Question (Reish Lakish): Can a man be Meya'ed his Amah to a son who is a minor?

"Li'Vno" connotes any son;

Or, perhaps the son must be like the father, i.e. an adult.

Answer #1 (R. Zeira - Beraisa): (Capital punishment for adultery is for) "a man" - this excludes a minor. "Who will have adultery with the wife of a man" excludes the wife of a minor.

If Yi'ud to a minor works, a minor can have a wife!

Objection: If Yi'ud to a minor is invalid, we would not need a verse to exclude a minor's wife!

Conclusion: Yi'ud to a minor is valid. (The Torah decreed that others are not killed for Bi'ah with his wife.)

Rejection (Rav Ashi): No, the verse excludes a Yavam above nine who did Yibum;

Since the Yevamah falls to him to Yibum, and his Bi'ah is considered Bi'ah, one might have thought she becomes his full wife, and one who has Bi'ah with her is killed. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Answer #2 (R. Eibo): Yi'ud can be only with an adult. Yi'ud requires Da'as (understanding).

Question: Why must he say both? Only adults have understanding!

Answer #1: He means that Yi'ud can be only with an adult because Yi'ud requires Da'as.

Answer #2: He teaches that Yi'ud requires her Da'as.

(Abaye Brei d'R. Avahu - Beraisa): "Ya'adah" - he must inform her that he is doing Yi'ud.

(Abaye Brei d'R. Avahu): This is like Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says that the money paid for an Amah was not given for Kidushin (therefore, she must agree to Yi'ud).

(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): We understand the Beraisa even if the money paid for an Amah was given for Kidushin. The Torah decreed that he must inform her!

Question: Where did Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah discuss the money for an Amah?

Answer (Beraisa - Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): "Ya'adah v'Hefdah" - when he makes Yi'ud, she must be able to be redeemed.

Yi'ud works only if it there is enough time left (in her six years of service) for her to do a Perutah's worth of labor.

Inference: This is because the initial money was not given for Kidushin (and he now is Mekadesh her with the value of the work she must still do for him).

Rejection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Perhaps he can hold that the money was given for Kidushin. The Torah decreed that Yi'ud only works if she could have been redeemed.

(Rava): From Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, we learn that (even according to Chachamim) a man can authorize his daughter to receive her own Kidushin money.

He holds that the initial money was not given for Kidushin (and now he is Mekadesh her with the value of the work she must still do for him);

It must be that a man can authorize his daughter to receive her own Kidushin money (even without selling her)!

(Rava): From Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, we learn that (even according to Chachamim) a man can be Mekadesh a woman with a loan (that she owes to him) for which he has a security.

He holds that the initial money was not given for Kidushin. He is Mekadesh her with the work she owes him);

She herself is a security for her debt.

This shows that a man can be Mekadesh (any) woman with a loan for which he has collateral!

(Beraisa #1): To make Yi'ud, a man tells her in front of two 'you are Mekudeshes to me.' This can be at the end of the six years, just before sundown.

He then treats her like a wife, not like a slave.

Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, she is Mekudeshes only if enough time remained for her to do a Perutah's worth of work.

A parable for this is when Reuven tells Leah 'you are Mekudeshes to me from now, after 30 days', and within the 30 days, David was Mekadesh her. She is Mekudeshes to Reuven.

Question: Which Tana learns the law in the parable from Yi'ud (Rashi; Tosfos - learns Yi'ud from the parable)?

It is not Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah. He says that she is Mekudeshes only if enough time remained for her to do a Perutah's worth of work! (This shows that the Kidushin begins only now.)

Answer (Rav Acha Brei d'Rava): Rather, it is according to Chachamim.

Question: This is obvious!

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: A master does not say that he is Mekadesh her from the moment he buys her. One might have thought that even if Reuven did not say that he is Mekadesh her from now, his Kidushin will prevail! Chachamim teach that this is not so.

Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer: A master does not say that he is Mekadesh her from the moment he buys her. One might have thought that if a stranger was Mekadesh an Amah during her service, she is Mekudeshes to him. Chachamim teach that this is not so. (Rather, every sale of an Amah is as if he said 'on condition that Kidushin will begin from now, if I later make Yi'ud'.)

(Beraisa #2 - Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): Shimon sold his daughter to Kalev, then was Mekadesh her to Moshe, she is Mekudeshes to Moshe;

Chachamim say, if Kalev wants to do Yi'ud, this prevails over Moshe's Kidushin.

A parable for this is when Reuven tells Leah 'you are Mekudeshes to me after 30 days', and within the 30 days, David was Mekadesh her. She is Mekudeshes to David.

Question: Which Tana learns the law in the parable from Yi'ud (Rashi; Tosfos - learns Yi'ud from the parable)?

It cannot be Chachamim. They say that the master can do Yi'ud if he wants (even if a Perutah of servitude does not remain, for the Kidushin began from the initial sale)!

Answer (Rav Acha Brei d'Rava): Rather, it is Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

Question: This is obvious!

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: A master does not say that he may be Mekadesh her later (therefore, Yi'ud is not retroactive). One might have thought that when a man is Mekadesh a woman to take effect in 30 days, it works retroactively. Rebbi Yosi teaches that this is not so.

Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer: A master does not say that Kidushin should not start now (rather, only after he does Yi'ud). One might have thought that Yi'ud makes Kidushin retroactively. Rebbi Yosi teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If Reuven sold his daughter and stipulated that the master will not do Yi'ud, the stipulation is valid;

Chachamim say, he can do Yi'ud, for a stipulation contrary to Torah is void.

Question: Elsewhere, R. Meir holds that a stipulation contrary to Torah is void!

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If one told a woman 'you are Mekudeshes to me on condition that you have no claim against me to give you food, clothing or Onah', she is Mekudeshes, and the stipulation is void;

Rebbi Yehudah says, in monetary matters, the stipulation is valid.

Answer (Chizkiyah): An Amah is an exception, for the Torah said "for an Amah" - a sale is valid even if it is only to be an Amah (and cannot result in Yi'ud).

Question: What do Chachamim learn from the verse?

Answer (Beraisa): "For an Amah" teaches that a girl can be sold to Pasul men (of improper lineage, who may not marry a Bas Yisrael. Then, the sale is only that she should be an Amah).

Question: Why is a verse needed? A Kal va'Chomer teaches that he can sell her to such men!

A man can be Mekadesh his daughter to such men. All the more so, he can sell her to such men (perhaps he will not do Yi'ud)!

Answer: We cannot learn from Kidushin, for sometimes a man can be Mekadesh his daughter even though he cannot sell her, e.g. when she is a Na'arah;

Therefore, it needed to write "for an Amah."

R. Eliezer says, we already know that she can be sold to Pesulim! "If she will be bad in the eyes of her master", i.e. he may not marry her;

"For an Amah" teaches that she can be sold to relatives (with whom Kidushin does not take effect).