Kiddushin 9

ומנין שאף בשטר ודין הוא ומה כסף שאין מוציא מכניס שטר שמוציא אינו דין שמכניס

And whence do we know that [a woman may be acquired] by deed too? But may it not be inferred a minori: if money, which cannot free, effects betrothal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'brings in' - a woman, into the bond of matrimony.');">¹</span> then deed, which frees,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the deed of divorce, which frees a woman from marriage.');">²</span>

מה לכסף שכן פודין בו הקדש ומעשר שני תאמר שטר שאין פודין בו הקדש ומעשר שני דכתיב (ויקרא כז, יט) ונתן הכסף וקם לו

can surely tie? - [No.] As for money, that is because hekdesh and second tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 4, n. 4.');">³</span> can be redeemed therewith;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When an article of hekdesh cannot itself be used in the Temple service, it is redeemed, reverts to a secular status, and the redemption money is dedicated to the Temple. Similarly, if the second tithe cannot be carried to Jerusalem, it is redeemed, becomes secular, and the redemption money is consumed in Jerusalem. - Since then money is potent in respect of these, it may also effect marriage.');">⁴</span> can you say likewise of a deed, by which hekdesh and second tithe cannot be redeemed, for it is written, [and if he that sanctified the field will in any wise redeem it,] then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation, and it shall be assured to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 19. The text gives only a paraphrase of this, then he shall give the money and it shall be assured to him; v. Tosaf. Shab. ');">⁵</span>

אמר קרא (דברים כד, ב) ויצאה והיתה מקיש הויה ליציאה מה יציאה בשטר אף הויה נמי בשטר ואקיש נמי יציאה להויה מה הויה בכסף אף יציאה בכסף

Therefore Scripture saith, And when she is departed [out of his house, she may go] and be [another man's wife]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 2.');">⁶</span> thus 'be - coming' [betrothed] is assimilated to 'departure' [divorce]; just as the 'departure' is by deed, so is 'becoming' too. Then let 'departure be assimilated to 'becoming': just as the 'becoming' may be by money, so the 'departure' too may be effected by money? - Abaye replied: Then it will be said: Money unites and money sunders:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'money leads in and money leads out.'');">⁷</span>

אמר אביי יאמרו כסף מכניס כסף מוציא סניגור יעשה קטיגור אי הכי שטר נמי יאמרו שטר מוציא שטר מכניס קטיגור יעשה סניגור

shall the defender become the prosecutor!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is illogical that the same thing should have two opposing effects.');">⁸</span> If so, of deed too it will be said: Deed sunders and deed unites: shall the prosecutor become the defender! - The contents<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'words'.');">⁹</span> of each deed are distinct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is not the same instrument in both cases.');">¹⁰</span>

מילי דהאי שטרא לחוד ומילי דהאי שטרא לחוד הכא נמי האי כספא לחוד והאי כספא לחוד טיבעא מיהא חד הוא

Then here too, [the purpose of] this money is distinct and that of the other is distinct? - Nevertheless, the impress [of the coin] is the same. Raba said: Scripture saith, then he shall write her [a writ of divorcement]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1.');">¹¹</span> [hence], she can be divorced by writing, not by money.

רבא אמר אמר קרא (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה בכתיבה מתגרשת ואינה מתגרשת בכסף ואימא בכתיבה מתגרשת ואינה מתקדשת בכתיבה הא כתיב (דברים כד, ב) ויצאה והיתה מקיש וכו'

Say rather, she can be divorced by 'writing', but not betrothed by writing? - But it is written, and when she is departed, she may go and be, etc. , assimilating etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra, proving that she can be married by writing.');">¹²</span> And why do you choose thus?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To exclude money for divorce and include deed for marriage; perhaps one should reverse it?');">¹³</span> - It is logical: when treating of divorce, one excludes [a particular method of] divorce; but when dealing with divorce, shall one exclude [a form of] marriage?

ומה ראית מסתברא קאי בגירושין ממעט גירושין קאי בגירושין וממעט קידושין

[Surely not!] Now, according to R'Jose the Galilean, who utilises this verse ['then he shall write, etc.'], for a differe purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 21b.');">¹⁴</span> how do we know that she cannot be divorced by money? - The Writ saith, 'a writ of divorcement' - a deed can divorce her, but nothing else can divorce her.

ולרבי יוסי הגלילי דאפיק ליה להאי קרא לדרשא אחרינא שאינה מתגרשת בכסף מנא ליה אמר קרא (דברים כד, א) ספר כריתות ספר כורתה ואין דבר אחר כורתה

Now, how do the Rabbis employ this word 'divorcement'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'cutting off.');">¹⁵</span> - They employ it [to shew] that it must be an instrument which [completely] sunders them from each other. Even as it was taught: [If the husband says,] 'Behold, here is your divorce, on condition that you drink no wine or do not visit your father's house for ever,' that is no 'divorcement':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she remains bound in a particular respect to her husband all her life.');">¹⁶</span>

ורבנן האי כריתות מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי ליה לדבר הכורת בינו לבינה

'for thirty days,' that is a 'divorcement'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Fur after that she is completely cut off from him.');">¹⁷</span> And R'Jose the Galilean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he know this?');">¹⁸</span> - He deduces it from the use of kerithuth instead of koreth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He regards the longer form as more emphatic; hence it teaches that the cutting apart must be absolute, as in the Baraitha.');">¹⁹</span>

כדתניא הרי זה גיטיך ע"מ שלא תשתי יין על מנת שלא תלכי לבית אביך לעולם אין זה כריתות כל שלשים יום הרי זה כריתות

And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why state the whole phrase, when the word keritkuth itself is sufficient?');">²⁰</span> - In their opinion, the use of kerithuth instead of koreth has no particular significance. Now, one could not be inferred from another; yet let one be inferred from two others?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was proved above that no one method of acquisition may be inferred from another a minori, hence a verse is necessary for each. Now the Talmud asks, Only two are required then the third follows by analogy: just as the two are methods of acquisition elsewhere, and also in marriage, so is the third. For each effects possession elsewhere, money and deed in ordinary purchases, and cohabitation in the case of a yebamah.');">²¹</span>

ורבי יוסי הגלילי מכרת כריתות קא נפקא ליה ורבנן כרת כריתות לא משמע להו

- Which could be inferred: should Scripture omit deed, that it might be inferred from the others? But as for the others, that is because their pleasure is great!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both money and cohabitation confer pleasure upon the recipient, but a deed does not.');">²²</span> Should Scripture omit intercourse, that it might be inferred from the others?

חדא מחדא לא אתיא תיתי חדא מתרתי הי תיתי לא ליכתוב רחמנא בשטר ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן הנאתן מרובה

But as for the others, that is because their powers of acquisition are great!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both give a title to land and slaves, which cohabitation does not.');">²³</span> Should Scripture omit money, that it might be inferred from the others? But as for the others, that is because they have compulsory powers!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cohabitation acquires a yebamah even against her will, and a deed divorces a woman likewise even against her desire.');">²⁴</span>

לא ניכתוב רחמנא בביאה ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן קנינן מרובה

And should you argue, money too has compulsory powers over a Hebrew maidservant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A father can sell his daughter, the transaction being effected by money, against her will (Rashi) . Tosaf.: Having bought a Hebrew maidservant, her master can declare that the money paid was for betrothal, even against her will and that of her father.');">²⁵</span> - nevertheless, we do not find this in respect to conjugal relationship.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi's interpretation, the sense is obvious. Tosaf.: Money has no power of matrimonial compulsion at the outset, for in the first place the money is given for a maidservant, not a wife.');">²⁶</span> R'Huna said: Huppah acquires [a woman], a minori.

לא ניכתוב רחמנא בכסף ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן ישנן בע"כ

If money, which does not authorize one to eat terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. If a priest betroths an Israelite's daughter with money, she may not eat terumah until the huppah.');">²⁷</span> effects possession;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a woman in marriage, and she becomes an arusah (q.v. Glos.) .');">²⁸</span> then huppah, which authorizes one to eat terumah, surely effects possession!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make a woman an arusah.');">²⁹</span>

וכ"ת כסף נמי בע"כ באמה העבריה באישות מיהא לא אשכחן:

Yet does not money authorize the eating [of terumah]? But 'Ulla said: By Biblical law, an arusah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³⁰</span> may eat of terumah, for it is said: And if a priest acquire any soul, the purchase of his money, [he shall eat out],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 11.');">³¹</span>

אמר רב הונא חופה קונה מקל וחומר ומה כסף שאינו מאכיל בתרומה קונה חופה שמאכלת בתרומה אינו דין שתקנה

and this one [a betrothed woman] too is the purchase of his money. Why then did they [the Sages] say that she may not eat [thereof]? For fear lest a cup [of wine of terumah] be mixed for her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wine was diluted before drinking.');">³²</span>

וכסף אינו מאכיל והאמר עולא דבר תורה ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, יא) וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו והאי קנין כספו הוא

in her father's house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cohabitation being forbidden until huppah, the arusah naturally lived in her father's house until then.');">³³</span> and she give it to drink to her brothers and sisters. But argue thus: if money, which does not complete [marriage],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The money makes her an arusah only, and her father is still her heir, and entitled to her labour; v. supra.');">³⁴</span>

ומה טעם אמרו אינה אוכלת גזירה שמא ימזגו לה כוס בבית אביה ותשקנו לאחיה ולאחותיה

acquires [in marriage],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Effecting betrothal, which is marriage in so far as divorce is required to free her.');">³⁵</span> then huppah, which completes [marriage], surely acquires! As for money, [it may be asked,] that is because hekdeshoth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. hekdesh, pi. hekdeshoth.');">³⁶</span> and second tithe are redeemed therewith!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 12, n. 5.');">³⁷</span>

אלא פריך הכי ומה כסף שאינו גומר קונה

Let then intercourse prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which acquires a woman though lacking this power.');">³⁸</span> As for intercourse, that is because it acquires in the case of a yebamah! Then let money prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cannot acquire a yebamah, yet effects betrothal.');">³⁹</span> And thus the argument revolves: the distinguishing feature of one is not that of the other, nor is the distinguishing of this one that the other; the feature common to both is that they acquire elsewhere, and acquire here [in marriage]; so do I adduce huppah, which acquires elsewhere<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After betrothal.');">⁴⁰</span> and acquires here too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it can effect the first stage of marriage, sc. betrothal.');">⁴¹</span> [No.]