Kiddushin, Daf Het, Part 3
Introduction
Today’s section discusses cases where the man tells the woman he is betrothing her with a large sum but then gives her only part thereof. Is the kiddushin valid and he just owes her the money? Or is the kiddushin not valid until he gives her all of the money.
אמר רבי אלעזר התקדשי לי במנה ונתן לה דינר הרי זו מקודשת וישלים
מאי טעמא כיון דאמר לה מנה ויהב לה דינר כמאן דאמר לה על מנת דמי ואמר רב הונא אמר רב כל האומר ע"מ כאומר מעכשיו דמי
R. Elazar said: [If a man states,] “Be betrothed to me with a maneh,” and he gives her a dinar, she is betrothed, and he must give her the rest [of the amount].
Why [is she betrothed]? Since he stated a maneh but gave her a dinar, it is as if he had said to her “on condition [that I give you a maneh],” and R. Huna said in the name of Rava: One who says “on condition,” it is as though he says “from now.”
The man here says that he is betrothing her with a maneh (100 dinars) but then only gives her one dinar. The question is—is the betrothal valid, and he simply must give her the rest later? Or is the betrothal invalid until he actually gives her 100 dinars?
The answer is that since he says “on condition” the betrothal takes place immediately. She is betrothed to him and he must pay the rest. The ramification of this is that should she wish try to be betrothed to someone else, the betrothal would not be valid.
מיתיבי התקדשי לי במנה והיה מונה והולך ורצה אחד מהן לחזור אפילו בדינר האחרון הרשות בידו הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר במנה זו
They objected: [If a man states,] “Be betrothed to me with a maneh,” and is proceeding with the counting out [of the money], and either party wishes to retract, even at the last dinar they have permission to do so.
What are we dealing with here? With one who says, “with this maneh.”
The Talmud raises a difficulty. A man says to a woman “be betrothed to me with a maneh” and begins to count out the money. The betrothal is not final until he gives her the entire maneh. This opposes R. Elazar who says the betrothal is final after the first dinar and that he simply owes her the rest.
The resolution is that in this case he said, “with this maneh.” Since he said the formula in this way, he must have meant that he needs to give her this maneh right now.
הא מדסיפא במנה זו רישא במנה סתם דקא תני סיפא אמר לה התקדשי לי במנה זו ונמצא מנה חסר דינר או דינר של נחשת אינה מקודשת דינר רע הרי זו מקודשת ויחליף לא
But since the second clause refers to “this maneh,” the first clause must refer to a case where he said “maneh” without qualification? For the second clause teaches: If he declares to her, “Be betrothed to me by this maneh,” and it is found to be a maneh short a dinar or containing a copper dinar, she is not betrothed: [if it contained] a bad dinar, she is betrothed, but he must change it.
The Talmud points out that in the second clause the man says, “this maneh.” The assumption then is that in the first clause he said “a maneh” and not “this maneh.” This would then be again a difficulty against R. Elazar.
רישא וסיפא דאמר במנה זו ופרושי קא מפרש רצה אחד מהן לחזור אפי’ בדינר האחרון הרשות בידו כיצד כגון דאמר לה במנה זו והכי נמי מסתברא דאי ס"ד רישא במנה סתם השתא במנה סתם לא הוו קידושי במנה זו מיבעיא
No: the first and the second clauses [both] refer to a case where he said “with this maneh,” and the second clause explains the first. If either party wishes to retract, even at the last dinar, he [or she] can do so. How so? If he said to her, “for this maneh.”
This is also reasonable, for should you think that the first clause refers to an unspecified maneh: now that it is not kiddushin in the case of an unspecified maneh, is it necessary [to teach it] in the case of “for this maneh?”
The Talmud resolves it by saying that in both cases he said “this maneh.” The second half of the baraita clarifies that the first half referred to a case where he said “this maneh.” Had he said “a maneh” she would be betrothed immediately and he would be obligated to give her the rest of the maneh.
This reading of the baraita is also logical, so the Talmud argues. For if the first case was “a maneh” and still she is not betrothed until he gives her the complete maneh, then obviously if he says “this maneh” she is not betrothed until he gives her the complete maneh.
אי משום הא לא איריא תנא סיפא לגלוי רישא שלא תאמר רישא במנה זו אבל במנה סתם הוו קידושין תנא סיפא במנה זו מכלל דרישא במנה סתם ואפילו הכי לא הוו קידושין
As for that [logic], it does not prove it, for the second clause may be stated in order to reveal the meaning of the first, that you should not say: The first clause deals with “this maneh,” but in the case of an unspecified maneh it is valid kiddushin: therefore the second clause is taught as “this maneh,” from which it follows that the first clause refers to an unspecified maneh, yet even so, the kiddushin is not valid.
The last piece of logic from above does not prove that the first clause must deal with “this maneh.” For it could be that the first clause refers to “a maneh” and yet the second clause still teaches “this maneh” to make sure that you interpret the first clause in the opposite way. In other words, do not say that the second clause is obvious. Say that the second clause teaches you how to interpret the first clause.
The conclusion here is that the resolution of the difficulty on R. Elazar stands but is not proven through logic. R. Elazar can interpret the baraita so that it does not contradict him, but the baraita does not need to be interpreted in that way.
רב אשי אמר מונה והולך שאני דדעתה אכוליה
R. Ashi said: If he is proceeding with the counting it is different, because [then we assume] her mind is set on the whole sum.
R. Ashi offers a different resolution of the difficulty. If the man is counting, then clearly he intends to give her the whole sum right now and she is not betrothed until he does so. But if he just says “a maneh” and gives her a dinar, his intention is to owe her the rest and she is betrothed immediately.
האי דינר של נחשת היכי דמי? אי דידעה ביה הא סברה וקבלה לא צריכא דיהביה ניהליה בליליא
אי נמי דאשתכח ליה ביני זוזי
This “copper dinar,” what is the case? If she knew about it, then she understood and accepted?
It is relevant only if he gave it to her at night. Alternatively, she found it among the other zuz.
The baraita had ruled that the copper dinar is invalid. But if she saw it and accepted it, why should this be a problem? A woman has the right to accept what she wants for her betrothal as long as it is worth a perutah.
The answer is that he gave it to her without knowing, for instance at night, or buried among the other dinarim. But if she willingly accepted the lesser coin, she is betrothed.
האי דינר רע היכי דמי אי דלא נפיק היינו דינר של נחשת אמר רב פפא כגון דנפיק על ידי הדחק :
What is the case of the “bad dinar”? If it cannot be used, is it not the same as a copper dinar? R. Papa said: For instance it circulates with difficulty.
If the “bad dinar” referred to in the baraita is also not usable, then how is it different from the “copper dinar.” Why teach essentially the same thing twice? The answer is that it is usable, but with difficulty. Again, we can assume that if she accepted it, then the betrothal is valid. It is invalid only if she does not know what she is accepting.