Kiddushin — Daf 3b

לא מקניא נפשה

מניינא דסיפא למעוטי מאי למעוטי חליצה סד"א תיתי בק"ו מיבמה מה יבמה שאינה יוצאה בגט יוצאה בחליצה זו שיוצאה בגט אינו דין שיוצאה בחליצה קמ"ל

ואימא ה"נ אמר קרא (דברים כד, א) ספר כריתות ספר כורתה ואין דבר אחר כורתה:

בכסף: מנ"ל ותו הא דתנן האב זכאי בבתו בקדושיה בכסף בשטר ובביאה מנלן דמיקניא בכסף וכסף דאבוה הוא

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב דאמר קרא (שמות כא, יא) ויצאה חנם אין כסף אין כסף לאדון זה אבל יש כסף לאדון אחר ומאן ניהו אב

ואימא לדידה הכי השתא אביה מקבל קידושיה דכתיב (דברים כב, טז) את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה ואיהי שקלה כספא

ואימא ה"מ קטנה דלית לה יד לקבל קידושין אבל נערה דאית לה יד לקבל קידושין תקדיש איהי נפשה ותשקול כספא אמר קרא (במדבר ל, יז) בנעוריה בית אביה כל שבח נעורים לאביה

ואלא הא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מנין שמעשה הבת לאב שנאמר (שמות כא, ז) וכי ימכור איש את בתו לאמה מה אמה מעשה ידיה לרבה אף בת נמי מעשה ידיה לאביה תיפוק ליה מבנעוריה בית אביה

אלא בהפרת נדרים הוא דכתיב ה"נ בהפרת נדרים הוא דכתיב וכ"ת נילף מיניה ממונא מאיסורא לא ילפינן

וכי תימא נילף מקנסא ממונא מקנסא לא ילפינן

וכ"ת נילף מבושת ופגם שאני בושת ופגם דאבוה שייך בגוייהו

אלא מסתברא דכי קא ממעט

The number of the second clause excludes halizah.1 For I might have thought, this may be inferred a minori from a yebamah: if a yebamah, who is not freed by divorce, is freed by halizah; then this one [a married woman], who is freed by divorce, is surely freed by halizah. Therefore we are informed [otherwise]. And let us say: That indeed is so? — Scripture states, [then he shall write her] a writ of divorcement:2 Thus, a ‘writ’ may divorce her, but nothing else may divorce her. BY MONEY. Whence do we know this? Moreover, when we learned, A father has a privilege over his daughter [if a minor] in respect of her kiddushin3 by money, deed, or intercourse:4 How do we know that she can be acquired by money and that the money belongs to her father? — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name, Because Scripture saith, then she shall go out for nothing, without money:5 no money is due to this master [when she leaves his control], but money is due to another master, viz., her father.6 Yet perhaps it belongs to her?7 — How now! her father receives her kiddushin [on her behalf], for it is written, [and the damsel's father shall say. . .] I gave my daughter unto this man;8 shall she take the money? [Surely not!] But perhaps this applies only to a minor [ketannah], who has no power to accept kiddushin; but as for a na'arah,9 who is empowered to accept kiddushin — let her betroth herself and take the money!10 — The Writ saith, in her youth11 in her father's house:12 teaching, all the profit of youth belongs to her father. If so, when R. Huna said in Rab's name: Whence do we know that a daughter's labour belongs to her father? — From the verse: And if a man shall sell his daughter to be a maidservant:13 just as a maidservant's labour belongs to her master, so does a daughter's labour belong to her father; learn it rather from, ‘in her youth, in her father's house’? But [you must answer], that refers to the annulment of vows.14 So here too, [you must admit] that it is written in reference to annulment of vows!15 And should you argue, We may learn therefrom16 — but civil law17 cannot be deduced from ritual law.18 And should you say, we may learn it from kenas19 — but civil law cannot be deduced from kenas?20 And should you say: We may learn it from [the indemnity payable for her] shame and depreciation21 — yet shame and depreciation are different, since her father has an interest therein.22 — But [answer thus:] it is logical that when a limitation is made, 46b. master, viz., her father. But nothing shews that the money belongs to her father, which would follow only if Scripture had written: ‘without money to him’. to marriage. But a na'arah can make valid transactions and acquire property; the father therefore should have no rights in respect to her kiddushin. — Though the verse quoted, dealing with the slandering of a woman's honour, explicitly refers to a na'arah — Then shall the father of the na'arah (E.V. damsel) etc., — she may have been betrothed while a minor. vows and their annulment belong to ritual law. XXII, 15f; Deut. XXII, 13-19; 28f. Hence in the case of kiddushin too the money belongs to her father. amounts would vary, but as a Biblical decree. As such, it stands in a category by itself, and ordinary civil law cannot be compared with it. which has a monetary value. These are ordinary payments for injury inflicted and therefore provide a basis for analogy.