Q&A: Kiddushin as Proof for the Words of Our Rabbi Michi
Kiddushin as Proof for the Words of Our Rabbi Michi
Question
Tosafot on Kiddushin 19a wrote that a person can marry off a minor girl through another party’s intent to transfer ownership, even though in every other acquisition there is no possibility of acquiring from a minor by means of another party’s intent to transfer ownership, and we see that this is different from every other acquisition.
Answer
I don’t think you’re right. In the betrothal of a minor girl, she acquires the perutah coin (when her father says to her, “Go out and receive your betrothal”), so this is a transfer to the minor girl, not from the minor girl. Moreover, the one transferring ownership here is an adult (the father). Only the perutah coin is transferred to the minor girl.
Discussion on Answer
Why? Another party’s intent to transfer ownership works not from a minor, only to a minor.
And in kiddushin? In the case at hand?
I explained above that this is to the benefit of the minor girl, not from the minor girl.
Indeed, I saw that, but why does she acquire the perutah coin? According to the simple understanding, it is in order to transfer herself through it, and that is not possible. From here it is proven that this is not like an ordinary acquisition, and therefore she can transfer ownership.
My claim was that this is a result: acquisition of the perutah coin creates the acquisition for the husband. She is not transferring herself; rather, he takes her in marriage (and she only needs to consent. This is what they call in the yeshivot: an acquisition from the side of the acquirer). So this is like the ordinary case of another party’s intent to transfer ownership. By the way, that is of course the Jewish law of kiddushin: the husband has to take the woman, and not that she takes herself to him. The Talmud derives this from “When a man takes a woman.”
If so, could we also buy a lulav from a minor?