Study Kiddushin folio 18B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
כיון שפירש טליתו עליה, שוב אין רשאי למוכרה, דברי רבי עקיבא. רבי אליעזר אומר: ״בבגדו בה״ – כיון שבגד בה, שוב אין רשאי למוכרה.
This verse indicates that once the master has spread his garment over her, thereby designating her as his wife, her father may no longer sell her. This is the statement of R' Akiva, who interprets bevigdo as related to beged, meaning garment. R' Eliezer says: “Bevigdo vah” means that since the father dealt deceitfully [bagad] with her and sold her once, he cannot sell her again.
במאי קמיפלגי? רבי אליעזר סבר: יש אם למסורת, ורבי עקיבא סבר: יש אם למקרא, ורבי שמעון סבר: יש אם למקרא ולמסורת.
The Talmud asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? R' Eliezer maintains that the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the spelling of the words. One relies on the way a word is written, without the traditional vocalization, and therefore it is read as though it were vocalized as bevagdo, which refers to betrayal, not a garment. And R' Akiva maintains that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, meaning that one derives halakhot based on the pronunciation of the words, although it diverges from the spelling, and since one pronounces the term as bevigdo, it is related to the word beged, meaning garment. And R' Shimon maintains that both the vocalization of the Torah and the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written are authoritative. Consequently, she cannot be sold as a slave after she has been taken as a wife, nor can she be sold again after she has already been sold once.
בעי רבה בר אבוה: יעוד נישואין עושה, או אירוסין עושה? נפקא מינה ליורשה, וליטמא לה, ולהפר נדריה. מאי?
Rabba bar Avuh raises a dilemma: Does designation of a Hebrew female slave for betrothal by her master effect marriage or does it effect only betrothal? The practical difference of the outcome of this dilemma is whether he inherits her property, i.e., does her husband inherit her property if she dies as he would if she were married to him; and whether he is obligated to become impure to bury her when she dies, if he is a priest; and whether he can nullify her vows on his own without her father, as is the case with a married woman. What is the halakha?