Kiddushin 89

Chapter 89

א ושוין שמוכרה אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט האי אלמנה היכי דמי אילימא דקדשה אביה מי מצי מזבין לה הא אין אדם מוכר את בתו לשפחות אחר אישות אלא לאו דקדיש איהי נפשה וקא קרי לה אלמנה
1 And both agree that he may sell her, as a widow, to a High priest, and as divorced or a haluzah, to an ordinary priest. Now, this widow, - what are the circumstances? Shall we say that her father betrothed her?
ב אמר רב עמרם אמר ר' יצחק הכא בקידושי יעוד ואליבא דר' יוסי בר' יהודה דאמר מעות הראשונות לאו לקידושין ניתנו
2 Can he [subsequently] sell her? But a man cannot sell his daughter to servitude after marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 18a.');"><sup>1</sup></span> Hence it must surely mean that she betrothed herself, and yet he calls her a widow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shewing that the marriage is valid.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג איתמר מת ונפלה לפני אחיו ליבום אמר רב הונא אמר רב ממאנת למאמרו ואינה ממאנת לזיקתו כיצד עשה בה מאמר צריכה גט וצריכה חליצה וצריכה מיאון
3 - R'Amram replied in R'Isaac's name: The reference here is to kiddushin of designation, and it is in accordance with R'Jose son of R'Judah, who maintained: The original money was not given for the purpose of kiddushin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');"><sup>3</sup></span> It was stated: If he [who betrothed her without her father's knowledge] dies, and she falls before his brother for yibum - R'Huna said in Rab's name: She must perform mi'un on account of his declaration, but requires no mi'un on account of his levirate tie.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the yabam makes a betrothal declaration to her, which, as already stated (supra p. 218, n. 8) , is the Rabbinical equivalent of kiddushin in the case of a yabam, she needs mi'un in addition to the Get she requires. R. Huna proceeds to explain himself.');"><sup>4</sup></span> How so?
ד צריכה גט שמא נתרצה האב בקידושי שני צריכה חליצה שמא נתרצה האב בקידושי ראשון צריכה מיאון שמא לא נתרצה האב לא בקידושי ראשון ולא בקידושי שני ויאמרו אין קידושין תופסין באחותה
4 If he [the yabam] makes her a declaration, she requires Get, halizah, and mi'un. She needs a Get, lest her father consented to the kiddushin of the second [the yabam];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The yabam's declaration was in the form of an ordinary betrothal. Hence, if the father did not consent to the first brother's kiddushin but did consent to the second's, she is betrothed to him, and needs a Get to dissolve the union.');"><sup>5</sup></span> she needs halizah in case her father consented to the first [brother's] kiddushin;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that she is the second brother's yebamah. and requires halizah to gain her freedom.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ה לא עשה בה מאמר אינה צריכה אלא חליצה בלבד מאי אמרת תיבעי נמי מיאון שמא יאמרו אין קידושין תופסין באחותה הכל יודעים אחות חלוצה דרבנן דאמר ריש לקיש כאן שנה רבי אחות גרושה מדאורייתא אחות חלוצה מדברי סופרים
5 she needs mi'un, lest her father did not consent to the kiddushin of either the first or the second, and so it be said: Kiddushin with her sister has no validity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As on p. 224, n. 5. - Rashi observes that even if her father consented to the kiddushin of the first but not of the second, she needs mi'un, for she is only a haluzah in respect to the second, and his kiddushin with her sister is valid, whereas on account of the divorce it will be said that her sister's kiddushin is not valid. Hence the Talmud states: 'lest her father did not consent to the kiddushin of the first' unnecessarily - probably in order to achieve symmetry of style (but v. Tosaf.) .');"><sup>7</sup></span> But if he does not make a declaration to her, she merely requires halizah. For what will you say: let her also require mi'un, lest it be said that kiddushin with her sister is no valid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the halizah, which may be assumed to be certainly required by Biblical law.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו הנהו בי תרי דהוו קא שתו חמרא תותי ציפי בבבל שקל חד מינייהו כסא דחמרא יהב ליה לחבריה אמר מיקדשא לי ברתיך לברי אמר רבינא אפילו למאן דאמר חיישינן שמא נתרצה האב
6 - but all know that [marriage with] the sister of a haluzah is [forbidden] by Rabbinical law [only],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence if he does betroth her sister all know that it is Biblically binding, and a divorce is required.');"><sup>9</sup></span> for Resh Lakish said: Here Rabbi taught: The sister of a divorced woman is [forbidden] by Biblical law, whereas the sister of a haluzah, by Rabbinical law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yeb. 41a.');"><sup>10</sup></span> Two men were drinking wine under willows<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Others: under an awning of mats.');"><sup>11</sup></span> in Babylonia. [when] one of them took a goblet of wine, gave it to his fellow and said: 'Let thy daughter be betrothed to my son.' Said Rabina: Even on the view that we fear that the father may [subsequently] have consented,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra.');"><sup>12</sup></span>