Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Commentary for Kiddushin 38:15

ורבנן האי לאמה מאי עבדי ליה האי מיבעי להו לכדתניא לאמה מלמד שמוכרה לפסולים

Does then R'Meir hold that this stipulation is valid? But it was taught: If a man says to a woman, 'Behold, thou art betrothed unto me on condition that thou hast no claims upon me of sustenance, raiment, and conjugal rrights' - she is betrothed, but the condition is null: this is R'Meir ðs view.

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

The rabbis do not need a special midrash on the word “to be a slave” because they already hold that one cannot make a stipulation to contravene Torah law. So what do they do with this word? They use it to teach that he can sell her to those unfit to marry her, but with whom betrothal is valid. This category would primarily include a mamzer.
The baraita argues that we should not need this word, that it is logical that he should be able to sell her to those unfit to her. After all, a father can betroth his daughter to those unfit to her (he should not do so, but he has the legal ability). And if something is logical, then we do not need a verse to teach it.
To counter this, the baraita argues that a father has rights with regards to betrothing his daughter that he does not have with regard to selling her. He can betroth her when she is a na’arah, a young girl, but he can only sell her when she is a minor. Thus we might have thought that he can betroth her to a mamzer, but not sell her to one. Hence we need the verse to teach that he can.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse