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

Daf Yomi

September 27, 2023 | 讬状讘 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Kiddushin 45

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jason, Erica, and Raquel in honor of their mother, Patty Belkin on her birthday yesterday. “Wishing a very happy birthday to our amazing mother!”

Ulla held that if a minor girl accepted a betrothal and her father did not react, the betrothal is completely invalid. Two sources (a Mishna and a braita) are brought to raise a difficulty with his ruling, but the difficulties are resolved. Rav and Shmuel ruled that there is doubt as to whether or not the father agreed and therefore she must receive a get and do mi’un in order to be able to marry someone else. If the man who betrothed her died, and she became obligated in levirate marriage with the brother, and he performed maamar, Rav held that she needs to receive a get, perform chalitza and do mi’un with the brother of her deceased husband.聽If a father arranged a betrothal for his son, is there concern that perhaps the son agreed, just as there is concern that perhaps a father agreed to his minor daughter’s betrothal? A story is told about a father who disagreed with his wife as to whether to marry off their daughter to his or her relatives. In the end, he conceded to his wife to marry her off to her relative, but at the betrothal ceremony, one of his relatives betrothed her in the attic. Is there concern that the father was pleased with this as it was his original desire? What is the ruling if a minor was betrothed by her father but then married him without the father’s knowledge when the father was out of town? Can she eat truma if her husband is a kohen?聽 How would the ruling be different if the father was in town and did not say anything when he heard of the marriage?

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 讛讗讬 讗诇诪谞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讚砖讛 讗讘讬讛 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛 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 诇讗讜 讚拽讚讬砖 讗讬讛讬 谞驻砖讛 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讛 讗诇诪谞讛


And they agree that he can sell her to a High Priest even if she is a widow, or to a common priest even if she is a divorc茅e or is a yevama who performed 岣litza [岣lutza]. Although such marriages are prohibited, they do take effect. The Gemara analyzes this: What are the circumstances of this widow who can be sold as a maidservant by her father? If we say that her father betrothed her and her husband subsequently died while she was still a minor, is he able to sell her after her betrothal? A person cannot sell his daughter into servitude after he has betrothed her. Rather, isn鈥檛 the baraita referring to a case when she betrothed herself as a minor, and yet it calls her a widow, indicating that such a betrothal is effective, contrary to the opinion of Ulla.


讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 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


Rav Amram said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: Here it deals with a minor girl widowed from a betrothal of designation, i.e., her father sold her as a Hebrew maidservant, and the master designated her as his wife but died before he married her. 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. Rather, her betrothal goes into effect when her master relinquishes his rights to have her serve as a Hebrew maidservant. Since this betrothal was not accepted by the father, he is later permitted to sell her as a maidservant again.


讗讬转诪专 诪转 讜谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讗讞讬讜 诇讬讘讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪诪讗谞转 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 诇讝讬拽转讜 讻讬爪讚 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜爪专讬讻讛 讞诇讬爪讛 讜爪专讬讻讛 诪讬讗讜谉


It was stated: If a man who betrothed a minor without her father鈥檚 consent died, and she happened before his brothers for levirate marriage, Rav Huna says that Rav says: She performs refusal for his levirate betrothal, i.e., if the yavam performed levirate betrothal with her, divorce is effected only by means of refusal in addition to a bill of divorce, but she does not perform refusal for his levirate bond to her. If he did not perform levirate betrothal, she does not require refusal as well as 岣litza. How so? If he performed levirate betrothal with her, she requires a bill of divorce, and she requires 岣litza, and she requires refusal.


爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 砖诪讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讗讘 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 砖谞讬 爪专讬讻讛 讞诇讬爪讛 砖诪讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讗讘 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 专讗砖讜谉 爪专讬讻讛 诪讬讗讜谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讗讘 诇讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 砖谞讬 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讛


The Gemara clarifies: She requires a bill of divorce, as perhaps the father desired the betrothal of only the second man. Levirate betrothal is performed in the same manner as standard betrothal, i.e., by giving money. If the father did not desire the first betrothal she is not a yevama, and the second betrothal goes into effect, requiring a bill of divorce to end the betrothal. She requires 岣litza, as perhaps the father desired the betrothal of the first man, in which case she is a regular yevama, who requires 岣litza to be released from the yavam. She requires refusal, as perhaps the father did not desire either the betrothal of the first man or the betrothal of the second man. If she receives a bill of divorce and performs 岣litza, and the second man proceeds to betroth her sister, people will say that the betrothal does not take effect with her sister, as they will think that the first betrothal was fully valid.


诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讗诇讗 讞诇讬爪讛 讘诇讘讚 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 转讬讘注讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讗讜谉 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讛 讛讻诇 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗讞讜转 讞诇讜爪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讗讞讜转 讙专讜砖讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讞讜转 讞诇讜爪讛 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐


If he did not perform levirate betrothal with her, she requires only 岣litza. The Gemara explains: If you say that she should require refusal as well, lest people say that betrothal does not take effect with her sister, that is unnecessary. Everyone knows that a sister of one鈥檚 岣lutza is forbidden by rabbinic law only; therefore, they also know that betrothal with the sister would be effective, and they would not permit the sister to marry others without receiving a bill of divorce. This is as Reish Lakish said with regard to the wording of a mishna (Yevamot 41a): Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi incidentally taught that a sister of one鈥檚 divorc茅e is forbidden to him by Torah law, whereas a sister of one鈥檚 岣lutza is forbidden to him by rabbinic law.


讛谞讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 讚讛讜讜 拽讗 砖转讜 讞诪专讗 转讜转讬 爪讬驻讬 讘讘讘诇 砖拽诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻住讗 讚讞诪专讗 讬讛讘 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诪讬拽讚砖讗 诇讬 讘专转讬讱 诇讘专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讗讘


搂 The Gemara relates: There were these two people that were sitting and drinking wine under poplar trees [tzifei] in Babylonia. One of them took a cup of wine and gave it to his friend. He said: Betroth for me your daughter to my son by receiving this cup of wine. Ravina says: Even according to the one who says that in the case of a minor girl who became betrothed without her father鈥檚 consent, we are concerned that perhaps the father desired the betrothal,


砖诪讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讘谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇讬讞 砖讜讬讛 诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞讬砖 诇砖讜讬讬 诇讗讘讜讛 砖诇讬讞 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗专爪讜讬讬 讗专爪讬讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诪讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗诪专 诪专 讚诇讗 住讘专 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇


and we do not say that perhaps the son desired the betrothal. The Sages said to Ravina: But perhaps the son appointed his father as an agent to betroth her, and the betrothal should take effect. He replied: A person is not so brazen as to appoint his father as his agent and thereby treat him as an assistant of sorts. They further inquired: But perhaps the son made his desire known to his father by speaking of his desire to marry the woman, and the father acted of his own accord upon his son鈥檚 wishes and betrothed her to him. Rabba bar Shimi said to Ravina: This is not a concern, since the Master, i.e., Ravina, explicitly said that he does not agree with this opinion of Rav and Shmuel that when a minor girl accepts betrothal there is a concern that perhaps the father desired it. So too, there is no concern that a father can act for the son without his awareness.


讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讚讬砖 讘讻讬砖讗 讚讬专拽讗 讘砖讜拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讗讘 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚专讱 讻讘讜讚 讗讘诇 讚专讱 讘讝讬讜谉 诇讗


The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a minor girl without her father鈥檚 consent with a bundle of vegetables in the marketplace. Ravina says: Even according to the one who says that when a minor becomes betrothed without her father鈥檚 consent we are concerned that perhaps the father desired the betrothal, this matter applies only if the man betrothed her in a dignified manner. But as the betrothal in this case was done in a degrading manner, there is no concern.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讘讝讬讜谉 讚诪讗讬 讗讬 讘讝讬讜谉 讚讬专拽讗 讗讬 讘讝讬讜谉 讚砖讜拽讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚拽讚讬砖 讘讻住驻讗 讘砖讜拽讗 讗讜 讘讻讬砖讗 讚讬专拽讗 讘讘讬转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚专讱 讘讝讬讜谉 讛讜讗


Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: What was the degradation in this manner of betrothal? Was the degradation from the fact that he used vegetables, or was the degradation due to the betrothal having been performed in the marketplace? The practical difference concerns cases where one betrothed a minor girl with money in the marketplace, or where one betrothed a minor girl with a bundle of vegetables in a house. What is the halakha? Ravina said to him: Both this and that, i.e., each of them is considered a degrading manner.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇拽专讬讘讗讬 讜讛讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇拽专讬讘讛 讻驻转讬讛 注讚 讚讗诪专 诇讛 转讬讛讜讬 诇拽专讬讘讛 讗讚讗讻诇讬 讜砖转讬 讗转讗 拽专讬讘讬讛 讘讗讬讙专讗 讜拽讚砖讛


The Gemara further relates: A couple wanted to marry off their minor daughter. That one, the father, said: I want to marry her off to my relative, while she, the mother, said she wanted to marry the daughter off to her relative. His wife pressured him and forced him until he said to her: Let the girl be married to her, i.e., the mother鈥檚, relative. While they were eating and drinking the festive meal before the betrothal, his relative came to the roof and betrothed her to himself.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻转讬讘 砖讗专讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讬注砖讜 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讬讚讘专讜 讻讝讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜专讞 讘住注讜讚讛 讜诪驻住讬讚讛


The Gemara assumes that the father did not desire this betrothal. Why? Abaye said: It is written: 鈥淭he remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies鈥 (Zephaniah 3:13). The father had agreed that she would marry his wife鈥檚 relative, and he would stand by his word. Since the betrothal of his minor daughter is dependent on his desire, there is no concern that the father desired his relative鈥檚 betrothal. Rava said a different reason: There is a presumption that a person does not take the trouble of preparing a meal and then cause it to be lost. Since he prepared a festive meal in honor of his daughter鈥檚 betrothal to his wife鈥檚 relative, he would not desire a betrothal that would render his efforts for naught.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚诇讗 讟专讞


The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: The difference between them concerns a case where he did not take the trouble of preparing a meal. According to Rava, since he had not gone to any effort, there should be concern that the betrothal is valid. Abaye would hold that since he would not go back on his word, they are not betrothed.


谞转拽讚砖讛 诇讚注转 讗讘讬讛 讜讛诇讱 讗讘讬讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜注诪讚讛 讜谞讬砖讗转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗讘讬讛 讜讬诪讞讛 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 砖诪讗 讬讘讜讗 讗讘讬讛 讜讬诪讞讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讝专讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 诇诪驻专注 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讞砖 诇讛 专讘 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讗住讬


搂 If a minor became betrothed with her father鈥檚 consent, and her father left for overseas, and she went ahead and got married of her own accord in her father鈥檚 absence, Rav says: If she is an Israelite who married a priest, she may partake of teruma until her father comes and protests, explicitly stating that he does not agree to the marriage. Rav Asi said: She may not partake of teruma. Perhaps her father will come and protest, and it will be found retroactively that a non-priest has partaken of teruma. The Gemara relates: There was an incident of this kind, and Rav was concerned for this opinion of Rav Asi and did not allow a girl in this situation to partake of teruma.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 砖讗诐 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛


Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: And Rav concedes that if the minor girl dies, the husband does not inherit from her, because of the principle: Establish money in the possession of its owner. Since the validity of her marriage is a matter of uncertainty, as the father might protest it, the money remains with her previous inheritors.


谞转拽讚砖讛 诇讚注转 讜谞讬住转 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讜讗讘讬讛 讻讗谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转


The Gemara cites another dispute between the Sages: If a minor became betrothed with her father鈥檚 consent, and she married without his consent, and her father is here, i.e., present, Rav Huna said: She may not partake of teruma. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: She may partake of teruma.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 讛讗讬 讚讗讬砖转讬拽 诪讬专转讞 专转讞 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚砖诪讗 讬讘讜讗 讗讘讬讛 讜讬诪讞讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讚砖转讬拽 讗讬转谞讜讞讬 讗讬转谞讞讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav Huna said she may not partake of teruma, and even according to Rav, who said that if her father is overseas she may partake of teruma, this is so only there, in the case where the father is not present. But here, where the father is present, he does not consent to the marriage; the reason that he was silent in this situation and refrained from protesting is that he was so angry that he did not wish even to speak to her. Conversely, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: She may partake of teruma, and even according to Rav Asi, who said that she may not partake of teruma, it is there that there is a concern that perhaps her father will come and protest. But here, from the fact that he was silent the assumption is that he is comfortable with the marriage.


谞转拽讚砖讛 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讗讘讬讛 讜谞讬住转 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讜讗讘讬讛 讻讗谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讞诪抓 诇砖谞讬诐 讜讻注砖谉 诇注讬谞讬诐 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚拽讬讚讜砖讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


The Gemara cites another case: If a minor became betrothed without the consent of her father, and married without his consent, and her father is here, Rav Huna said: She may partake of teruma. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: She may not partake of teruma. Ulla said: This opinion of Rav Huna, that in this case she may partake of teruma, is irritating 鈥渁s vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes鈥 (Proverbs 10:26), as it contradicts his earlier ruling. Now consider: And what about there, i.e., in a case where her betrothal was with her father鈥檚 consent, when there is at least betrothal by Torah law, you said she may not partake of teruma in case he did not consent to the marriage. Is it not all the more so the case that here, i.e., where even the betrothal was performed without her father鈥檚 consent, she should not be permitted to partake of teruma?


  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddushin: 39 – 45 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that if one does good deeds, one is rewarded in this world and in the...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 45: A Glass of Wine, a Bundle of Vegetables, and the Marketplace

A couple of cases of betrothing a daughter - with a cup of wine, with a package of vegetables in...

Kiddushin 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 45

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 讛讗讬 讗诇诪谞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讚砖讛 讗讘讬讛 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛 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 诇讗讜 讚拽讚讬砖 讗讬讛讬 谞驻砖讛 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讛 讗诇诪谞讛


And they agree that he can sell her to a High Priest even if she is a widow, or to a common priest even if she is a divorc茅e or is a yevama who performed 岣litza [岣lutza]. Although such marriages are prohibited, they do take effect. The Gemara analyzes this: What are the circumstances of this widow who can be sold as a maidservant by her father? If we say that her father betrothed her and her husband subsequently died while she was still a minor, is he able to sell her after her betrothal? A person cannot sell his daughter into servitude after he has betrothed her. Rather, isn鈥檛 the baraita referring to a case when she betrothed herself as a minor, and yet it calls her a widow, indicating that such a betrothal is effective, contrary to the opinion of Ulla.


讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 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


Rav Amram said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: Here it deals with a minor girl widowed from a betrothal of designation, i.e., her father sold her as a Hebrew maidservant, and the master designated her as his wife but died before he married her. 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. Rather, her betrothal goes into effect when her master relinquishes his rights to have her serve as a Hebrew maidservant. Since this betrothal was not accepted by the father, he is later permitted to sell her as a maidservant again.


讗讬转诪专 诪转 讜谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讗讞讬讜 诇讬讘讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪诪讗谞转 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 诇讝讬拽转讜 讻讬爪讚 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜爪专讬讻讛 讞诇讬爪讛 讜爪专讬讻讛 诪讬讗讜谉


It was stated: If a man who betrothed a minor without her father鈥檚 consent died, and she happened before his brothers for levirate marriage, Rav Huna says that Rav says: She performs refusal for his levirate betrothal, i.e., if the yavam performed levirate betrothal with her, divorce is effected only by means of refusal in addition to a bill of divorce, but she does not perform refusal for his levirate bond to her. If he did not perform levirate betrothal, she does not require refusal as well as 岣litza. How so? If he performed levirate betrothal with her, she requires a bill of divorce, and she requires 岣litza, and she requires refusal.


爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 砖诪讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讗讘 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 砖谞讬 爪专讬讻讛 讞诇讬爪讛 砖诪讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讗讘 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 专讗砖讜谉 爪专讬讻讛 诪讬讗讜谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讗讘 诇讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 砖谞讬 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讛


The Gemara clarifies: She requires a bill of divorce, as perhaps the father desired the betrothal of only the second man. Levirate betrothal is performed in the same manner as standard betrothal, i.e., by giving money. If the father did not desire the first betrothal she is not a yevama, and the second betrothal goes into effect, requiring a bill of divorce to end the betrothal. She requires 岣litza, as perhaps the father desired the betrothal of the first man, in which case she is a regular yevama, who requires 岣litza to be released from the yavam. She requires refusal, as perhaps the father did not desire either the betrothal of the first man or the betrothal of the second man. If she receives a bill of divorce and performs 岣litza, and the second man proceeds to betroth her sister, people will say that the betrothal does not take effect with her sister, as they will think that the first betrothal was fully valid.


诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讗诇讗 讞诇讬爪讛 讘诇讘讚 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 转讬讘注讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讗讜谉 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讛 讛讻诇 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗讞讜转 讞诇讜爪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讗讞讜转 讙专讜砖讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讞讜转 讞诇讜爪讛 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐


If he did not perform levirate betrothal with her, she requires only 岣litza. The Gemara explains: If you say that she should require refusal as well, lest people say that betrothal does not take effect with her sister, that is unnecessary. Everyone knows that a sister of one鈥檚 岣lutza is forbidden by rabbinic law only; therefore, they also know that betrothal with the sister would be effective, and they would not permit the sister to marry others without receiving a bill of divorce. This is as Reish Lakish said with regard to the wording of a mishna (Yevamot 41a): Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi incidentally taught that a sister of one鈥檚 divorc茅e is forbidden to him by Torah law, whereas a sister of one鈥檚 岣lutza is forbidden to him by rabbinic law.


讛谞讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 讚讛讜讜 拽讗 砖转讜 讞诪专讗 转讜转讬 爪讬驻讬 讘讘讘诇 砖拽诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻住讗 讚讞诪专讗 讬讛讘 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诪讬拽讚砖讗 诇讬 讘专转讬讱 诇讘专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讗讘


搂 The Gemara relates: There were these two people that were sitting and drinking wine under poplar trees [tzifei] in Babylonia. One of them took a cup of wine and gave it to his friend. He said: Betroth for me your daughter to my son by receiving this cup of wine. Ravina says: Even according to the one who says that in the case of a minor girl who became betrothed without her father鈥檚 consent, we are concerned that perhaps the father desired the betrothal,


砖诪讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讘谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇讬讞 砖讜讬讛 诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞讬砖 诇砖讜讬讬 诇讗讘讜讛 砖诇讬讞 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗专爪讜讬讬 讗专爪讬讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诪讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗诪专 诪专 讚诇讗 住讘专 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇


and we do not say that perhaps the son desired the betrothal. The Sages said to Ravina: But perhaps the son appointed his father as an agent to betroth her, and the betrothal should take effect. He replied: A person is not so brazen as to appoint his father as his agent and thereby treat him as an assistant of sorts. They further inquired: But perhaps the son made his desire known to his father by speaking of his desire to marry the woman, and the father acted of his own accord upon his son鈥檚 wishes and betrothed her to him. Rabba bar Shimi said to Ravina: This is not a concern, since the Master, i.e., Ravina, explicitly said that he does not agree with this opinion of Rav and Shmuel that when a minor girl accepts betrothal there is a concern that perhaps the father desired it. So too, there is no concern that a father can act for the son without his awareness.


讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讚讬砖 讘讻讬砖讗 讚讬专拽讗 讘砖讜拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞转专爪讛 讛讗讘 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚专讱 讻讘讜讚 讗讘诇 讚专讱 讘讝讬讜谉 诇讗


The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a minor girl without her father鈥檚 consent with a bundle of vegetables in the marketplace. Ravina says: Even according to the one who says that when a minor becomes betrothed without her father鈥檚 consent we are concerned that perhaps the father desired the betrothal, this matter applies only if the man betrothed her in a dignified manner. But as the betrothal in this case was done in a degrading manner, there is no concern.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讘讝讬讜谉 讚诪讗讬 讗讬 讘讝讬讜谉 讚讬专拽讗 讗讬 讘讝讬讜谉 讚砖讜拽讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚拽讚讬砖 讘讻住驻讗 讘砖讜拽讗 讗讜 讘讻讬砖讗 讚讬专拽讗 讘讘讬转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚专讱 讘讝讬讜谉 讛讜讗


Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: What was the degradation in this manner of betrothal? Was the degradation from the fact that he used vegetables, or was the degradation due to the betrothal having been performed in the marketplace? The practical difference concerns cases where one betrothed a minor girl with money in the marketplace, or where one betrothed a minor girl with a bundle of vegetables in a house. What is the halakha? Ravina said to him: Both this and that, i.e., each of them is considered a degrading manner.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇拽专讬讘讗讬 讜讛讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇拽专讬讘讛 讻驻转讬讛 注讚 讚讗诪专 诇讛 转讬讛讜讬 诇拽专讬讘讛 讗讚讗讻诇讬 讜砖转讬 讗转讗 拽专讬讘讬讛 讘讗讬讙专讗 讜拽讚砖讛


The Gemara further relates: A couple wanted to marry off their minor daughter. That one, the father, said: I want to marry her off to my relative, while she, the mother, said she wanted to marry the daughter off to her relative. His wife pressured him and forced him until he said to her: Let the girl be married to her, i.e., the mother鈥檚, relative. While they were eating and drinking the festive meal before the betrothal, his relative came to the roof and betrothed her to himself.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻转讬讘 砖讗专讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讬注砖讜 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讬讚讘专讜 讻讝讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜专讞 讘住注讜讚讛 讜诪驻住讬讚讛


The Gemara assumes that the father did not desire this betrothal. Why? Abaye said: It is written: 鈥淭he remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies鈥 (Zephaniah 3:13). The father had agreed that she would marry his wife鈥檚 relative, and he would stand by his word. Since the betrothal of his minor daughter is dependent on his desire, there is no concern that the father desired his relative鈥檚 betrothal. Rava said a different reason: There is a presumption that a person does not take the trouble of preparing a meal and then cause it to be lost. Since he prepared a festive meal in honor of his daughter鈥檚 betrothal to his wife鈥檚 relative, he would not desire a betrothal that would render his efforts for naught.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚诇讗 讟专讞


The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: The difference between them concerns a case where he did not take the trouble of preparing a meal. According to Rava, since he had not gone to any effort, there should be concern that the betrothal is valid. Abaye would hold that since he would not go back on his word, they are not betrothed.


谞转拽讚砖讛 诇讚注转 讗讘讬讛 讜讛诇讱 讗讘讬讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜注诪讚讛 讜谞讬砖讗转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗讘讬讛 讜讬诪讞讛 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 砖诪讗 讬讘讜讗 讗讘讬讛 讜讬诪讞讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讝专讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 诇诪驻专注 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讞砖 诇讛 专讘 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讗住讬


搂 If a minor became betrothed with her father鈥檚 consent, and her father left for overseas, and she went ahead and got married of her own accord in her father鈥檚 absence, Rav says: If she is an Israelite who married a priest, she may partake of teruma until her father comes and protests, explicitly stating that he does not agree to the marriage. Rav Asi said: She may not partake of teruma. Perhaps her father will come and protest, and it will be found retroactively that a non-priest has partaken of teruma. The Gemara relates: There was an incident of this kind, and Rav was concerned for this opinion of Rav Asi and did not allow a girl in this situation to partake of teruma.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 砖讗诐 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛


Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: And Rav concedes that if the minor girl dies, the husband does not inherit from her, because of the principle: Establish money in the possession of its owner. Since the validity of her marriage is a matter of uncertainty, as the father might protest it, the money remains with her previous inheritors.


谞转拽讚砖讛 诇讚注转 讜谞讬住转 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讜讗讘讬讛 讻讗谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转


The Gemara cites another dispute between the Sages: If a minor became betrothed with her father鈥檚 consent, and she married without his consent, and her father is here, i.e., present, Rav Huna said: She may not partake of teruma. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: She may partake of teruma.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 讛讗讬 讚讗讬砖转讬拽 诪讬专转讞 专转讞 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚砖诪讗 讬讘讜讗 讗讘讬讛 讜讬诪讞讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讚砖转讬拽 讗讬转谞讜讞讬 讗讬转谞讞讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav Huna said she may not partake of teruma, and even according to Rav, who said that if her father is overseas she may partake of teruma, this is so only there, in the case where the father is not present. But here, where the father is present, he does not consent to the marriage; the reason that he was silent in this situation and refrained from protesting is that he was so angry that he did not wish even to speak to her. Conversely, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: She may partake of teruma, and even according to Rav Asi, who said that she may not partake of teruma, it is there that there is a concern that perhaps her father will come and protest. But here, from the fact that he was silent the assumption is that he is comfortable with the marriage.


谞转拽讚砖讛 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讗讘讬讛 讜谞讬住转 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讜讗讘讬讛 讻讗谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讞诪抓 诇砖谞讬诐 讜讻注砖谉 诇注讬谞讬诐 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚拽讬讚讜砖讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


The Gemara cites another case: If a minor became betrothed without the consent of her father, and married without his consent, and her father is here, Rav Huna said: She may partake of teruma. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: She may not partake of teruma. Ulla said: This opinion of Rav Huna, that in this case she may partake of teruma, is irritating 鈥渁s vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes鈥 (Proverbs 10:26), as it contradicts his earlier ruling. Now consider: And what about there, i.e., in a case where her betrothal was with her father鈥檚 consent, when there is at least betrothal by Torah law, you said she may not partake of teruma in case he did not consent to the marriage. Is it not all the more so the case that here, i.e., where even the betrothal was performed without her father鈥檚 consent, she should not be permitted to partake of teruma?


Scroll To Top