Kiddushin 87

Chapter 87

א קטנה מן האירוסין אין עושים בה מאמר אלא מדעת אביה והנערה בין מדעת עצמה בין מדעת אביה (מה שאין כן בקידושין)

1 No declaration may be made to a minor [widowed] from erusin1 except with her father's consent;2

ב אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רבי יוסי בר' חנינא מאי טעמיה דר' יוחנן אליבא דרבנן קידושין דמדעתה אביה ולא היא גירושין דבעל כרחה בין היא בין אביה

2 whereas in the case of a na'arah, either her own or her father's consent [is required]!3 But if stated, it was thus stated R'Jose son of R'Hanina said: What is R'Johanan's reason according to the Rabbis?

ג הרי מאמר דמדעתה וקתני בין היא ובין אביה התם במאמר דבעל כרחה ורבי היא דתניא העושה מאמר ביבמתו שלא מדעתה רבי אומר קנה וחכ"א לא קנה

3 Kiddushin, which requires her consent, [only] her father [can accept it] but not she;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In general, the consent of the person who cedes the woman is required. In the case of an adult that person is the woman herself; in the case of a na'arah or a minor it is her father.');">4 divorce, which is even against her will, either she or her father [can accept it].5

ד מאי טעמיה דרבי גמר מביאה דיבמה מה ביאה דיבמה בעל כרחה אף הכא נמי בע"כ ורבנן סברי ילפינן מקידושין מה קידושין דמדעתה אף ה"נ דמדעתה

4 But a declaration [too] requires her consent, yet it is taught, either s or her father [can accept it]? - There the reference is to a declaration which is [made] against her will, and i is in agreement with Rabbi. For it was taught: If one makes a declaration to his yebamah without her consent,6

ה במאי קמיפלגי רבי סבר מילי דיבמה מיבמה הוה ליה למילף ורבנן סברי קידושין מקידושין הוה ליה למילף

5 Rabbi ruled: He acquires her;7 but the Sages say: He does not.

ו ה"נ מסתברא כדקא מתרץ רבי יוחנן מדקתני סיפא מה שאין כן בקידושין אלא נימא תיהוי תיובתא דר"ל אמר לך ר"ל הא מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר אין שתי ידים זוכות כאחת

6 What is Rabbi's reason? - He deduces it from intercourse with a yebamah: just as intercourse with a yebamah [acquires her even] against her will, so here too [sc. declaration, it is valid even] against her will. But the Rabbis hold: We learn from [ordinary] kiddushin: just as kiddushin must be with her8

ז אי רבי יהודה מה שאין כן בקידושין מה שאין כן בגירושין מיבעי ליה אין ה"נ איידי דתנא מאמר דדמי לקידושין תנא נמי מה שאין כן בקידושין

7 consent, so here too her consent is required. Wherein do they differ? - Rabbi maintains: The provisions of a yebamah are to be learnt from a yebamah.

ח ורבי יהודה מאי שנא מאמר הואיל וזקוקה ועומדת השתא דאתית להכי ר' יוחנן נמי לא תיקשי לך מעיקרא שאני מאמר הואיל וזקוקה ועומדת

8 But the Rabbis hold: Kiddushin should be learned from kiddushin.9 Reason too supports R'Johanan's answer,10

ט תנן האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה בו ובשלוחו בו ובשלוחו אין בה ובשלוחה לא תיובתא דר"ל אמר לך ר"ל הא נמי רבי יהודה היא

9 since the second clause states: Which is not so in the case of kiddushin.11 Shall we then say that this refutes Resh Lakish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a distinction is drawn between a declaration and kiddushin, because the former does not require her consent whereas the latter does, the same applies to kiddushin and divorce.');">12

י ומי מצית מוקמת לה כרבי יהודה והקתני סיפא האומר לאשה התקדשי לי בתמרה זו התקדשי לי בזו ואמרינן מאן תנא התקדשי התקדשי

10 - Resh Lakish can answer you: That agrees with R'Judah, who ruled: Two hands cannot have a privilege simultaneously.13 If R'Judah, [why state,] 'which is not so in the case of kiddushin'; let him teach, which is not so in the case of divorce?14

יא ואמר רבה ר"ש היא דאמר עד שיאמר שבועה לכל אחד ואחד

11 - That indeed is so: [but] as he teaches [the law of] declaration, which is similar to kiddushin, he also states: 'whic is not so in the case of kiddushin'. Now, on R'Judah's view, why does declaration differ?15

יב וכי תימא כולה ר' יהודה ובפרטי סבר לה כר"ש ומי סבר לה

12 - Because she already stands tied [to the yabam].16 Now that you have arrived at this [distinction], R'Johanan['s view] also need not cause you any difficulty at the very outset:17

יג והתניא זה הכלל כלל אינו חייב אלא אחת פרט חייב על כל אחת ואחת דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר שבועה לא לך לא לך לא לך חייב על כל אחת ואחת רא"א לא לך לא לך לא לך ולא לך שבועה חייב על כל אחת ואחת ר' שמעון אומר לעולם אינו חייב עד שיאמר שבועה לכל אחד ואחד

13 a declaration is different, because she already stands tied. We learnt: A MAN MAY GIVE HIS DAUGHTER IN BETROTHAL WHEN A NA'ARAH, HIMSELF OR THROUGH HIS AGENT: only HIMSELF OR THROUGH HIS AGENT, but not through herself or her agent:18

יד אלא כולה ר' שמעון היא ובשליחות סבר לה כרבי יהודה

14 this refutes Resh Lakish? - Resh Lakish can answer you: This too is in accordance with R'Judah. Can you then interpret this as R'Judah['s ruling]?

טו ר' אסי לא על לבי מדרשא אשכחיה לרבי זירא אמר ליה מאי אמור האידנא בי מדרשא אמר ליה אף אנא לא עייל ר' אבין הוא דעייל ואמר חברותא כולה כר' יוחנן וצווח ריש לקיש כי כרוכיא (דברים כד, ב) ויצאה והיתה וליכא דאשגח ביה אמר ליה רבי אבין בר סמכא הוא אמר ליה אין כמין ימא לטיגני הוא

15 But the second clause19 teaches: If one says to a woman, 'Be thou betrothed unto me with this date, be thou betrothed unto me with this one etc.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah continues: if a single one of them is worth a perutah, she is betrothed, but not otherwise. - For since he stated: 'Be thou betrothed' before each date separately, it is not the equivalent of saying: 'Be thou betrothed unto me with all these dates.'');">20

טז אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אנא לא רבי אבין ברבי חייא ולא רבי אבין בר כהנא אלא רבי אבין סתם למאי נפקא מינה למירמא דידיה אדידיה

16 Now we said thereon: Which Tanna [rules thus concerning] 'Be thou betrothed, be thou betrothed? '21 And Rabbah replied: It is R'Simeon, who maintained, 'Unless he declared to each separately,' [I take] an oath.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 36b. If five men demand the return of their deposits from a certain person, who falsely denies liability, and takes an oath, 'I swear that I did not receive a deposit from you, not from you, not from you, etc., he incurs a separate sacrifice on account of each (v. Lev. V, 21.26) . R. Simeon maintained: He incurs only one sacrifice for all, unless he declares to each one separately, 'An oath that I did not receive a deposit from you,' 'An oath that I did not receive a deposit from you,' etc., - Hence the Mishnah on 46a, which is a sequel to 41a, agrees with R. Simeon, not R. Judah.');">22

יז בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן

17 And should you answer: It is all the opinion of R'Judah, who, however, agrees with R'Simeon in the matter of detailed enumeration,23 yet does he hold thus? Surely it was taught: This is the rule: For a comprehensive statement only one [sacrifice] is incurred; for a detailed enumeration each one separately involves liability:24 this is R'Meir's opinion. R'Judah said: [If he declares, 'I take] an oath [that I am] not indebted to you, not to you, no to you,' he is liable in respect of each separately. R'Eleazar said: [If he declares, 'I am] not [indebted] to not to you, not to you, and not to you: [for this I take] an oath': he is liable in respect of each.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By adding 'and' before the last (which is absent in R. Judah's premise) and employing the word 'oath' after the enumeration, he makes his declaration equivalent to a number of separate statements.');">25 R'Simeon said: He is never liable [for each separately] unless he declares [I take] an oath to each separately!26 - But the whole is in accordance with R'Simeon, who in the matter of agency agrees with R'Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., only her father can accept kiddushin, but not she herself. - 'Agency' here does not refer to the question whether she can appoint an agent, as it is generally admitted that a na'arah certainly cannot (infra b) , but whether she herself can rank as her father's agent (since Scripture vested the power in him - supra 3b.) - Maharsha.');">27 R'Assi did not go to the Beth Hamidrash.28 Meeting R'Zera, he asked him, 'What has been taught to-day in the schoolhouse? ' 'I too did not go,' he replied: 'but R'Abin was present, and he told me that the entire band [of disciples] agreed with R'Johanan;29 and though Resh Lakish cried like a crane,30 and when she is departed. she may be [another man's wife],31 none heeded him.' 'Is R'Abin reliable? ' he asked him, 'Yes,' he replied: 'as from the sea into the frying pan!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He had as little time to forget as a fish that is caught in the sea and put straight into the pan. [Others explain the phrase as names of two places next to each other. Horowitz Palestine, p. 323 n. 9. takes it as a corruption of comminatio litigo, R. Zera cautioning R. Assi to occasion no strife by impugning the authority of R. Abin.]');">32 R'Nahman B'Isaac said: I [read in this story] neither R'Abin B'R'Hiyya nor R'Abin B'Kahana, but simply R'Abin. What does it matter? - In proving a self-contradiction.33 Raba asked R'Nahman:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter