## Kiddushin Daf 44b

###### Kiddushin 44b:1
[Kiddushin 44b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:1)

נַעֲרָה, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גִּיטָּהּ מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ? כְּיַד אָבִיהָ דָּמְיָא, אוֹ כַּחֲצַר אָבִיהָ דָּמְיָא? כְּיַד אָבִיהָ דָּמְיָא, מָה אֲבִיָּה מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ – אַף הִיא נָמֵי מְשַׁוְּיָא שָׁלִיחַ. אוֹ דִילְמָא כַּחֲצַר אָבִיהָ דָּמְיָא, וְעַד דְּמָטֵיא גִּיטָּא לִידַהּ לָא מִיגָּרְשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to the Rabbis, who hold that a young woman can accept her own bill of divorce, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to the ability of **a young woman to appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband?** The Gemara explains the two sides of this question: Since a young woman is under her father’s jurisdiction, is she, with regard to acquisitions, **considered like** an extension of **her father’s hand, or** is she **considered like her father’s courtyard?** The Gemara clarifies: She might be **considered like her father’s hand,** and **just as her father can appoint an agent, so too she can appoint an agent. Or perhaps** she is **considered like her father’s courtyard, and** therefore **she is not divorced until the bill of divorce** actually **reaches her possession,** as a courtyard cannot appoint an agent, but it can receive a bill of divorce, in the sense that a bill of divorce thrown in his courtyard is considered to be in his possession.


###### Kiddushin 44b:2
[Kiddushin 44b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:2)

וּמִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא הָא? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: כָּתַב גֵּט וּנְתָנוֹ בְּיַד עַבְדָּהּ יָשֵׁן וּמְשַׁמַּרְתּוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. נֵיעוֹר – אֵינוֹ גֵּט. נֵיעוֹר אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ גֵּט – דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ חָצֵר מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתָּהּ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כַּחֲצַר אָבִיהָ דָּמְיָא, כִּי מְטָא גִּיטַּהּ לִידַהּ נָמֵי לָא תִּיגָּרַשׁ, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ חָצֵר הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת אָבִיהָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is Rava uncertain** about **this** matter? **But doesn’t Rava say:** If one **wrote a bill of divorce and placed it in the hand of** his wife’s **slave,** who is **sleeping, but** she **is guarding him,** then **it is** a valid **bill of divorce.** If the slave was **awake,** then **it is not** a valid **bill of divorce. Why is it not** a valid **bill of divorce** if he is **awake?** It is because the slave is **for her a courtyard that is not consciously secured by her,** i.e., when the slave is awake, he is not fully controlled by her. **And if it enters your mind** that a young woman is **considered like her father’s courtyard,** then **even when the bill of divorce reaches her possession she should not be divorced, since she is** like **a courtyard that is not consciously secured by her father.**


###### Kiddushin 44b:3
[Kiddushin 44b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:3)

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּכִי יַד אָבִיהָ דָּמְיָא, וְהָכִי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: מִי אַלִּימָא כְּיַד אָבִיהָ לְשַׁוּוֹיֵי אִיהִי שָׁלִיחַ, אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, it is actually obvious to** Rava **that** a young woman **is considered like her father’s hand** and not like his courtyard, **and this is what he was asking: Is** she just **as strong as her father’s hand,** to the extent **that she can appoint an agent, or not?** Rav Naḥman **said to him: She cannot appoint an agent.**


###### Kiddushin 44b:4
[Kiddushin 44b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: קְטַנָּה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ. הָא נַעֲרָה – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּשֶׁאֵין לַהּ אָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **raised an objection to him** from a mishna (*Gittin* 65a): In the case of **a minor girl who said** to an agent: **Receive my bill of divorce for me, it is not** a **valid bill of divorce until the bill of divorce reaches her possession,** since a minor is not considered halakhically competent and cannot appoint an agent. Rava inferred from this: **But** in the case of **a young woman, it is a bill of divorce,** which indicates that a young woman can appoint an agent. The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** With a situation **where she does not have a father,** and she can appoint an agent since she is of age and is under her own authority. But a betrothed young woman whose father is still alive is under his authority and cannot appoint an agent.


###### Kiddushin 44b:5
[Kiddushin 44b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:5)

הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם אָמַר אָבִיהָ: ״צֵא וְקַבֵּל גֵּט לְבִתִּי״, אִם רָצָה בַּעַל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא בִּדְיֵשׁ לָהּ אָב עָסְקִינַן! חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: קְטַנָּה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט, עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ. הָא נַעֲרָה – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – כְּשֶׁאֵין לָהּ אָב, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ אָב וְאָמַר אָבִיהָ: ״צֵא וְקַבֵּל לְבִתִּי גִּיטָּהּ״, וְרוֹצֶה בַּעַל לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But from** the fact **that the latter** clause of that same mishna **teaches: If her father said** to an agent: **Go out and receive a bill of divorce for my daughter,** then **if the husband seeks to retract** his decision after he has given the bill of divorce to the agent **he cannot retract** it, since it is as though the bill of divorce reached her possession, **by inference,** one can say **that** in **the first** clause **we are dealing with** a case **where she has a father.** The Gemara answers: The mishna **is incomplete and this is what it is teaching:** In the case of **a minor girl who said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, it is not a bill of divorce until the bill of divorce reaches her possession. But** in the case of **a young woman, it is a bill of divorce** as soon as it reaches her agent’s possession. **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **when she does not have a father. But** if **she has a father, and her father said** to an agent: **Go out and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce on** her behalf, **and the husband seeks to retract** his decision, **he cannot retract** it.


###### Kiddushin 44b:6
[Kiddushin 44b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:6)

אִיתְּמַר: קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת אָבִיהָ, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צְרִיכָה גֵּט, וּצְרִיכָה מֵיאוּן. אָמַר קַרְנָא: דְּבָרִים בְּגוֹ: אִם גֵּט, לָמָּה מֵיאוּן? אִם מֵיאוּן, לָמָּה גֵּט?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that *amora’im* disagreed in the case of **a minor who became betrothed without her father’s consent. Shmuel says:** If her husband seeks to divorce her **she requires a bill of divorce** to sever the marriage, **and she** also **requires refusal,** which annuls a betrothal that is valid by rabbinic law but not by Torah law. **Karna says:** There are puzzling **matters** included **within** this statement, since it is self-contradictory: **If** she needs **a bill of divorce,** and the betrothal is evidently treated as a proper betrothal, **why** does she require **refusal?** Conversely, **if** she requires **refusal,** indicating that her betrothal was of no consequence by Torah law, **why** does she require **a bill of divorce?**


###### Kiddushin 44b:7
[Kiddushin 44b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:7)

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הָא מָר עוּקְבָא וּבֵי דִינֵיהּ בְּכַפְרִי. אַפְכוּהָ, שַׁדְּרוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב. אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָאֱלֹהִים! צְרִיכָה גֵּט, וּצְרִיכָה מֵיאוּן. וְחַס לֵיהּ לְזַרְעֵיהּ דְּאַבָּא בַּר אַבָּא, דְּנֵימָא הָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said to him: Now** that **Mar Ukva and his court are in** the town of **Kafrei,** let us pose the question to them. Furthermore, **they reversed** the names of the respective opinions of Shmuel and Karna and **sent** the question **before Rav.** He **said to** the messengers in the form of an oath: **By God! She requires a bill of divorce and she requires refusal. And** God **forbid that the seed of Abba bar Abba,** i.e., Shmuel, should **say such** a thing, that she does not require both.


###### Kiddushin 44b:8
[Kiddushin 44b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:8)

וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: צְרִיכָה גֵּט – שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַצָּה הָאָב בְּקִידּוּשִׁין, צְרִיכָה מֵיאוּן – שֶׁמָּא לֹא נִתְרַצָּה הָאָב בְּקִידּוּשִׁין, וְיֹאמְרוּ אֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** that there is a need for both a bill of divorce and refusal? **Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: She requires a bill of divorce** because **perhaps the father desired the betrothal,** which would mean it would take effect retroactively. **She** also **requires refusal** because **perhaps the father did not desire the betrothal,** and it did not take effect. If she receives only a bill of divorce, **and** her former husband proceeds to betroth her sister, people **will say** that the **betrothal does not take effect with her sister.** The *halakha* is that betrothal can take effect with the sister of one’s wife or former wife only after the first wife has died. She is therefore required to perform refusal, to indicate that the validity of her betrothal was uncertain. If he later betroths her sister, he would be required to divorce her due to the uncertainty if this second betrothal took effect.


###### Kiddushin 44b:9
[Kiddushin 44b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:9)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וְהוּא שֶׁשִּׁדְּכוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: And this** concern that the father of a minor might later state that he desired her betrothal is relevant only **when they arranged** the match before she betrothed herself, as in that case it is likely that the father desired the betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 44b:10
[Kiddushin 44b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:10)

עוּלָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מֵיאוּן אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה. אַף עַל גַּב דְּשִׁידְּכוּ? מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי הָא, לָא מַתְנֵי הָא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אָמַר עוּלָּא: קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת אָבִיהָ – אֲפִילּוּ מֵיאוּן אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara quotes another opinion. **Ulla said:** If a minor accepted betrothal without her father’s consent, her betrothal does not take effect, and **she does not even require refusal.** The Gemara asks: Does Ulla’s statement apply **even though they arranged** the match? The Gemara answers: **He who teaches this does not teach that.** The one who cited Ulla’s statement does not hold that Shmuel’s ruling applies only in the case of an arranged match, rather it applies in all cases. According to this opinion, Ulla stated his *halakha* only in a case where the match was not arranged. **There are** those **who say** that **Ulla says:** If **a minor became betrothed without her father’s consent, she does not even require refusal,** including a case where the match was arranged.


###### Kiddushin 44b:11
[Kiddushin 44b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:11)

מֵתִיב רַב כָּהֲנָא: וְכוּלָּן, אִם מֵתוּ, אוֹ מֵיאֲנוּ, אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ, אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיְילוֹנִיּוֹת – צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana raises an objection:** The mishna in *Yevamot* (2a) teaches that if a potential *yevama* is in one of the fifteen categories of women forbidden to the *yavam* as a relative, not only is she forbidden to him, but he also may not perform levirate marriage with any of her rival wives. The Sages then clarified this *halakha*: **And if,** before the husband had died, **any of** those forbidden women **had died, or had performed refusal; or had been divorced; or had been found** to be **a sexually underdeveloped woman [*ailonit*],** who is incapable of bearing children, then **her rival wives are permitted** to the *yavam*.


###### Kiddushin 44b:12
[Kiddushin 44b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:12)

דְּקַדְּשַׁהּ מַאן? אִילֵימָא דְּקַדְּשַׁהּ אָבִיהָ, בְּמֵיאוּן סַגִּי לַהּ?! גֵּט מְעַלְּיָא בָּעֲיָא! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּקַדִּשָׁה אִיהִי נַפְשַׁהּ, וְקָתָנֵי דְּבָעֲיָא מֵיאוּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Kahana focuses on the case of one who performed refusal: With regard to this refusal that she performed, what type of betrothal did it follow? **When she was betrothed by whom? If we say** that **her father betrothed her** to the brother who died, is **refusal** alone **enough for her** to dissolve the marriage? Doesn’t she **require a proper bill of divorce? Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where she betrothed herself** when she was a minor, **and** the mishna nevertheless **teaches that she requires refusal.** This presents a difficulty for Ulla, who holds that she does not need even refusal.


###### Kiddushin 44b:13
[Kiddushin 44b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:13)

הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה לָהּ מַעֲשֵׂה יְתוֹמָה בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: Rav Kahana **raised the objection and he resolved it:** The mishna refers to a case **where she became** like **an orphan in her father’s lifetime,** i.e., her father betrothed her to a man, and she was subsequently widowed or divorced while still a minor. In that case, the same *halakha* as that of an orphan applies to her, in that her father does not have the right to betroth her again, although he is still alive. If she then would betroth herself, her betrothal is not effective by Torah law, because she is still a minor. It does take effect by rabbinic law, and she can annul that marriage by performing refusal. This would not be a question for Ulla, as he stated his ruling in a case where it was the first betrothal of the minor.


###### Kiddushin 44b:14
[Kiddushin 44b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/44b:14)

מֵתִיב רַב הַמְנוּנָא: אֵין מוֹכְרָהּ לִקְרוֹבִים. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמְרוּ: מוֹכְרָהּ לִקְרוֹבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hamnuna raises an objection:** It is taught in a *baraita* with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: A father **cannot sell** his minor daughter as a Hebrew maidservant **to** her **relatives** because the Torah requires that the one who purchases a maidservant be able to marry her. The Sages **said in the name of Rabbi Elazar:** He can **sell her** even **to** her **relatives,** as sometimes a Hebrew maidservant serves only in that capacity, without marrying the master.