Kiddushin 44b — the Talmud in English

According to the Sages, that even a maiden receives her get

maiden

what is the ruling as to whether she may appoint an agent to receive her get from her husband,

can a maiden, during her father’s lifetime, appoint an agent to receive the get?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Does the daughter who receives her get during her father’s lifetime, according to the Sages,

resemble her father’s hand

does the maiden resemble her father’s hand,

or

perhaps the daughter

resemble her father’s courtyard?

And we explain it:

Does she

resemble her father’s hand,

and if so, just as her father appoints an agent, she too appoints an agent.

Or perhaps: she resembles her father’s courtyard, and until the get reaches her hand

her own,

she is not divorced

until the get has not yet come into the maiden’s own hand, she is not divorced.

The Gemara is astonished:

And is this a doubt for Rava

that a legally competent person should have the status of a courtyard while she is awake!?

But Rava said

himself:

If he wrote a get and placed it in the hand of his wife’s slave

:

If the slave was

sleeping, and

the woman

was guarding him, this is a get

because her slave is equivalent to her courtyard, and a courtyard guarded by her acquires for her.

But if the slave was

awake, it is not a get,

as he goes on to explain the reason.

But

why, if he is awake, is it not a get!?

Certainly, it is because

it becomes for her a courtyard

that is

guarded without her knowledge,

because he guards himself — we have learned that a courtyard guarded without the knowledge of the owner does not acquire.

And if it should enter your mind

that the daughter

resembles her father’s courtyard,

as Rava proposed, then

when the get reaches her hand

when a get reaches her hand,

she should also not be divorced, for

indeed

it becomes for her a courtyard guarded without her father’s knowledge,

since she is awake and guards it by herself!?

Necessarily, one must say: The daughter resembles her father’s hand; and if so, why did Rava raise a doubt about this!?

Rather,

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

it was always obvious to him

to Rava

that she resembles her father’s hand,

and therefore it is not necessary that her hand be guarded with her father’s knowledge

; and this is what he was asking

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

Is

the daughter

as powerful as her father’s hand, so that she herself can appoint an agent

is the daughter’s power as strong as her father’s hand, so that she too can appoint an agent as he can,

or not?

Rav Nahman

resolved

it

for Rava:

No,

a maiden

does not appoint an agent

to receive her get from her husband.

He raised an objection

to Rav Nahman from what we learned in the Mishna in tractate Gittin, 65a:

A

minor girl who said

to her agent: “

Receive my get for me,”

it is not a get,

she is not divorced when the get reaches the agent’s hand, as with an agent for receipt, because a minor girl has no agency,

until the get reaches her hand,

for then she is divorced, because he is the husband’s agent for delivery.

And the Gemara infers:

With regard to a maiden, this is a get

immediately, at the time the get is received, as with any agent for receipt; thus, a maiden appoints an agent to receive her get from her husband, and this is a difficulty for Rav Nahman!?

And we answer:

Here —

in the Mishna in Gittin —

with what are we dealing: with

a woman

who has no father,

for she certainly can appoint an agent like other women, since she is an adult.

And we challenge this:

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches

of that same Mishna:

If her father said to him

to the agent: “

Go and receive a get for my daughter,”

if the husband wishes to retract

after the get has reached the agent’s hand,

he may not retract,

because the agent is the father’s agent for receipt, and once the get has reached his hand, she is already divorced.

By inference,

also

in the first clause

also

we are dealing with one who has a father;

and how shall we explain the first clause as referring to a minor girl who has no father!?

And we answer:

The Mishna is incomplete

the Mishna,

and this is what it teaches

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

A minor girl who said: “

Receive my get for me,”

it is not a get until the get reaches her hand; with regard to a maiden, this is a get. In what case is this said —

that agency does not apply to a minor girl’s get —

when she has no father; but

if

she has a father, and her father said: “

Go and receive her get for my daughter,”

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

because the father has agency.

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

It was stated:

A minor girl

who was betrothed without her father’s knowledge,

Shmuel said: She requires a get

from the husband,

and she requires

also

refusal

that she say: “I do not want him,” in order to permit her, as he goes on to explain the reason.

He said

about this

Karna:

There are

matters within it

there are matters within this statement; that is, there is an answer and a difficulty in Shmuel’s words, for:

If

she receives

a get, why

does she also need

refusal,

and

if

mi'un applies to her, why

does she also need

a

get!?

They said to him

the members of the house of study said to Karna: Indeed, we cannot go as far as Nehardea, to Shmuel’s city, to ask his reason, but

here are Mar Ukva and his court in Kafrei

a place-name, which is near us, and he was the head of the court in the days of Shmuel; let us ask him what Shmuel’s reason was.

They reversed them

they reversed the names of the speakers, and thus

they sent it before Rav

they sent it to Rav, saying: Karna says: She requires a get and requires mi'un, while Shmuel holds that a get alone suffices; what is your view in this matter? They therefore reversed the names of the speakers, because perhaps, since he was a friend of Shmuel, he would agree with Karna’s words when they were told to him in Shmuel’s name.

Rav said to them:

Rav

By God

an expression of an oath:

She requires a get and she requires mi'un, and Heaven forbid that this should be said of the offspring of Abba bar Abba

Heaven forbid that such a thing should be said of Shmuel, who was the son of Abba bar Abba,

that he would say so,

that he would disagree and say: She does not require a get and mi'un together.

And we explain:

And what is the reason

that she requires a get and requires mi'un?

He said

he explained

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika:

She requires a get, lest the father became reconciled to the betrothal

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

she requires

also

mi'un, lest the father did not become reconciled to the betrothal,

and the get is not a get, for it is not needed, and she is not a betrothed woman who was divorced;

and

if people

say:

Since she received a get, she was certainly betrothed, and

betrothal does not take effect

for him

with her sister,

for she is the sister of his divorced wife, and 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.

in addition: The statement that a minor who was betrothed without her father’s knowledge requires a divorce document applies when they had been matched [ when the man who betrothed her had been matched with the minor through her father ]; in that case it is indeed possible to say 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 divorce document; she does not even require refusal, as does an ordinary minor who was betrothed, because she does not require it, since a minor’s act has no legal effect during her father’s lifetime. This applies unless she is an orphan, or is considered an orphan during her father’s lifetime, in which case the Sages instituted marriage for her. The Gemara asks: Did Ulla really say that she requires neither a divorce document nor refusal 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 definitely reason to suspect that the father consented when he heard!?

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

Rav Nahman

added: This which we say concerning a minor girl who was betrothed without her father’s knowledge, that she requires a get,

is when they had been matched

the betrothed man and the minor girl had been matched through the father, for then it can indeed be said that perhaps the father became reconciled when he heard, and the betrothal took effect retroactively.

Ulla

disagreed with Shmuel and Karna, and

said:

A minor girl who was betrothed without her father’s knowledge does not merely not require a get, but

even mi'un —

as with any minor girl who was betrothed —

she does not require,

for a minor girl’s act has no effect during her father’s lifetime, except when she is an orphan, or when she is 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 get nor mi'un

even though they had been matched,

for this is implied by the fact that Ulla’s statement was taught as a dispute with Shmuel, who also spoke only of a case in which they had been matched, as Rav Nahman said!? Surely there is certainly reason to fear that the father became reconciled when he heard!?

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

the one who teaches this

the one who taught Ulla’s words as a dispute with Shmuel,

does not teach that

he does not teach together with Shmuel’s words the words of Rav Nahman, who explained it as referring to a case in which they had been matched. In his view, Shmuel said that she requires a get even when they had not been matched, and therefore he taught Ulla’s words as a dispute with Shmuel in this manner: that she does not require even mi'un.

There are those who say

that there are those who transmit the report in Ulla’s name not as a dispute with Shmuel, but as an independent statement:

Ulla said:

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

even if they had been matched.

Rav Kahana raised an objection

to Ulla’s words from what we learned in the Mishna in Yevamot: Fifteen women forbidden as close relations — one of whom is his daughter — who fell before their relatives for levirate marriage are exempt from levirate marriage, and they also exempt their rival wives from levirate marriage, for the rival wife of a woman forbidden as a close relation has no law of levirate marriage; and it is taught there:

And all of them

these women forbidden as close relations —

if they died

before their husbands,

or if they

if they

performed mi'un

with their husbands, because they were minor girls when they were betrothed,

or if they

if they

were divorced

before the husband’s death,

or were found to be aylonit

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

For behold

their co-wives are permitted for yibum, for these are not “the co-wife of a forbidden relation.”

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

And now it is difficult: these betrothals which the daughter [who is one of the forbidden relations] refused were necessarily during the father’s lifetime, for she fell before her father for yibum; and if so,

he betrothed—

the daughter who refused—

who [that is, who was the one who betrothed her to the deceased]?

If you say that her father betrothed her

and they are betrothals by Torah law, is it really so that

a refusal is sufficient for her [that is, sufficient for her] to leave him and to render her co-wife subject to yibum?! But

a proper get [good, complete]

is required

from her husband.

Rather, is it not so that

necessarily the Mishna is dealing with a case such as

she betrothed herself [she became betrothed through herself], and we are not concerned lest the father consented, and this is where they had not arranged a match, and therefore she does not require a get

; and

nevertheless

it teaches that she requires a refusal, for we learned, “or who refused”; and this is difficult for Ulla, who holds: she does not even require a refusal!?

!?

He—

Rav Kahana—

raises the difficulty against him and he

also

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

Here—in the Mishna in Yevamot—what are we dealing with?

A case such that there occurred to her

the minor

the status of an orphan during the father’s lifetime, that is, she left his authority through a marriage from which she was divorced or widowed, and her father has no authority over her, as though she were an orphan; and this one has betrothals through herself by rabbinic law, just as a minor orphan betroths herself, and concerning this we learned: “or who refused.”

that is, 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. Such a girl has betrothal through her own action by rabbinic law, just as a minor orphan betroths herself, and it is with regard to such a case that we learned: “or they refused.”

Rav Hamnuna raises an objection

against Ulla from that which was taught in a baraita:

A. The father sells his minor daughter as a Hebrew maidservant.

B. It is a mitzva upon the master to designate [betroth] his Hebrew maidservant, and the tannaim disagreed as to how he designates her: whether the money given to the father at the time of purchasing the maidservant is the money with which the designation is effected [“the first money was given for betrothal”], or whether the master designates her by deducting from his maidservant one peruta from her labor for the purpose of betrothal.

He does not sell

the father his daughter

to relatives

so that she will be a maidservant to them, since they cannot fulfill the mitzva of designation with her, for betrothals do not take effect between a relative and his female relative.

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

the father his daughter even

to relatives,

although she is not fit for designation.