Kiddushin 6

Chapter 6

א לא מקניא נפשה
1 The number of the second clause excludes halizah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The marriage bond cannot be dissolved by halizah.');"><sup>1</sup></span> 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.
ב מניינא דסיפא למעוטי מאי למעוטי חליצה סד"א תיתי בק"ו מיבמה מה יבמה שאינה יוצאה בגט יוצאה בחליצה זו שיוצאה בגט אינו דין שיוצאה בחליצה קמ"ל
2 Therefore we are informed [otherwise]. And let us say: That indeed is so? - Scripture states, [then he shall write her] a writ of divorcement:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג ואימא ה"נ אמר קרא (דברים כד, א) ספר כריתות ספר כורתה ואין דבר אחר כורתה :
3 Thus, a 'writ' may divorce her, but nothing else may divorce her. BY MONEY.
ד בכסף מנ"ל ותו הא דתנן האב זכאי בבתו בקדושיה בכסף בשטר ובביאה מנלן דמיקניא בכסף וכסף דאבוה הוא
4 Whence do we know this? Moreover, when we learned, A father has a privilege over his daughter [if a minor] in respect of her kiddushin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב דאמר קרא (שמות כא, יא) ויצאה חנם אין כסף אין כסף לאדון זה אבל יש כסף לאדון אחר ומאן ניהו אב
5 by money, deed, or intercourse:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He can accept money or a deed as her kiddushin, the former belonging to him, or deliver her to intercourse, v. Keth. 46b.');"><sup>4</sup></span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 11: this refers to a Hebrew maidservant.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו ואימא לדידה הכי השתא אביה מקבל קידושיה דכתיב (דברים כב, טז) את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה ואיהי שקלה כספא
6 no money is due to this master [when she leaves his control], but money is due to another master, viz. , her father.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she leaves him on marriage. Hence her father has a right to the money given as kiddushin.');"><sup>6</sup></span> Yet perhaps it belongs to her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse merely implying that no money is payable when she leaves this master, but it is when she leaves another 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'.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ז ואימא ה"מ קטנה דלית לה יד לקבל קידושין אבל נערה דאית לה יד לקבל קידושין תקדיש איהי נפשה ותשקול כספא אמר קרא (במדבר ל, יז) בנעוריה בית אביה כל שבח נעורים לאביה
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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 16; thus shewing that the privilege rests entirely with him.');"><sup>8</sup></span> shall she take the money?
ח ואלא הא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מנין שמעשה הבת לאב שנאמר (שמות כא, ז) וכי ימכור איש את בתו לאמה מה אמה מעשה ידיה לרבה אף בת נמי מעשה ידיה לאביה תיפוק ליה מבנעוריה בית אביה
8 [Surely not!] But perhaps this applies only to a minor [ketannah], who has no power to accept kiddushin; but as for a na'arah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>9</sup></span> who is empowered to accept kiddushin - let her betroth herself and take the money!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor cannot enter into a legal contract; hence it is but equitable that her father has full power over her in respect 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.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ט אלא בהפרת נדרים הוא דכתיב ה"נ בהפרת נדרים הוא דכתיב וכ"ת נילף מיניה ממונא מאיסורא לא ילפינן
9 - The Writ saith, in her youth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when a na'arah, to which the Heb. term bi-ne'ureha corresponds.');"><sup>11</sup></span> in her father's house:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 17.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
י וכי תימא נילף מקנסא ממונא מקנסא לא ילפינן
10 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 7.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יא וכ"ת נילף מבושת ופגם שאני בושת ופגם דאבוה שייך בגוייהו
11 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching that the father can annul his unmarried daughter's vows, if a na'arah; but it has no bearing on her labour.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יב אלא מסתברא דכי קא ממעט
12 So here too, [you must admit] that it is written in reference to annulment of vows!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not kiddushin.');"><sup>15</sup></span> And should you argue, We may learn therefrom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as a father can annul his daughter's vows, so has he a title to her betrothal money.');"><sup>16</sup></span> - but civil law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'money'.');"><sup>17</sup></span> cannot be deduced from ritual law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'prohibition'. The title to betrothal money is purely a question of civil law, whereas the binding character of vows and their annulment belong to ritual law.');"><sup>18</sup></span> And should you say, we may learn it from kenas<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fine'; v. Glos. If a man seduces, violates, or slanders a na'arah, he must pay a fixed fine to her father: Ex. XXII, 15f; Deut. XXII, 13-19; 28f. Hence in the case of kiddushin too the money belongs to her father.');"><sup>19</sup></span> - but civil law cannot be deduced from kenas?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a general principle. Kenas is not regarded as equitable indemnification for loss sustained, for then the 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.');"><sup>20</sup></span> And should you say: We may learn it from [the indemnity payable for her] shame and depreciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Besides the fixed kenas, the seducer must pay her father for the shame she sustained and her loss in social standing, which has a monetary value. These are ordinary payments for injury inflicted and therefore provide a basis for analogy.');"><sup>21</sup></span> - yet shame and depreciation are different, since her father has an interest therein.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For her father could inflict these on her by marrying her to a man suffering from repulsive disfigurement.');"><sup>22</sup></span> - But [answer thus:] it is logical that when a limitation is made,