Kiddushin 44b (מד:) — the Talmud in English

According to the Sages, who hold that a na'ara also receives her bill of divorce

na'ara

may appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce directly from her husband?

Can a na'ara, during her father's lifetime, appoint an agent to receive the bill of divorce?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Does the daughter who receives her bill of divorce during her father's lifetime, according to the Sages,

resemble her father's hand [

does the na'ara resemble her father's hand ],

or

perhaps the daughter

resembles her father's courtyard?

And we explain it:

Does she

resemble her father's hand,

and if so, just as her father can appoint an agent, she too can appoint an agent?

Or perhaps: She resembles her father's courtyard, and until the bill of divorce reaches her hand

of hers,

she is not divorced [

until the bill of divorce reaches the na'ara herself, she is not divorced ].

The Gemara is surprised:

Can Rava really be uncertain about this

matter—whether a person of sound mind can have the status of a courtyard when he is awake!?

But Rava himself said

:

If one wrote a bill of divorce and placed it in the hand of his wife's slave

belonging to his wife:

If the slave was

sleeping, and

the woman

was guarding him, it is a valid bill of divorce

because the slave is equivalent to her courtyard, and a courtyard guarded by her acquires the bill of divorce on her behalf.

But if the slave was

awake, it is not a valid bill of divorce,

as he proceeds to explain the reason.

But

why, if he is awake, is it not a valid bill of divorce!?

It is certainly because

it becomes a courtyard

that is

guarded without her knowledge,

because he guards himself —we learn from this that a courtyard guarded without the owner's knowledge does not acquire an item on the owner's behalf. And if it could enter your mind

that the daughter

resembles

her father's courtyard,

as Rava suggested, then

when the bill of divorce reaches her hand [

when the bill of divorce reaches her hand ],

she would likewise not be divorced, for

it would

be a courtyard guarded without her father's knowledge,

since she is awake and guards it herself!?

It must necessarily be said that the daughter resembles her father's hand. If so, why was Rava uncertain about this!?

Rather,

because of this difficulty the Gemara retracts its earlier explanation of the sides of Rava's doubt, and explains that

it was always obvious to Rava

that

she resembles her father's hand,

and therefore her hand need not be guarded with her father's knowledge

; and this is what Rava was asking

[these are the sides of Rava's doubt]:

Is the daughter sufficiently powerful

that she

resembles her father's hand, so that she can appoint an agent [

is the daughter's power as strong as her father's hand, so that she too can appoint an agent like him ],

or not?

Rav Naḥman

resolved the matter

for

Rava:

A

na'ara

cannot appoint an agent

to receive her bill of divorce directly from her husband.

He raised an objection

to Rav Naḥman from what we learned in a Mishna in Gittin 65a:

A

minor woman who said

to her agent: “

Receive my bill of divorce for me,”

it is not a bill of divorce

and she is not divorced when the bill of divorce reaches the agent, as she would be through an agent appointed to receive it, because a minor cannot appoint an agent,

until the bill of divorce reaches her hand,

for she is then divorced because the agent is the husband's agent to deliver the bill of divorce.

The Gemara infers:

If it is a na'ara, it is a valid bill of divorce

immediately when the bill of divorce is received, as with any agent appointed to receive it. Thus, a na'ara can appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce directly from her husband, contrary to Rav Naḥman!?

And we answer:

Here,

in the Mishna in Gittin,

with what are we dealing? With

a woman

who has no father,

who can certainly appoint an agent like any other adult woman, since she is an adult.

And we challenge this:

But from the fact that the latter clause states

of that same Mishna:

If her father said to him

the agent: “

Go and receive a bill of divorce for my daughter,”

if the husband wishes to retract

after the bill of divorce has reached the agent,

he may not retract,

because the agent is the father's agent to receive it, and once the bill of divorce has reached him, she is already divorced.

By inference,

also

in the first clause

as well,

we are dealing with a woman who has a father;

how then can we interpret the first clause as referring to a minor who has no father!?

And we answer:

The Mishna is incomplete,

and

this is what it teaches [

there is an omission in the wording of the Mishna, and this is how it is taught ]:

A minor who said: “

Receive my bill of divorce for me,”

it is not a bill of divorce until the bill of divorce reaches her hand; if she is a na'ara, it is a valid bill of divorce. When does this apply—

when a minor woman, in whose bill of divorce agency is not applicable,

has no father. But

if she

has a father, and her father said: “

Go and receive a bill of divorce for my daughter,”

if the husband wishes to retract, he may not retract,

because the father can appoint an agent.

A minor who is an orphan, or who is an orphan during her father's lifetime—for example, she was married and then divorced, or widowed—is granted marriage by the Sages, but she leaves that marriage through mi'un, meaning that she says: “I do not want him.”

It was stated:

A minor

who was betrothed without her father's knowledge,

Shmuel said: She requires a bill of divorce

from the husband,

and she requires

also

mi'un [

so that she says: “I do not want him” ] in order to permit her, as he proceeds to explain the reason.

Regarding this,

she receives

Karna

said: There are

matters within it [

there are matters contained in this statement ], meaning: Shmuel's statement contains a response and a difficulty. For:

If

she receives

a bill of divorce, why

does she also need

mi'un;

and

if

mi'un applies to her,

why

does she also need

a bill of divorce!?

The members of the academy said

to Karna: Indeed, we cannot travel to Nehardea, Shmuel's city, to ask him the reason; but

Mar Ukva and his court are in Kafri [

the name of a place ], which is near us, and he was the head of the court during Shmuel's lifetime, so let us ask him what Shmuel's reason was.

They reversed them [

they reversed the names of those who had stated the opinions ], and

sent it before Rav [

and sent it to Rav ], meaning: They sent Rav the following message: “Karna says: She requires a bill of divorce and requires mi'un; Shmuel holds: A bill of divorce alone is sufficient. What is your opinion in this matter?” They therefore reversed the names of the speakers, because perhaps, since Rav was a friend of Shmuel, he would agree with Karna's position if it were reported to him in Shmuel's name.

Rav said to them:

Rav

swore by God [

this is an expression of an oath ]:

She requires a bill of divorce and requires mi'un. Heaven forbid that anything unworthy be attributed to the descendants of Abba bar Abba [

God forbid that anything unworthy be attributed to Shmuel, who was the son of Abba bar Abba ],

that he should say so,

that is, that he should disagree and say that she does not require both a bill of divorce and mi'un.

And we explain:

And what is the reason

that she requires a bill of divorce and requires mi'un?

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:

say:

Since she received a divorce document, she was certainly betrothed, and

She requires a bill of divorce, lest the father consented to the betrothal

when he heard about it, and the betrothal took effect retroactively. And she

requires

also

mi'un, lest the father did not consent to the betrothal,

and the bill of divorce is not a bill of divorce, since it was unnecessary, and she is not a betrothed woman who was divorced;

and

if people

say:

Since she received a bill of divorce, she was certainly betrothed, and

betrothal does not take effect

for him

with her sister,

since she is the sister of his divorced wife, they will permit the sister of his wife, who is a married woman, to everyone. Therefore, she performs mi'un, so that everyone will know that she is not certainly completely divorced.

Rav

added:

Rav Naḥman:

Regarding what we said about a minor who was betrothed without her father's knowledge, that she requires a bill of divorce,

this is when they had been matched [

the betrothal had been arranged between the betrother and the minor through her father ], because then it can indeed be said that perhaps the father consented when he heard, and the betrothal took effect retroactively.

Ulla

disagreed with Shmuel and Karna, and

said:

A minor who was betrothed without her father's knowledge does not merely not require a bill of divorce;

even mi'un—

as does any other minor who was betrothed—

she does not require,

because a minor's act has no effect during her father's lifetime, except when she is an orphan, or an orphan during her father's lifetime, in which case the Sages instituted marriage for her.

And we ask: Did Ulla really say that she requires neither a bill of divorce nor mi'un

even when they had been matched,

as is implied by the fact that Ulla's statement was presented as a disagreement with Shmuel, who likewise spoke only of a case in which they had been matched, as Rav Naḥman said!? Surely there is concern that perhaps the father consented when he heard of it!?

And we answer: Ulla spoke only of a case in which they had not been matched.

The one who teaches this [

the one who presents Ulla's statement as a disagreement with Shmuel ],

does not teach that

he does not present, together with Shmuel's statement, Rav Naḥman's qualification that the case is one in which they had been matched. In his view, Shmuel said that she requires a bill of divorce even when they had not been matched, and therefore he presented Ulla's statement as disagreeing with Shmuel in this respect: She does not even require mi'un.

Some say

that the teaching was transmitted in Ulla's name not as a disagreement with Shmuel, but as an independent statement:

Ulla said:

A minor who was betrothed without her father's knowledge does not even require mi'un

even when they had been matched.

Rav Kahana raised an objection

to Ulla's statement from what we learned in a Mishna in Yevamot: Fifteen categories of forbidden relatives—one of them being one's daughter—who fell before their relatives for yibbum are exempt from yibbum, and they likewise exempt their co-wives from yibbum, since the co-wife of a forbidden relative is not subject to yibbum. And we learned there:

And all of them

—these forbidden relatives—

if they died

before their husbands,

or

if they

performed mi'un

with their husbands, because they had been minors when they were betrothed,

or

if they

were divorced

before the husband's death,

or were found to be incapable of conception

and it became clear that they were not married to the deceased husband, because their betrothal was a mistaken betrothal—

Behold,

their co-wives are permitted

for yibbum, as these are not “a co-wife of an erva.”

But now the difficulty arises: These kiddushin, which the daughter [who is one of the forbidden relations] refused, must have taken place during the father’s lifetime, since she fell before her father for yibbum. If so,

who performed the kiddushin—

with the daughter who refused—

who [was the one who betrothed her to the deceased]?

If you say that her father performed the kiddushin,

and they are kiddushin by Torah law, is it really the case that

mi'un is sufficient for her [that it is sufficient for her] to leave him and to cause her co-wife to require yibbum?! Surely she

requires a proper get [a good, complete one]

from her husband

.

Rather, is it not the case that the Mishna necessarily deals with a situation

such as

where she performed the kiddushin herself [she became betrothed through her own action], and we are not concerned that perhaps the father consented, as this is a case where they had not been matched by the families, and therefore she does not require a get

; and

nevertheless

it teaches that she requires mi'un, since we learned: “or they refused”; and this presents a difficulty to Ulla, who maintains that she does not require even mi'un

!?

He—

Rav Kahana—

raises the difficulty for him and

also

resolves it [Rav Kahana, who raised the difficulty, is the one who also resolved it]:

In this case—in the Mishna in Yevamot—what are we dealing with?

For example, where the status of an orphan came to apply to her

the minor

during her father’s lifetime,

meaning that she left his authority through a marriage from which she was divorced or widowed, and her father no longer has authority over her, as though she were an orphan. This girl has the ability to accept kiddushin herself by rabbinic law, just as an orphaned minor becomes betrothed through her own action, and it is with regard to such a girl that we learned: “or they refused.”

Rav Hamnuna raises an objection

to Ulla from that which was taught in a beraita:

a. A father may sell his minor daughter as a Hebrew maidservant.

b. It is a mitzva for the master to designate [betroth] his Hebrew maidservant, and the tannaim disagree as to how he designates her: whether the money given to the father at the time the maidservant was purchased is the money through which the designation is effected [“the original money was given for the purpose of kiddushin”], or whether the master designates her by deducting one peruta from the wages of his maidservant for the purpose of kiddushin.

He may not sell her

the father may not sell his daughter

to relatives

to serve as their maidservant, since they cannot fulfill the mitzva of designation with her, as kiddushin does not take effect between a relative and his forbidden relative.

In the name of Rabbi Eliezer they said: He may sell her

the father may sell his daughter even

to relatives,

even though she is not fit for designation.