Kiddushin

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.