Kiddushin, Daf Yod Gimmel, Part 2
Introduction
Today s section is a direct continuation from yesterday. In that case a man gave a woman a worthless object as a means of betrothal. When she opened it up, there were coins in it and she did not say anything. In other words, she did not throw the coins back at him but neither did she actively consent. Rava ruled that she is not betrothed because silence after accepting the money is not legally significant. As a source, Rava cited a baraita in which a man gave a woman a deposit and then, after she accepted the money as a deposit, he said Be betrothed to me. If she is silent, she is not betrothed.
In today s section, some amoraim say that the two situations are not analogous.
קשו בה בפום נהרא משמיה דרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מי דמי התם בתורת פקדון יהבינהו ניהלה סברה אי שדינא להו ומיתברי מחייבנא בהו הכא בתורת קדושין יהבינהו ניהלה ואי איתא דלא ניחא לה לישדינהו
They raised a difficulty in Pum Nehara in the name of R. Huna, son of R. Joshua: Are the two cases the same? There he gave it to her as a deposit, and she might have thought, If I throw it back at him and it breaks, I am liable for it. But here he gave it to her as kiddushin: if she did not want it [as such], she should have thrown it away!
R. Huna raises a pretty strong difficulty on Rava. In the case of the baraita, he told her it was a deposit. She could not just throw it back at him for by doing so, she could incur a loss. Therefore, her silence could mean that she simply wants to accept it as a deposit. But in the case Rava adjudicated, the man gave her the mat as kiddushin. Had she not wanted it, she should have thrown it back at him. Silence, therefore, should be akin to acceptance and she is betrothed.
פריך רב אחאי אטו כולהו נשי דינא גמירי ה"נ סברה אי שדינא להו ומיתברי מיתחייבנא באחריותייהו
R. Ahai raised a difficulty: Do all women know the law? Here too she might have thought, If I throw it away and it is broken, I will be held responsible for it.
R. Ahai points out that this woman might not have known the law that she has a right to throw it back at him. Therefore, her silence also might not be a sign of acceptance.
שלחה רב אחא בר רב לקמיה דרבינא כה"ג מאי? שלח ליה אנן לא שמיע לן הא דרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אתון דשמיע לכו חושו לה
R. Aha b. Rav sent a question to Ravina: What is the ruling in such a case? He sent back: We have not heard this [objection] of R. Huna, son of R. Joshua; but you, who have heard it, must take it into consideration.
Here we can see some later amoraim who debate whether the ruling accords with R. Huna, who says she is betrothed, and Rava who says she is not.