Kiddushin 8

therefore the verse: 'and she shall go out for nothing etc.' , teaches us [otherwise]. Now, according to Mar, son of R'Ashi, who objected, does this not follow a minori, but we have said: Scripture takes pains to write something which could be inferred a minori? - That is only if no other answer is possible; but if it is, we answer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By making the verse apply to something else.');">¹</span>

But this Tanna adduces it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that kiddushin is effected by money.');">²</span> from the following.

For it was taught: When a man taketh a wife, and hath intercourse with her, then it shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, etc. ;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1.');">³</span> 'taking' is only by means of money, and thus it is written: I will give the money for the field: take it of me.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXIII, 13.');">⁴</span>

But does this not follow a minori: if a Hebrew maidservant, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by money; this one [a wife], who may be acquired [in marriage] by intercourse, can surely be acquired by money? Let a yebamah prove [the contrary:] she may be acquired by intercourse, yet she is not acquired by money.

As for a yebamah, that may be because she cannot be acquired by deed: will you say the same of this one [a wife], who can be acquired by deed? Therefore Scripture teaches: 'when a man taketh, etc.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'taking' means by money.');">⁵</span>

But what need of a verse for this: it has been inferred!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minori, the refutation from yebamah being refuted itself.');">⁶</span> - Said R'Ashi: Because one can argue, The deduction is vitiated ab initio:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without referring to a yebamah.');">⁷</span>

whence do you adduce it? From a Hebrew maidservant! As for a Hebrew maidservant, that [her acquisition is by money] is because she is freed by money: will you say the same of this one [a wife], who is not freed by money?

Therefore Scripture teaches: 'when a man taketh a wife'. Now, both 'and she shall go out for nothing'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">⁸</span>

and 'when a man taketh' must be written. For had Scripture written: 'when a man taketh', I would have thought, the kiddushin given to her by the husband is her own: therefore Scripture [also] writes, 'and she shall go out for nothing.'

And had Scripture written: 'and she shall go out for nothing,' I would have thought, if she [the wife] gives him [the husband] money and betroths him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Saying to him, 'I am betrothed unto thee in virtue of the money I give thee.'');">⁹</span> it is valid kiddushin:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since that verse does not shew who must give the money.');">¹⁰</span>

therefore Scripture wrote, 'when a man taketh', but not, 'when a woman taketh'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he must give the money.');">¹¹</span> 'And hath intercourse with her': this teaches that she may be acquired by intercourse.

But does this not follow a minori? If a yebamah, who cannot be acquired by money, is acquired by intercourse; then this one [a wife], who is acquired by money, can surely be acquired by intercourse! - Let a Hebrew maidservant prove [the contrary], for she may be acquired by money, yet she is not acquired by intercourse.

As for a Hebrew maidservant, that is because her acquisition is not for conjugal purposes; will you say the same of this one, who is acquired for conjugal purposes? Therefore it is stated: 'and has intercourse with her'. But what need of a verse: it has been inferred? - Said R'Ashi: Because one can argue, the deduction is vitiated ab initio: whence do you adduce it? From a yebamah! As for a yebamah, that is because she already stands tied;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the yabam (q.v. Glos.) , on account of her deceased husband, hence cohabitation merely completes the bond.');">¹²</span> can you say [the same] of this one, who does not stand tied? Therefore it is taught: 'and hath intercourse with her'.