Kiddushin

once he spread his cloak over her,1 he can no longer sell her: this is R. Akiba's view.2 R. Eliezer said: seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her — having dealt deceitfully with her,3 he may not sell her [again]. Wherein do they differ? R. Eliezer maintains: the traditional text [i.e., letters without vowels] is authoritative;4 R. Akiba maintains: the text as read is authoritative; whereas R. Simeon holds: both the traditional text and the vocalization are authoritative. 5 Rabbah b. Abbuhah propounded: Does designation6 effect nissu'in or erusin? The difference is in respect of inheriting her property, defiling himself on her account, and annulling her vows.7 What is the law? — Come and hear: ‘Seeing that he hath dealt deceitfully with her [be-bigedo bah]: once he spread his cloak over her, he can no longer sell her’. Thus, he merely may not sell her, yet may indeed designate her.8 But if you say, it effects nissu'in, once she was married,9 her father has no more authority over her. Hence we may surely infer that it effects erusin. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The reference here is to kiddushin in general,10 and this is its meaning: Once her father delivers her to one who becomes responsible for ‘her food, raiment and conjugal rights,’11 he may no longer sell her. Come and hear: He [the father] may not sell her to relations.12 On the authority of R. Eliezer it was said: He may sell her to relations. And both agree that he may sell her, if a widow, to a High Priest, and if divorced, or a haluzah,13 to a common priest.14 Now [as to] this widow, how is it meant? Shall we say, that she accepted kiddushin for herself: can she be called a widow!15 Then It means that her father betrothed her — but a man cannot sell his daughter for servitude after marriage! And thereon R. Amram said in R. Isaac's name: The reference here is to the kiddushin of designation,16 and [was taught] according to R. Jose son of R. Judah, who maintained: The original money was not given as kiddushin.17 But if you say: It effects nissu'in: once she is married, her father no longer has any authority over her! — What then: it effects erusin? [Then how say,] ‘and both agree’ etc.; surely a man cannot sell his daughter to servitude after marriage! Then what can you answer: her own erusin differs from her father's?18 Then even if you say that it effects nissu'in: her own nissu'in differs from her father's. How now? As for erusin differing from erusin, that is well;19 but can nissu'in differ from nissu'in?20 marriage). garment, i.e., having married her. account of his deceased wife, if a nesu'ah, but not if an arusah. The vows of an arusah, if a na'arah (q.v. Glos.) can only be annulled by her husband and father jointly; those of a nesu'ah, by her husband alone. of consanguineous relations is forbidden, and if performed, invalid; that of a High Priest to a widow, or a common priest to a divorced woman or a haluzah, is likewise forbidden, but if performed, valid. Hence the difference. only then can he sell her. by the labour she owes him, not by the money he has given. Therefore her father can resell her after her master's death, and it is not regarded as servitude after betrothal, since he himself did not accept the original money as kiddushin. herself receives it (as explained p. 84, n. 10, that she is betrothed in virtue of the labour she owes her master), and thus receive the kiddushin — viz., the renunciation of her labour — herself, her father retains the right to sell her. of vows (p. 83, n. 1). Therefore it may be said that he loses the right to sell her only after he himself accepts kiddushin, but not after she does so by means of designation.