1. Rashi 46a when explaining the husbands claim (according to the Rabbonon) says that "lo matzasi l'bitcha besulim" means "i did not find witnesses willing to establish her innocence by either turning the witnesses claiming she committed adultery into zomimin, or by contradicting them". But, whe rashi explains the father's claim of "eileh bisulei biti", the father is presenting witnesses to turn the husbands witnesses into zomimin, and leaves out the possibility of contradicting them. The reason is clear, that the husband is saying that his claim to be mechayev her sekila can be refuted even by witnesses who are willing to contradict those who claim she committed adultery, but the father's claim to be mechayev the husband the k'nas of 100 shekel can only be established by turning the witnesses claiming adultery into zomimin (but contradictory witnesses would not be mechayev the husband to pay k'nas).
2. Rashi on the Mishna 46b explains the father's rights to kidushei kesef to be zocheh in the money belonging to him, but explains the father's rights to kidushei shtar and biah to be the ability to marry her off even against her will. Why? It is actually meduyak in the gemara. Originally the gemara wanted to prove from the pasuk of "es biti nasati l'ish hazeh" that the father has the right to marry her off against her will, and learns from sevara that the money would be his. But, the gemara says that this pasuk will not work for na'arah, and therefore concludes that we learn from "v'yatzah chinam ein kesef" that when the father marries off his daughter, the money is his, and from that we automatically understand that he has sole rights to marry her off (as tosafos explains d.h. yetziah). Therefore, the main source of kesef is that he gets the money, and from that we assume he has rights to marry her. But by shtar and biah, the only chiddush is that he has rights to marry her, since there is nothing of value that would be his.
3. The gemara says that when the father marries her off she doesn't leave his jurisdiction completely until chupah and should not be comparable to selling her. The gemara answers that for hafaras nedarim she leaves his reshus completely and is therefore comparable to selling her. The question is that even for hafaras nedarim it should not be comparable since she is still in her father's reshus that both the husband and father together are mafir her neder? When you open up a checking account with 2 signers, it can be done so that either one can sign, or so that they both sign. If either one can sign, each has significant power, but if they must both sign then neither one has power, rather each one can simply hold back the other. Similarly here, the father has not rights to hafaras nedarim (nor does the ba'al), rather he can only hold back the husband from being ma'fir, but that is not called being in his reshus at all.
1 comment:
on pont 2 rav elyashiv explains this in your way. see there.
it comes out that there are 3 חידושים a) that the father gets the money b) thathe does the act of קידושין and c) that he has the sole right to decide who she marries.
in paralel, קידושי כסף has all 3 חידושים and קידושי שטר has only b,c, and finally קידושי ביאה has only c,
this is the explenation in the mishna
Post a Comment