## Kiddushin Daf 3b

###### Kiddushin 3b:1
[Kiddushin 3b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:1)

לָא מַקְנְיָא נַפְשַׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**does not render herself acquired** by a man.


###### Kiddushin 3b:2
[Kiddushin 3b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:2)

מִנְיָינָא דְסֵיפָא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי – לְמַעוֹטֵי חֲלִיצָה. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: תֵּיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִיְּבָמָה, מָה יְבָמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּגֵט – יוֹצְאָה בַּחֲלִיצָה, זוֹ, שֶׁיּוֹצְאָה בְּגֵט – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיּוֹצְאָה בַּחֲלִיצָה? קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **The number in the latter clause** of the mishna, that a woman acquires herself in two ways, serves **to exclude what?** The Gemara answers that it serves **to exclude *ḥalitza*,** i.e., a woman is not released from marriage through *ḥalitza*. Without this exclusion it might **enter your mind to say** that this **can be derived through an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the *halakha* of **a *yevama*,** as follows: **Just as a *yevama*, who is not released** from the *yavam* **through a bill of divorce, is** nevertheless **released** from him **through *ḥalitza*,** with regard to **this** married woman, **who can be released** from her husband **through a bill of divorce, is it not logical that she can be released** from him **through *ḥalitza*?** Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us** that a married woman cannot be released from her husband by means of *ḥalitza*.


###### Kiddushin 3b:3
[Kiddushin 3b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:3)

וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת״ – סֵפֶר כּוֹרְתָהּ, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר כּוֹרְתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** perhaps one should **say** that **so too,** this is the case, i.e., a married woman can be released from marriage through *ḥalitza*. The Gemara answers: **The verse states** with regard to divorce: **“A scroll of severance”** (Deuteronomy 24:3), which teaches: **A scroll,** i.e., a written document, **severs her** from her husband, **and nothing else severs her** from him.


###### Kiddushin 3b:4
[Kiddushin 3b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:4)

בְּכֶסֶף. מְנָא לַן? וְתוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: ״הָאָב זַכַּאי בְּבִתּוֹ בְּקִדּוּשֶׁיהָ, בְּכֶסֶף בִּשְׁטָר וּבְבִיאָה״, מְנָלַן דְּמִיקַּנְיָא בְּכֶסֶף, וְכֶסֶף דַּאֲבוּהּ הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that a woman can be acquired **with money.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that a woman can be acquired through money? **And furthermore,** with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Ketubot* 46b): **A father has authority** over **his daughter with regard to her betrothal,** whether it is **through money, through a document, or through sexual intercourse, from where do we** derive **that** she **is acquired** by her husband **with money, and** that this **money is her father’s?**


###### Kiddushin 3b:5
[Kiddushin 3b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:5)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף״ – אֵין כֶּסֶף לְאָדוֹן זֶה, אֲבָל יֵשׁ כֶּסֶף לְאָדוֹן אַחֵר. וּמַאן נִיהוּ – אָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** The reason is **that the verse states** with regard to a Hebrew maidservant acquiring freedom from her master: **“Then shall she go out for nothing, without money”** (Exodus 21:11). The extraneous phrase: Without money, indicates that **there is no money for this master,** i.e., in this case the master she leaves loses the money he paid for her, **but there is money for a different master,** i.e., another master receives money for her when she leaves his authority. **And who is** the other master who can transfer her to someone else and receives money for her? This is her **father.**


###### Kiddushin 3b:6
[Kiddushin 3b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:6)

וְאֵימָא לְדִידַהּ! הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! אָבִיהָ מְקַבֵּל קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה״, וְאִיהִי שָׁקְלָה כַּסְפָּא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why not **say** that this money is given **to her?** The Gemara rejects this: **How can** one suggest **this? Her father receives her betrothal,** i.e., the money or document of betrothal, when he marries her off to her husband, **as it is written: “I gave my daughter to this man”** (Deuteronomy 22:16), **and** shall **she take the money?** Since he is the one who marries her off, he is certainly entitled to the money of her betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 3b:7
[Kiddushin 3b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:7)

וְאֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי קְטַנָּה, דְּלֵית לַהּ יָד לְקַבֵּל קִידּוּשִׁין, אֲבָל נַעֲרָה, דְּאִית לַהּ יָד לְקַבֵּל קִידּוּשִׁין – תְּקַדֵּישׁ אִיהִי נַפְשָׁהּ וְתִשְׁקוֹל כַּסְפָּא! אָמַר קְרָא: ״בִּנְעֻרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״ – כׇּל שֶׁבַח נְעוּרִים לְאָבִיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why not **say** that **this** *halakha* **applies** only when she is **a minor girl, as she does not have the power to receive** her **betrothal.** Since she lacks the intellectual capacity, she likewise does not have the legal right to conduct this transaction. **But** with regard to **a young woman, who does have the power to receive** her **betrothal,** as a female older than twelve years is considered an adult, **let her betroth herself and take the money.** The Gemara answers that **the verse states: “Being in her youth, in her father’s house”** (Numbers 30:17), which teaches: **Any profit** she gains in her **youth** belongs **to her father.**


###### Kiddushin 3b:8
[Kiddushin 3b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:8)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה הַבַּת לָאָב? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְאָמָה״, מָה אָמָה מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְרַבָּהּ – אַף בַּת נָמֵי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְאָבִיהָ. תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִ״בִּנְעֻרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **But** with regard to **that which Rav Huna says** that **Rav says: From where** is it derived **that the earnings of a daughter,** i.e., the profit from her labor, belongs **to** her **father? As it is stated: “And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant”** (Exodus 21:7). This comparison between a daughter and a Hebrew maidservant teaches the following: **Just as** with regard to a Hebrew **maidservant, her earnings** belong **to her master, so too,** with regard to **a daughter, her earnings** belong **to her father.** The Gemara now asks: Why does Rav Huna need this derivation? **Let him derive** this *halakha* **from** the verse **“being in her youth, in her father’s house,”** which indicates that any profit from her earnings as a young woman belongs to her father.


###### Kiddushin 3b:9
[Kiddushin 3b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:9)

אֶלָּא, בַּהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב. הָכִי נָמֵי, בַּהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב. וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִינֵּיהּ – מָמוֹנָא מֵאִיסּוּרָא לָא יָלְפִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rav Huna maintains that **that** verse **is written with regard to the nullification of vows,** and it is not referring to the *halakhot* of acquisition. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then **so too,** with regard to her betrothal money, one can say that this verse **is written** only **with regard to the nullification of vows** and does not apply to betrothal money. **And if you would say: Let us derive** the *halakha* of her betrothal money **from** the *halakha* of the nullification of vows, i.e., just as a father has the right to nullify his daughter’s vows when she is a young woman, so too, he has rights to her money, this is not possible, as there is a principle: **We do not derive monetary matters from ritual matters.**


###### Kiddushin 3b:10
[Kiddushin 3b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:10)

וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִקְּנָסָא – מָמוֹנָא מִקְּנָסָא לָא יָלְפִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Let us derive** this *halakha* of the betrothal of a young woman **from** the *halakha* of **fines,** as it is stated explicitly in the Torah that a man who rapes a young woman must pay a fine to her father, there is another principle that is applicable here: **We do not derive monetary matters from fines,** as the imposition of a fine is considered a unique case from which ordinary monetary rights cannot be derived.


###### Kiddushin 3b:11
[Kiddushin 3b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:11)

וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִבּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם – שָׁאנֵי בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם דַּאֲבוּהּ שָׁיֵיךְ בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Let us derive** this *halakha* **from** the reimbursements for the **humiliation and degradation** of a young woman who was raped, which are also given to the father, one can answer that the following distinction applies: Reimbursement for **humiliation and degradation** are **different, as her father has an interest in them.** The father has the ability to derive benefit from her humiliation and degradation in other ways, e.g., by marrying her to a man afflicted with boils, which would humiliate her and cause a reduction in her value. Therefore, one cannot derive from the fact that the father receives the reimbursements for the humiliation and degradation of a young woman who was raped that he receives other monies due to her.


###### Kiddushin 3b:12
[Kiddushin 3b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3b:12)

אֶלָּא, מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּכִי קָא מְמַעֵט –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *halakha* that a young woman’s betrothal money belongs to her father is derived from the verse: “Then shall she go out for nothing, without money” (Exodus 21:11), as previously stated. As for the question why the money does not belong to her, the Gemara answers that **it is reasonable that when** the verse **excludes** another situation and indicates that there is no money for this master but there is money for a different master,