Kiddushin 19a — the Talmud in English

Rather,

,

marriage from marriage, ![](pamud.bmp "

")

what am I?

!

!

!

".

.

".

.

:

And according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who says that even according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda the first money was given for betrothal,

. .

:

In what way does he establish it?

,

establishes it,

,

in accordance with the

opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer

,

who says

,

.

,

.

.

.

:

.

.

But when the master designates the maidservant for his son, concerning this matter he

asked

[a question]:

Reish Lakish: What is the law concerning a person designating [the maidservant] for his minor son?

.

:

On the one hand: “If he designates her for

his son

,

the Merciful One said,

this, and He did not say “for his adult son.” This implies that he may designate her for

any son whatsoever,

.

Or perhaps

: "

" -

analogous to him.

.

Just as

the master himself,

he,

is an adult,

so too

the designation for his son refers to

his son

who is

is an adult!

Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear

:

".

:

. "

" -

,

excluding a minor. "

" -

,

excluding the wife of a minor.

.

-

And if you say that a person designates

,

then we find marriage

[of a married woman]

for a minor,

?

:

:

But rather, what

are you, Rabbi Zeira, saying—that he

he does not designate

?

:

Why does the verse exclude him?

!

:

Resolve it from it,

,

that he designates

!

:

Rav Ashi said: Here,

-

we are dealing with a yavam who is nine years and one day old, who had intercourse with his yevama.

.

.

You might have said,

:

since according to Torah law she is fit for him

,

and

once he becomes nine years and one day old,

his intercourse is intercourse,

therefore anyone

one who has intercourse with her

after the minor levir performed levirate marriage with her

becomes liable

,

for

the prohibition of

to the prohibition of a married woman.

,

it teaches us,

.

.

:

What came of it?

?

Come and hear,

:

as Rabbi Aivu said that Rabbi Yannai said:

.

There is no designation

,

except for an adult.

.

There is no designation except with the knowledge

of the son.

. .

And we raise an objection:

Two?

The two things that Rabbi Yannai said are in fact one thing. For since there is no yi'ud except with the knowledge of the son, it is self-evident that there is no yi'ud except with an adult son, who possesses knowledge, but the knowledge of a minor is not regarded as “his knowledge”! And why did Rabbi Yannai need to teach us both things

? And we answer with two answers:

A. Rabbi Yannai did not intend to teach us two separate laws, but only one law: that there is no yi'ud except with an adult; and

“For what reason”

he said

Rabbi Yannai.

That is to say:

What

the

reason

for this, that

there is no yi'ud except with an adult? —

Because there is no yi'ud except with knowledge

of the son, and a minor has no knowledge.

B.

Alternatively, if you wish

there is another answer:

What

is the intention of Rabbi Yannai, who said, “There is no yi'ud except

with knowledge?” —

It does not refer to the knowledge of the son, as we had thought above. Rather,

with her knowledge

with the knowledge of the maidservant, that the maidservant should know that the master designates her for kiddushin. And the Gemara proves from a beraita that yi'ud requires the knowledge of the woman:

For Abaye, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught:

Abaye, son of Rabbi Abbahu:

It is stated [Exodus 21], “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master,

who has not designated her” —

the verse teaches

that Scripture called the kiddushin of the maidservant “yi'ud,”

that he must designate her,

to inform her that he is marrying her as a wife.

He,

Abaye, son of Rabbi Abbahu,

taught it to her,

he taught this beraita’s words,

and he said it to her

its interpretation, on his own authority:

This beraita speaks specifically

of kiddushin through yi'ud.

But when a minor girl is betrothed through her father, the husband need not inform her at the time of the kiddushin that he is marrying her.

But the question is asked: Why do we not learn from kiddushin through yi'ud to ordinary kiddushin, that in those as well the knowledge of the minor is required? And in order to answer this question, Abaye, son of Rabbi Abbahu, continues and says:

And

the beraita was stated

according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said [

below]:

the first money —

was not given for kiddushin!

When the master gave the father the payment money for purchasing her, that money was not given for the yi'ud that the master would later perform.

Rather, if the master wishes to betroth her after acquiring her, the Torah gave him the possibility of waiving the labor that she is still obligated to perform for him, and of designating her as his wife by waiving her labor obligation [provided that that labor is worth one peruta].

And since, at the time when the master gave the father the first money, she was not betrothed through that money, the father did not initially have the intention of betrothing her through it. Therefore, if the master does not inform the maidservant herself that she is to accept his kiddushin upon herself, there is no kiddushin.

And all this is according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis disagree and hold that “the first money was given for kiddushin.” It follows that when the father sells his daughter as a maidservant, he consents to receive the money from the master also on account of the kiddushin, and this is like ordinary kiddushin performed with the father’s knowledge. Therefore, according to the Rabbis, there is no distinction between kiddushin through yi'ud and ordinary kiddushin.

And since, with regard to ordinary kiddushin performed with the father’s knowledge, we have nowhere heard that her knowledge is required, it necessarily follows that even with regard to kiddushin through yi'ud, according to the Rabbis, her knowledge is not required.

But Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak disagrees with the words of Abaye, son of Rabbi Abbahu:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Even

if

you say [

say] that the first money

was given for kiddushin,

according to the Rabbis, nevertheless, one must distinguish between kiddushin through yi'ud and ordinary kiddushin:

Here it is different,

the law of yi'ud differs from other kiddushin, because Scripture changed the name of the maidservant’s kiddushin from that of other kiddushin —

for the Merciful One said

with regard to the maidservant’s kiddushin,

“He shall designate her.”

And Scripture changed its wording from that of other kiddushin so that we should expound “He shall designate her” from the language of knowledge.

Therefore, the kiddushin of the maidservant differs from other kiddushin of a minor, and it must be performed with the knowledge of the maidservant. Abaye, son of Rabbi Abbahu, took the position that according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, the first money was not given for kiddushin.

And the Gemara discusses: From where does he know that Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda indeed holds this way?

And we discuss it:

What,

what did

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda

say, from which Abaye, son of Rabbi Abbahu, learned that the first money was not given for kiddushin?

And we answer:

For it was taught:

It is stated in the Torah [Exodus 21], concerning yi'ud, “

He shall designate her, and he shall redeem her.”

Scripture juxtaposed

“He shall designate her” [yi'ud] to “he shall redeem her” [the law of redeeming the maidservant], in order to teach that if the master comes to designate the maidservant on the final day, at the end of her six years of service, then

there must be enough time in the day

for him to be able to fulfill in her the law of

redemption

with one peruta.

And the beraita continues to explain:

From here,

on the basis of this exposition,

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said:

Only

if there is enough time in the day

for

there to be enough time

for the maidservant to be able

to perform with him

labor worth

one peruta,

then she

is betrothed

through the yi'ud, when he says to her, “Behold, you are betrothed to me,” and he betroths her by waiving her labor obligation worth one peruta.

But if not,

but if there did not remain enough time on that day for labor worth one peruta,

she is not betrothed.

For we learned from “He shall designate her, and he shall redeem her” that the law of yi'ud applies only where the law of redemption applies.

Apparently,

it is evident from here that Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda

holds that the first money

which the father received from the master

was not given for kiddushin.

Therefore, according to him, the master must give the maidservant the value of one peruta at the time when he designates her as his wife, by waiving her labor obligation worth one peruta.

And one cannot say that the first money was given for kiddushin.

For if we say so, there is no need for there to be enough time in the day to perform with him labor worth one peruta, since the master says within the six years, “Designate yourself for me,” and she is thereby designated retroactively, through the money that the master gave the father at the time of her sale, because the father accepted that money on the condition that she would be designated through it.

But Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak disagrees with Abaye, son of Rabbi Abbahu, and holds that one cannot prove from Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda’s words that the first money was not given for kiddushin:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Even if you say [

say] that the first money

was given for kiddushin,

nevertheless, Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda’s words can be upheld: he holds that there must be enough time in the day to perform with him labor worth one peruta.

For the reason that there must be enough time on that day to work with him for the value of one peruta is not that he betroths her with that one peruta, as we had thought until now, but rather —

Here it is different,

the law of yi'ud differs in that a scriptural decree was stated concerning it:

for the Merciful One said, “And he shall redeem her.”

And from here it follows that there must be enough time in the day for redemption.

And just as the master cannot designate the maidservant after the six years have ended, so too, before that, he cannot designate her at a time when there does not remain for him a labor obligation toward her worth one peruta; and it is as though the six years have already ended and she has left his authority.

Rav Naḥman holds like Abaye, son of Rabbi Abbahu, that according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, the first money was not given for kiddushin, and from this he learned two laws:

A.

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman: A person may say to his daughter

when she is

a minor: “Go out and receive your kiddushin

yourself from a man whom you wish to marry.”

And this matter is learned

from

the words of

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda:

And is it not

not

so that

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said: The initial money was not given for betrothal!

It follows that the father himself did not betroth his daughter to the master.

And

nevertheless,

when

the master

leaves in her

—the maidservant—

a peruta’s worth,

for he waives for her that labor,

there is betrothal.

And what is the reason for the matter? Necessarily, because the father knows at the time of selling her that the master can designate her after some time; therefore, it is as though he agreed that the daughter should receive her own betrothal.

And if so,

here too it is no different.

The one who says to his minor daughter, “Go out and receive your betrothal,” is also no different from one who sells his daughter as a maidservant, for he too agreed that the daughter should receive her own betrothal; therefore, she is betrothed.

2.

And Rava said that Rav Naḥman said:

One who betroths a woman with a loan that she borrowed from him—that is, he waives that loan for her and betroths her with it—she is not betrothed.

Nevertheless,

one who betroths

the woman

with a loan that

she owes him and

there is collateral upon her,

she is

betrothed.

And this matter is learned

from

the words of

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda:

And is it

not

so that

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said:

“The initial money was not given for betrothal”!

It follows that the master did not betroth the woman with the money that he gave to the father, but rather by waiving for her the labor that she is obligated to perform for him—and

this,

that obligation which she is obligated to perform for him, in general

is a loan,

for here there is no actual money, but merely a debt: she owes him her labor or the redemption money for her labor.

And she herself,

the maidservant herself,

is collateral

for repayment of the debt, for she is held in his authority, and he is entitled to compel her to work for him.