Kiddushin 3b — the Talmud in English

And

if

a woman, with less than the value of a peruta ![](pamud.bmp "

")

does not resolve to acquire herself!

A woman does not firmly resolve to acquire herself to a husband through an acquisition of exchange, because it is degrading for her to become betrothed through such an acquisition, which can be effected even with an object that is worth less than a peruta.

And since it is degrading for a woman to become betrothed through an exchange of an implement worth less than a peruta, therefore the acquisition of exchange is entirely ineffective for a woman. And even with an implement that contains the value of a peruta, if he gave it to the woman in the language of an acquisition of exchange, she does not become betrothed through it, until he says to her that he is giving it to her as an “acquisition,” or “taking,” or “betrothal,” for then she is acquired through it by the law of an acquisition through money.

b.

The enumeration at the end [“and acquires herself through two ways”]

comes

to exclude halitza. And

the Mishna needed to exclude halitza, because without the words of the Mishna,

it might enter your mind,

it would enter your mind to say:

let it come,

let halitza come,

through

a derivation of

a kal va-chomer from a yevama, and enable the wife of a married man to be permitted:

and be effective to permit a married woman to others:

just as,

if

a yevama, who does not leave through a bill of divorce,

nevertheless she

leaves through halitza.

This one,

the wife of a married man,

who leaves

even

through a bill of divorce,

and

is it not the law [that is, is this not a kal va-chomer]

[is this not an “all the more so” inference]

that she leaves

also

through halitza?!

Therefore

it teaches us, the tannai taught us that a woman acquires herself through only two ways, only through a bill of divorce and through the death of the husband, and she does not acquire herself through halitza.

the tan na that a woman acquires herself in only two ways: only through a bill of divorce or through the death of her husband; she does not acquire herself through the ritual levirate release.

And we object:

and let us say that this too is so, why should we not say that indeed a woman acquires herself also through halitza [through a kal va-chomer from a yevama]?

—why should we not say that a woman indeed acquires herself through the ritual levirate release, by an “all the more so” inference from a yevama?

And we answer:

the verse says [Deuteronomy 24], concerning divorce: “And he shall write for her

[Deuteronomy 24], concerning divorce: “And he shall write for her

a document of severance,

and he shall place it in her hand.”

The word “severance” comes to teach us that only

a document

of divorce [the bill of divorce]

severs her,

separates her from her husband,

and no other thing severs her.

And from here we learn that halitza does not sever [separate] the woman from her husband.

We learned in the Mishna: the woman is acquired

with money

and so on.

Indeed, it was already explained [above, 2a] that acquisition through money in the case of a woman is learned through the gzera shava “taking” “taking” from the field of Ephron, but there the matter was brought within a give-and-take, incidentally. And now the Gemara discusses and expands upon the matter.

And we inquire concerning it:

from where do we know,

from where do we know that a woman is acquired with money?

And the Gemara adds that one must also discuss the ownership of the betrothal money by the father when he betroths his daughter while she is a minor or a maiden—

and further,

and one must also discuss

that which we learned [Ketubot 46b]:

[Ketubot 46b]:

the father is entitled to his daughter

while she is a minor or a maiden

with regard to her betrothals,

that the father is the “owner” of the matter of his daughter’s betrothal —

with money,

the father takes the betrothal money, and the money is his. And

with a document,

he receives the document from the husband’s hand.

And through intercourse,

he delivers his daughter for intercourse for the sake of betrothal, even against her will, while she is a minor or a maiden. a.

From where do we know that she is acquired with money?

From where do we know that the woman is acquired with money, as we learned in our Mishna and in Tractate Ketubot?

b.

And

from where do we know that the

money

of the betrothal of a minor or a maiden,

of her father [that it belongs to her father]

[belongs to her father]

is?

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

These two laws are learned from

as the verse says [Exodus 21], concerning a Hebrew maidservant:

“And she shall go out

“And she shall go out

[the Hebrew maidservant from the authority of the master through the signs of maidenhood]

without payment; there is no money.”

The words “there is no money” are superfluous, since it was already stated, “she shall go out without payment.” And they were written for the purpose of a homiletical interpretation:

To say to you:

there is no money for this master,

the master of the Hebrew maidservant, whose departure from him to freedom [when she displays the signs of maidenhood] is without payment, without a payment of money.

But there is money—

for another master.

That is, specifically from the authority of the master of the maidservant does the maiden not go out with money, but there is another master of the maiden from whose authority she goes out through money.

And who is he,

who is that “other master”?

The father

of the maiden!

And the verse teaches that when the daughter becomes betrothed to her husband, and through this she leaves her father’s authority for her husband’s authority, the betrothal [which is, as stated, her leaving her father’s authority] is effected through money.

And from here we must learn that the woman is acquired to the husband through money.

And we object:

and let us say: to her!

Say that the money should belong to her.

That is, one can still say that the daughter herself receives the money. And from where have we learned that the money of her betrothal, which the husband gives, belongs to the father? And the Gemara expresses astonishment at the questioner:

How can you compare,

how can you say this?!

For since

her father

of the maiden

receives

her

betrothal, as it is written [Deuteronomy 22], in the section of one who spreads an evil report, that if the husband accused his wife of not having found signs of virginity and claimed that she had committed adultery while betrothed to him, the father of the maiden comes to the court and says: “

[Deuteronomy 22], in the passage concerning one who spreads an evil report, where a husband falsely claims that he did not find signs of virginity in his wife and that she had committed adultery while betrothed to him, the girl’s father comes to the court and says: “

I gave my daughter to this man!”

And it follows from the language of the verse that the authority to betroth his daughter is given to him.

And

if so, is it possible to say that he betroths her, while

she takes the money,

that the daughter takes the money for herself?!

And for what purpose did the Torah grant the father authority over his daughter’s betrothal, if not for the purpose of receiving the money?

And the Gemara raises an objection to the astonishment:

Indeed, it can be proved from the verse “I gave my daughter to this man” that the father receives his daughter’s betrothal [and from here one can also learn that the money belongs to him], but it is still possible to ask:

And let us say: this applies only to a minor.

Say that the verse speaks only of the betrothal of a minor,

who does not possess understanding,

who has no capacity to receive betrothal,

who has no ability to receive betrothal, and therefore the Torah granted the father ownership of her betrothal.

But a maiden,

from when she produces two hairs, for she possesses understanding,

who has

[the capacity]

the capacity to receive betrothal,

presumably the verse did not grant the father her betrothal. For a maiden is considered an adult in every matter, with regard to punishments and with regard to buying and selling, for her purchase is a purchase and her sale is a sale [Rashi].

Therefore,

she herself should effect her own betrothal, and take the money.

She should effect her own betrothal and take the money of her betrothal for herself!

If so, the question still remains: From where did we learn that the father effects the betrothal of his daughter while she is a young woman, and that he takes the money?

And we answer:

The verse says [Numbers 30], concerning a young woman: “

в книге Числа 30, относительно девушки]: «

While she is in her youth, in her father’s house.”

The verse teaches us that as long as she is in her youth, she belongs to her father. From here we learn that

every gain,

any monetary profit that a woman has during her

youth

belongs

to her father.

It follows that the Torah gave the father ownership of his daughter’s betrothal while she is in her youth, and the money [which is a gain and monetary profit] belongs to her father.

But the Gemara rejects this answer:

But then,

how will we explain

that which Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

From where do we know that the work

of the

daughter

belongs

to the father? —

As it is stated [Exodus 21]: “

в Исходе 21]: «

When a man sells his daughter as a maidservant.”

The word “as a maidservant” is superfluous [for it is obvious that when a person sells his daughter, he sells her as a maidservant], and the verse comes to teach us:

Just as

a maidservant’s

work

belongs

to her master

[her owner] —

so too, a daughter [“his daughter”]

his daughter”]

as well: her work belongs to her father.

This verse teaches the law of a young woman, and not the law of a minor, because he can even sell a minor as a maidservant, and it is obvious that her work belongs to him; there is no need for a verse to teach this.

But according to your explanation, that you derive from the verse “While she is in her youth, in her father’s house” that every gain during her youth belongs to her father, it is difficult: Why was it necessary for the verse [“as a maidservant”] to teach us that the daughter’s work belongs to her father?

After all,

it can be derived:

learn this law

from

the verse

“While she is in her youth, in her father’s house,”

which teaches that every gain during her youth belongs to her father [and her work is included in this as well]!

Rather,

it is proven from here that the verse “While she is in her youth, in her father’s house” is written only

in

the context of

the annulment of vows,

teaching that the father may annul his daughter’s vows while she is a young woman [since the verse “While she is in her youth, in her father’s house” appears in the Torah in the section dealing with the annulment of vows].

One cannot learn from it that the daughter’s work also belongs to her father. Therefore, the verse had to say “as a maidservant,” to teach that her work also belongs to her father.

If so,

the same is true here:

so too, one can reject what you learned from “While she is in her youth, in her father’s house,” namely, that her betrothal belongs to her father. For this verse

concerning the annulment of vows

alone

is written.

The Gemara now explains why we do not learn from the annulment of vows that the young woman’s betrothal and her work belong to her father:

And if you should say: Let us derive it from there!

Perhaps you might say: Why should we not learn that the money of a young woman belongs to her father from the fact that her father has the authority to annul her vows?

The answer is:

Monetary law cannot be derived from prohibitions.

We do not learn monetary laws [laws concerning money] from prohibitions, which are laws governing a person’s relationship with the Omnipresent [the annulment of vows]. The original question therefore returns: From where do we know that the father is entitled to his young daughter’s betrothal?

And if you should say,

perhaps you might say:

Let us derive it from the fine:

Let us learn that the betrothal of a young woman belongs to her father from the fact that the Torah says [Deuteronomy 22] that one who rapes or seduces a young virgin must pay a fine to her father.

This cannot be said. For

monetary law cannot be derived

from a fine!

We do not learn the law of the money of betrothal from the law of the money of a fine, because a fine is a novel legal obligation: the Torah required a person to pay it even though he did not deprive his fellow of anything.

If so, the difficulty still remains: From where did we learn that the father effects the betrothal of his daughter who is a young woman, and that the money of her betrothal belongs to him?

And if you should say,

perhaps you wish to answer:

Let us derive it:

let us learn that the money of a young woman’s betrothal belongs to her father from what we learned [Ketubot 40b], that one who rapes a young woman must pay

compensation for humiliation and reduction in value

to her father. Compensation for humiliation and reduction in value is not a fine [since it is payment for the humiliation and injury inflicted upon the young woman, intended to compensate for the damage she suffered]. Just as the compensation for humiliation and reduction in value belongs to her father, so too the money of her betrothal belongs to him.

This answer too is incorrect, because a distinction must be made between compensation for humiliation and reduction in value and the money of betrothal:

The case of compensation for humiliation and reduction in value is different.

The law of compensation for humiliation and reduction in value differs from the law of betrothal money, because there is a reason why that compensation belongs to the father:

because the father has a financial interest in them.

The father too suffers a loss through the rape of his daughter, since he had the ability to betroth her to a disgraceful or leprous man in exchange for a large sum of money [for the Torah gave him the right to betroth her to anyone he wished, even if doing so would damage and humiliate her]. The rapist deprives him of this money, because he caused people to devalue her and caused prospective husbands not to seek her hand. After all these possibilities have been rejected, the Gemara returns and resolves the initial derivation mentioned above:

Rather,

it is stated [Exodus 21], concerning a Hebrew maidservant: “And she shall go free without payment [through the signs of youth]; there is no money.” The words “there is no money” are superfluous, teaching that there is no money for this master, but there is money for another master, namely, the father.

That is, the young woman leaves the authority of the master without payment, but she leaves the authority of her father through betrothal with money.

However, the Gemara asked about this earlier: Perhaps the verse means that there is an acquisition through money when the daughter leaves her father’s authority, but the money itself belongs to the daughter!

The Gemara answers this here:

It is logical

that the intention of the verse is to say that the money belongs to her father —

because when it excludes

the young woman’s leaving through betrothal, and distinguishes it from the law of the young woman’s leaving the master’s authority as a Hebrew maidservant [the maidservant leaves the master’s authority without money, whereas the daughter leaves her father’s authority with money] —