Kiddushin

Now, according to R. Nahman b. Isaac, who maintained: Even on the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah, the original money was given for kiddushin,1 how can he explain it? — He explains it as agreeing with R. Eliezer, who held: It is only for servitude after servitude that he may not sell her, but he can sell her to servitude after marriage. Resh Lakish propounded: Can a man designate [his bondmaid] for his son, a minor? The All-Merciful said, his son,2 — his son, whatever his state; or perhaps, ‘his son’ must be similar to himself: just as he is an adult, so must his son be an adult?3 — Said R. Zera, Come and hear: [And a man that committeth adultery with another man's wife]:4 ‘a man’ excludes a minor; ‘that committeth adultery with another man's wife’ excludes the wife of a minor. But if you say that he can designate, if so, we find matrimonial relationship in the case of a minor.5 What then: he cannot designate? Why does Scripture exclude it?6 [Then on the contrary] solve [the problem] from this that he can designate!7 — Said R. Ashi: The reference here is to a yabam, aged nine years and a day, who had intercourse with his yebamah, who is tied8 to him by Scriptural law.9 I might have thought, since she is tied to him by Biblical law and his intercourse is intercourse,10 he who has intercourse with her incurs the penalty for [adultery with] a married woman: hence we are informed [that it is not so]. What is our decision on the matter? — Come and hear: For R. Aibu said in R. Jannaiðs name: Designation can be performed only by an adult; designation is only by consent.11 [Are these] two [statements]?12 — He states the reason: What is the reason that designation can be performed only by an adult? Because designation is only by consent. Alternatively, what is the meaning of, ‘by consent’? ‘By her consent.’ For Abaye son of R. Abbahu13 recited: [If she please not her master,] who hath not espoused her [ye'adah]: this teaches that he must inform her [that he intends to designate her.]14 He recited it and he explained it: This refers to betrothal by designation, and is in accordance with R. Jose son of R. Judah, who maintained, The original money was not given as kiddushin.15 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Even if you say that it was given as kiddushin,16 here it is different, because Scripture expressed [betrothal by the word] ye'adah.17 What is the reference to R. Jose son of R. Judah? — For it was taught: ‘[If she please not her master,] who hath espoused her to himself,18 then he shall let her be redeemed’: [this teaches,] there must be sufficient time [left] of the day to necessitate redemption.19 Hence R. Jose son of R. Judah ruled: If there is sufficient time in that day for her to do work to the value of a perutah, she is betrothed. This proves that in his opinion the original money was not given as kiddushin.20 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: You may even say that it was given as kiddushin, yet here it is different, since Scripture said: ‘then he shall let her be redeemed.’ 21 Raba said in R. Nahman's name: A man can say to his daughter, a minor, ‘Go forth and receive thy kiddushin.’ [This follows] from R. Jose son of R. Judah[‘s dictum]. Did he not say: The original money was not given as kiddushin? Yet when he [the master] leaves her a perutah's worth [of her labour] it is kiddushin;22 [hence] here too It is not different. Raba also said in R. Nahman's name, If a man betroths [a woman] with a debt upon which there is a pledge,23 she is betrothed. [This follows] from R. Jose son of R. Judah[‘s dictum]: did he not say: The original money was not given as kiddushin? [Hence] this [her labour] is a loan,24 and she herself is a pledge, the minimum age at which a male's intercourse counts, i.e., can engender. consent is not recognised in law. (Rashi). consent obtained. least a perutah, so that she could be redeemed therefrom. Otherwise he cannot designate her. selling her, authorized her ipso facto to receive it. pledge referred to is one voluntarily given when the debt was contracted (Tosaf.). [Asheri: He betroths her with the debt itself (cf. supra p. 21, n. 9) and nevertheless where it is secured by a pledge it is not regarded as spent, and the betrothal is valid.]