Kiddushin 45a — the Talmud in English

And they agree -

the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer -

that he may sell her

the father may sell his minor daughter when she is

a widow, to a High Priest

so that she will be his maidservant, or when she is

a divorcee or a chalutza, to an ordinary priest

so that she will be his maidservant, even though they are forbidden to them by a negative commandment to designate them -

And because even though they are forbidden to them, nevertheless, after the fact, betrothal takes effect for them in these cases; for we hold in accordance with the Sages, that betrothal takes effect in the case of those liable for negative commandments.

And now there is a difficulty for Ulla: But

this widow -

whose father has come to sell her -

what are the circumstances [

from whose betrothals did this widowhood result? ]

If you say that her father betrothed her,

and she became a widow from these betrothals, but

can

the father

sell her [

can the father sell her? ],

but no person may sell his

daughter into servitude after marriage ,

and how did we learn: And they agree that he may sell her

even if she became betrothed and he had not yet married her off, the father may not sell her into servitude after them? Rather, is it not necessarily

necessarily

that

at the first marriage

she betrothed herself [

she betrothed herself while her father was alive without his knowledge, and therefore he can sell her, because he did not betroth her ]

; and

nevertheless

the

Mishna

calls her a “widow” [

the Mishna calls her by the name “widow,” meaning: the status of a widow applies to her, that she is forbidden to a High Priest ] -

And there is still a difficulty for Ulla, who holds that she does not even require mi'un!

Said

he answered:

Rav Amram said that Rabbi Yitzhak said: Here

in this beraita

it is

a widow who became a widow from

designation betrothal

that we are dealing -

And again one cannot raise the objection: But no person may sell his daughter into servitude after marriage,

and

because this beraita

is according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda

it is,

who says: The first money -

that the father received when he sold her -

was not given for betrothal,

and the betrothals do not take effect through the father's acceptance of the purchase money, but through the master deducting a peruta's worth of labor that she owes him; and it follows that these are her own betrothals, and this does not prevent the father from selling her, when she became a widow from this designation, from selling her again into servitude.

A woman whose husband died and who has no children is subject to yibbum, and is released only through chalitza.

If the brother performed yibbum with her through intercourse, she is his completely married wife and leaves him only through a bill of divorce; but if he performed maamar with her [betrothal through money or a document], in order for her to be released she requires a bill of divorce by rabbinic law for his maamar, and chalitza to release her from her bond of yibbum.

It was stated:

If a man betrothed a minor woman without her father's knowledge, such that she requires a bill of divorce and requires mi'un, and

he died

her husband before the bill of divorce and the mi'un,

and she fell before his brother for yibbum,

the amoraim disagreed as to how she is released if the brother performed maamar with her, and how she is released from her bond to the brother:

Rav Huna said that Rav said: She performs mi'un with regard to his maamar,

meaning: if he performed maamar with her, she also requires mi'un in order to be released, as he goes on to explain.

But she does not perform mi'un with regard to her bond,

and if he has not yet performed maamar with her, she does not require mi'un in order to be released, as he goes on to explain.

How so:

If

he performed

the brother

a maamar,

she

requires a bill of divorce, and requires

also

chalitza, and requires

also

mi'un -

And the reason is:

she requires

she

a bill of divorce, lest the father consented to the second's betrothals,

and in either event she requires a bill of divorce: if he did not consent to the first betrothal, and therefore she is not subject to yibbum, then she is betrothed to the second by Torah law, and by Torah law she requires a bill of divorce to release her; and if he consented to the first betrothal, so that this is merely maamar with a yevama, then in any event she requires a bill of divorce by rabbinic law, like any maamar that the yavam performs with his yevama.

And

she requires

also

chalitza, lest the father consented to the first betrothal,

and she is not released to the public without chalitza, like any woman with whom maamar was performed, who still requires chalitza.

And

she requires

also

mi'un, lest the father consented neither to the first betrothal nor to the second,

and she is not a completely divorced woman by Torah law,

and

these people

will say

since we required her to receive a bill of divorce from the second:

betrothal does not take effect

for the second

with her sister,

for she is the sister of his divorced wife. And this is what Rav said: “She performs mi'un with regard to his maamar”; and as for what he said: “But she does not perform mi'un with regard to her bond,” how so:

If

he did not perform

the brother

maamar, she requires only chalitza.

And the reason is: for

what could you say [

what do you have to be concerned about and say ]

that she should also require mi'un, lest they say:

since we required her to undergo chalitza,

betrothal does not take effect

for him

with her sister,

for she is the sister of his chalutza—there is no concern for this, because

everyone knows: the sister of a chalutza is prohibited by rabbinic law,

and betrothal does take effect for him with her -

for

therefore

Reish Lakish said: Here

in the Mishna in Yevamot 41a -

Rabbi

taught

us [

in this Mishna Rabbi, the arranger of the Mishna, taught us ]:

the sister of a divorcee

is forbidden to him

by Torah law,

whereas

the sister of a chalutza

is forbidden only

by the words of the Scribes, [

as is explained in the Gemara there, the proof for this from the Mishna there ].

An incident involving

those two men who were drinking wine beneath the willow trees in Babylon: one of them took a cup of wine

and

gave it to his fellow,

and

said

to him: “

Your daughter is betrothed to my son!” [

An incident involving two men who were sitting and drinking wine in Babylon beneath poplar trees, which are a species of willow, and one of them, who had an adult son, took a cup of wine and gave it to his fellow, who had a minor or young daughter, and said to him: “Your daughter shall be betrothed to my son!” ]

Ravina said:

These betrothals are nothing, for a father does not have the right to betroth his son! And if it is because of “perhaps the son consented,” then

even according to the one who says [

Shmuel in the earlier discussion ]

we are concerned “

perhaps the father consented,”