Kiddushin 36

כיון שפירש טליתו עליה שוב אין רשאי למוכרה דברי ר"ע ר"א אומר בבגדו בה כיון שבגד בה שוב אין רשאי למוכרה

once he spread his cloak over her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., given her in marriage; for this idiom cf. Ruth III, 9: spread therefore thy skirt over thy handmaid (i.e., take me in marriage) .');">¹</span> he can no longer sell her: this is R'Akiba's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deriving be-bigedo fr. beged, a garment.');">²</span> R'Eliezer said: seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her - having dealt deceitfully with her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., disgracefully, by selling her into slavery.');">³</span>

במאי קמיפלגי ר"א סבר יש אם למסורת ור"ע סבר יש אם למקרא ור"ש סבר יש אם למקרא ולמסורת :

he may not sell her [again]. Wherein do they differ? R'Eliezer maintains: the traditional text [i.e., letters without vowels] is authoritative;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 4, n. 4.');">⁴</span>

בעי רבה בר אבוה יעוד נישואין עושה או אירוסין עושה נפקא מינה ליורשה וליטמא לה ולהפר נדריה מאי

R'Akiba maintains: the text as read is authoritative; whereas R'Simeon holds: both the traditional text and the vocalization are authoritative.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The traditional text is be-bagedo, seeing that he hath deceived, i.e., sold her; it is vocalised be-bigedo, with his garment, i.e., having married her.');">⁵</span> Rabbah B'Abbuhah propounded: Does designation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 45, n. 9.');">⁶</span> effect nissu'in or erusin?

תא שמע בבגדו בה כיון שפירש טליתו עליה שוב אינו רשאי למוכרה זבוני הוא דלא מזבין לה הא יעודי מייעד לה ואי אמרת נישואין עושה כיון דנישאת שוב אין לאביה רשות בה אלא לאו שמע מינה אירוסין עושה

The difference is in respec of inheriting her property, defiling himself on her account, and annulling her vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The heir of an arusah is her father; of a nesu'ah, her husband. A priest must (or may, v. Sotah 3a) defile himself on 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.');">⁷</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., give her in marriage.');">⁸</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הכא בקידושין דעלמא קאי וה"ק כיון שמסרה אביה למי שנתחייב בשארה כסותה ועונתה שוב אין יכול למוכרה

But if you say, it effects nissu'in, once she was married,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with nissu'in.');">⁹</span> her father has no more authority over her. Hence we may surely infer that it effects erusin.

ת"ש אין מוכרה לקרובים משום רבי אליעזר אמרו מוכרה לקרובים ושוין שמוכרה אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט

R'Nahman B'Isaac said: The reference here is to kiddushin in general,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not a bondmaid's designation by her master.');">¹⁰</span> and this is its meaning: Once her father delivers her to one who becomes responsible for 'her food, raiment and conjugal rights,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The phrasing is Biblical; cf. Ex. XXI, 10. I.e., once he accepted. kiddushin on her behalf.');">¹¹</span> he may no longer sell her.

האי אלמנה היכי דמי אילימא דקדיש נפשה אלמנה קרי לה ואלא דקדשה אביה מי מצי מזבין לה והא אין אדם מוכר את בתו לשפחות אחר אישות

Come and hear: He [the father] may not sell her to relations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who cannot designate her on account of consanguinity.');">¹²</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹³</span>

ואמר רב עמרם א"ר יצחק הכא בקדושי יעוד ואליבא דרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה דאמר מעות הראשונות לאו לקידושין ניתנו ואי אמרת נישואין עושה כיון שנישאת שוב אין לאביה רשות בה

to a common priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though these too may not designate her: v. Lev. XXI, 7 (this was extended to a haluzah too) and 14. The betrothal 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.');">¹⁴</span> Now [as to] this widow, how is it meant? Shall we say, that she accepted kiddushin for herself: can she be called a widow!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not, since her actions have no validity. - The reference in the whole passage is necessarily to a minor, for only then can he sell her.');">¹⁵</span>

ואלא מאי אירוסין עושה ושוין שמוכרה הא אין אדם מוכר את בתו לשפחות אחר אישות אלא מאי אית לך למימר שאני אירוסין דידה מאירוסין דאביה אפילו תימא נישואין עושה שאני נישואין דידה מנישואין דאביה

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., her father sold her, then her master designated her and died, leaving her a widow.');">¹⁶</span> and [was taught] according to R'Jose son of R'Judah, who maintained: The original money was not given as kiddushin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one buys a bondmaid, the money he pays is not for the purpose of betrothal; and when he designates her, it is 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.');">¹⁷</span> 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?

האי מאי בשלמא אירוסין מאירוסין שאני אלא נישואין מנישואין

[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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When her father receives kiddushin on her behalf, he loses his authority to sell her subsequently. But when she 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.');">¹⁸</span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For she does not altogether pass out of her father's control after erusin, e.g., in respect of inheritance and annulment 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.');">¹⁹</span> but can nissu'in differ from nissu'in?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since nissu'in completely frees her from her father's authority, it does not matter at whose instance it is effected.');">²⁰</span>