Commentary for Kiddushin 91:4
א"ל רב יוסף אי הכי היינו דתנינא (שמות כב, טו) מהר ימהרנה לו לאשה שצריכה הימנו קידושין ואם פיתה לשום אישות קידושין למה לי א"ל אביי צריכה קידושין לדעת אביה
If her utterly refuse [to give her unto him]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 15f.');"><sup>3</sup></span> I only know that her father [can refuse]: how do I know [it of] herself? Because it is stated: 'If he utterly refuse', [implying] in all cases!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Utterly' is expressed in Heb. by the doubling of the verb, and indicates extension. The objection assumes that he enticed her for the purpose of kiddushin, since intercourse itself may be such (supra 2a) .');"><sup>4</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
If the previous baraita referred to a case where he seduced her without the intent to marry her, then we learn the same thing in another baraita. This baraita requires that the seducer betroth her before marrying her. But if he seduced her with the intent to betroth her, then why does she need another betrothal. She is already betrothed! Thus the Torah refers to a situation where he did not seduce her for the sake of marriage.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
Abaye argues with R. Joseph. Even if the man seduced her with the intent of betrothal, she still needs kiddushin with her father’s knowledge. Thus this latter baraita could refer to a case where the seducer had the intent of betrothal and would not be a support for Rav’s interpretation of the first baraita.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy