ליה מאי אמור האידנא בי מדרשא אמר ליה אף אנא לא עייל רבי אבין הוא דעייל ואמר חברותא כולה כרבי יוחנן וצווח ריש לקיש כי כרוכיא ויצאה והיתה וליכא דאשגח ביה אמר ליה רבי אבין בר סמכא הוא אמר ליה אין כמין ימא לטיגני הוא

The Gemara relates: One day Rabbi Asi did not go to the study hall. He found Rabbi Zeira and said to him: What was said today in the study hall? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I too did not go, but Rabbi Avin is the one who went, and he said: The entire coterie sided with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that there is a difference between betrothal and divorce in the case of a young woman. And Reish Lakish screamed at them like a crane: Doesn’t the verse state: “And she departs out of his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2), juxtaposing the halakhot of divorce and betrothal? But no one paid any attention to him. Rabbi Asi said to him: Is Rabbi Avin reliable? Can one be sure that he transmitted an accurate report? Rabbi Zeira said to him: Yes, in this case he can be trusted, since the elapsed time was only like the interval between catching a fish from the sea and bringing it to a frying pan [tignei].

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אנא לא רבי אבין ברבי חייא ולא רבי אבין בר כהנא אלא רבי אבין סתם למאי נפקא מינה למירמא דידיה אדידיה

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: When I quote this statement, I do not state it in the name of Rabbi Avin, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, nor Rabbi Avin bar Kahana, but in the name of Rabbi Avin, without specification. The Gemara asks: What difference is there? Why does it matter which Rabbi Avin is cited as the source of this statement? The Gemara answers: It would matter if one were to raise a contradiction between one of his rulings and another one of his rulings. If there were to be a conflicting opinion attributed to a specific Rabbi Avin, e.g., Rabbi Avin, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, it would not be a true contradiction, as this statement might have been issued by a different Rabbi Avin.

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן

Rava asked Rav Naḥman:

נערה מהו שתעשה שליח לקבל גיטה מיד בעלה כיד אביה דמיא או כחצר אביה דמיא כיד אביה דמיא מה אביה משוי שליח אף היא נמי משוי שליח או דילמא כחצר אביה דמיא ועד דמטיא גיטא לידה לא מיגרשה

According to the Rabbis, who hold that a young woman can accept her own bill of divorce, what is the halakha with regard to the ability of a young woman to appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband? The Gemara explains the two sides of this question: Since a young woman is under her father’s jurisdiction, is she, with regard to acquisitions, considered like an extension of her father’s hand, or is she considered like her father’s courtyard? The Gemara clarifies: She might be considered like her father’s hand, and just as her father can appoint an agent, so too she can appoint an agent. Or perhaps she is considered like her father’s courtyard, and therefore she is not divorced until the bill of divorce actually reaches her possession, as a courtyard cannot appoint an agent, but it can receive a bill of divorce, in the sense that a bill of divorce thrown in his courtyard is considered to be in his possession.

ומי מספקא ליה לרבא הא והאמר רבא כתב גט ונתנו ביד עבדה ישן ומשמרתו הרי זה גט ניעור אינו גט ניעור אמאי אינו גט דהויא לה חצר משתמרת שלא לדעתה ואי סלקא דעתך כחצר אביה דמיא כי מטא גיטה לידה נמי לא תיגרש דהויא לה חצר המשתמרת שלא לדעת אביה

The Gemara asks: And is Rava uncertain about this matter? But doesn’t Rava say: If one wrote a bill of divorce and placed it in the hand of his wife’s slave, who is sleeping, but she is guarding him, then it is a valid bill of divorce. If the slave was awake, then it is not a valid bill of divorce. Why is it not a valid bill of divorce if he is awake? It is because the slave is for her a courtyard that is not consciously secured by her, i.e., when the slave is awake, he is not fully controlled by her. And if it enters your mind that a young woman is considered like her father’s courtyard, then even when the bill of divorce reaches her possession she should not be divorced, since she is like a courtyard that is not consciously secured by her father.

אלא לעולם פשיטא ליה דכי יד אביה דמיא והכי קמיבעיא ליה מי אלימא כיד אביה לשויה איהי שליח או לא אמר ליה אין עושה שליח

Rather, it is actually obvious to Rava that a young woman is considered like her father’s hand and not like his courtyard, and this is what he was asking: Is she just as strong as her father’s hand, to the extent that she can appoint an agent, or not? Rav Naḥman said to him: She cannot appoint an agent.

איתיביה קטנה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי אינו גט עד שיגיע גט לידה הא נערה הרי זה גט הכא במאי עסקינן בשאין לה אב

Rava raised an objection to him from a mishna (Gittin 65a): In the case of a minor girl who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, it is not a valid bill of divorce until the bill of divorce reaches her possession, since a minor is not considered halakhically competent and cannot appoint an agent. Rava inferred from this: But in the case of a young woman, it is a bill of divorce, which indicates that a young woman can appoint an agent. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a situation where she does not have a father, and she can appoint an agent since she is of age and is under her own authority. But a betrothed young woman whose father is still alive is under his authority and cannot appoint an agent.

הא מדקתני סיפא אם אמר אביה צא וקבל גט לבתי אם רצה בעל לחזור בו לא יחזור מכלל דרישא בדיש לה אב עסקינן חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני קטנה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי אינו גט עד שיגיע גט לידה הא נערה הרי זה גט במה דברים אמורים כשאין לה אב אבל יש לה אב ואמר אביה צא וקבל לבתי גיטה ורוצה בעל לחזור לא יחזור

The Gemara asks: But from the fact that the latter clause of that same mishna teaches: If her father said to an agent: Go out and receive a bill of divorce for my daughter, then if the husband seeks to retract his decision after he has given the bill of divorce to the agent he cannot retract it, since it is as though the bill of divorce reached her possession, by inference, one can say that in the first clause we are dealing with a case where she has a father. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: In the case of a minor girl who said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, it is not a bill of divorce until the bill of divorce reaches her possession. But in the case of a young woman, it is a bill of divorce as soon as it reaches her agent’s possession. In what case is this statement said? It is said when she does not have a father. But if she has a father, and her father said to an agent: Go out and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce on her behalf, and the husband seeks to retract his decision, he cannot retract it.

איתמר קטנה שנתקדשה שלא לדעת אביה אמר שמואל צריכה גט וצריכה מיאון אמר קרנא דברים בגו אם גט למה מיאון אם מיאון למה גט

§ It was stated that amora’im disagreed in the case of a minor who became betrothed without her father’s consent. Shmuel says: If her husband seeks to divorce her she requires a bill of divorce to sever the marriage, and she also requires refusal, which annuls a betrothal that is valid by rabbinic law but not by Torah law. Karna says: There are puzzling matters included within this statement, since it is self-contradictory: If she needs a bill of divorce, and the betrothal is evidently treated as a proper betrothal, why does she require refusal? Conversely, if she requires refusal, indicating that her betrothal was of no consequence by Torah law, why does she require a bill of divorce?

אמרו ליה הא מר עוקבא ובי דיניה בכפרי אפכוה שדרוה לקמיה דרב אמר להו האלהים צריכא גט וצריכה מיאון וחס ליה לזרעיה דאבא בר אבא דנימא הכי

The Sages said to him: Now that Mar Ukva and his court are in the town of Kafrei, let us pose the question to them. Furthermore, they reversed the names of the respective opinions of Shmuel and Karna and sent the question before Rav. He said to the messengers in the form of an oath: By God! She requires a bill of divorce and she requires refusal. And God forbid that the seed of Abba bar Abba, i.e., Shmuel, should say such a thing, that she does not require both.

וטעמא מאי אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא צריכה גט שמא נתרצה האב בקידושין צריכה מיאון שמא לא נתרצה האב בקידושין ויאמרו אין קידושין תופסין באחותה

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that there is a need for both a bill of divorce and refusal? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: She requires a bill of divorce because perhaps the father desired the betrothal, which would mean it would take effect retroactively. She also requires refusal because perhaps the father did not desire the betrothal, and it did not take effect. If she receives only a bill of divorce, and her former husband proceeds to betroth her sister, people will say that the betrothal does not take effect with her sister. The halakha is that betrothal can take effect with the sister of one’s wife or former wife only after the first wife has died. She is therefore required to perform refusal, to indicate that the validity of her betrothal was uncertain. If he later betroths her sister, he would be required to divorce her due to the uncertainty if this second betrothal took effect.

אמר רב נחמן והוא ששדכו

Rav Naḥman said: And this concern that the father of a minor might later state that he desired her betrothal is relevant only when they arranged the match before she betrothed herself, as in that case it is likely that the father desired the betrothal.

עולא אמר אפילו מיאון אינה צריכה אף על גב דשידכו מאן דמתני הא לא מתני הא איכא דאמרי אמר עולא קטנה שנתקדשה שלא לדעת אביה אפילו מיאון אינה צריכה

The Gemara quotes another opinion. Ulla said: If a minor accepted betrothal without her father’s consent, her betrothal does not take effect, and she does not even require refusal. The Gemara asks: Does Ulla’s statement apply even though they arranged the match? The Gemara answers: He who teaches this does not teach that. The one who cited Ulla’s statement does not hold that Shmuel’s ruling applies only in the case of an arranged match, rather it applies in all cases. According to this opinion, Ulla stated his halakha only in a case where the match was not arranged. There are those who say that Ulla says: If a minor became betrothed without her father’s consent, she does not even require refusal, including a case where the match was arranged.

מתיב רב כהנא וכולן אם מתו או מיאנו או נתגרשו או שנמצאו איילונית צרותיהן מותרות

Rav Kahana raises an objection: The mishna in Yevamot (2a) teaches that if a potential yevama is in one of the fifteen categories of women forbidden to the yavam as a relative, not only is she forbidden to him, but he also may not perform levirate marriage with any of her rival wives. The Sages then clarified this halakha: And if, before the husband had died, any of those forbidden women had died, or had performed refusal; or had been divorced; or had been found to be a sexually underdeveloped woman [ailonit], who is incapable of bearing children, then her rival wives are permitted to the yavam.

דקדשה מאן אילימא דקדשה אביה במיאון סגי לה גט מעליא בעיא אלא לאו דקדשה איהי נפשה וקתני דבעיא מיאון

Rav Kahana focuses on the case of one who performed refusal: With regard to this refusal that she performed, what type of betrothal did it follow? When she was betrothed by whom? If we say that her father betrothed her to the brother who died, is refusal alone enough for her to dissolve the marriage? Doesn’t she require a proper bill of divorce? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she betrothed herself when she was a minor, and the mishna nevertheless teaches that she requires refusal. This presents a difficulty for Ulla, who holds that she does not need even refusal.

הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה כגון שנעשה לה מעשה יתומה בחיי האב

The Gemara comments: Rav Kahana raised the objection and he resolved it: The mishna refers to a case where she became like an orphan in her father’s lifetime, i.e., her father betrothed her to a man, and she was subsequently widowed or divorced while still a minor. In that case, the same halakha as that of an orphan applies to her, in that her father does not have the right to betroth her again, although he is still alive. If she then would betroth herself, her betrothal is not effective by Torah law, because she is still a minor. It does take effect by rabbinic law, and she can annul that marriage by performing refusal. This would not be a question for Ulla, as he stated his ruling in a case where it was the first betrothal of the minor.

מתיב רב המנונא אין מוכרה לקרובים משום רבי אלעזר אמרו מוכרה לקרובים

Rav Hamnuna raises an objection: It is taught in a baraita with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: A father cannot sell his minor daughter as a Hebrew maidservant to her relatives because the Torah requires that the one who purchases a maidservant be able to marry her. The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: He can sell her even to her relatives, as sometimes a Hebrew maidservant serves only in that capacity, without marrying the master.