Kiddushin, Daf Het, Part 5
Introduction
Today s section deals with cases where she receives the kiddushin money and then either throws it away or instructs the husband to give it to someone else. Is she still betrothed?
ת"ר התקדשי לי במנה נטלתו וזרקתו לים או לאור או לכל דבר האבד אינה מקודשת
Our Rabbis taught: [If a man says to a woman,] Be betrothed to me with a maneh, and she takes [the kiddushin money/object] and throws it into the sea, the fire, or into anything where it is lost, she is not betrothed.
The baraita reads her act as a rejection of his kiddushin offer. We should note that she is obligated to compensate him for throwing his stuff away. The issue here is that she is not betrothed.
הא שדיתינהו קמיה הוו קידושין הא קאמרה ליה שקיל לא בעינא
By implication if she threw it down before him, it is valid kiddushin? But has she not said to him, Take it: I do not want it!
The baraita stated that if she throws the kiddushin away, she is not betrothed. By implication we might say that if she simply throws it to the ground in front of him, she is betrothed. But why should this be? Is this not a rejection of the proposal?
לא מיבעיא קא אמר לא מיבעיא שדיתינהו קמיה דלא הוו קידושין אבל זרקתו לים או לאור אימא כיון דמיחייבא בהו קדושי קדיש נפשה והא דקא עבדא הכי סברא איבדקיה להאי גברא אי רתחנא הוא או לא קמ"ל
He [the tanna] stated this as a it was not even necessary to state [argument]. It is not necessary [to state that] if she throws it down before him it is not kiddushin; but if she throws it into the sea or the fire, I might say that since she is liable for it, she has certainly permitted herself to be betrothed: and the reason that she acted thus was because she thought, I will test this man, whether he is hot-tempered or not. Therefore it teaches us [that she is not].
The resolution is that it is obvious that she is not betrothed if she throws the money down in front of him. But we might have thought that she is betrothed if she throws it into a place that causes it to be lost. Since she is liable to pay the money back, maybe she was agreeing to the proposal and only threw it away to see if he would get mad. Therefore, the baraita says that she is not betrothed. Good thing, because this just does not seem to be a promising match.
תנו רבנן התקדשי לי במנה תנם לאבא ולאביך אינה מקודשת על מנת שיקבלום לי מקודשת
תנא אבא להודיעך כח דרישא תנא אביך להודיעך כח דסיפא
Our Rabbis taught: [If a man says to a woman,] Be betrothed to me with a maneh, [and she replies,] Give it to my father or your father, she is not betrothed; on condition that they accept it for me, she is betrothed.
It teaches my father to inform you of the power of the first clause, and your father to inform you of the power of the second clause.
The woman can direct the kiddushin money to one of their fathers but she must state this in a way that makes it clear that she is accepting the proposal and not just telling him to give it away.
The Talmud then interrupts the baraita to state that it does not matter whether it is her father or your father. Even if she says Give them to my father she is not betrothed. And even if she says On condition that your father accept them she is betrothed.
התקדשי לי במנה תנם לפלוני אינה מקודשת על מנת שיקבלם לי מקודשת
[If he says] Be betrothed to me with a maneh, [and she replies] Give it to So-and-so, she is not betrothed. On condition that So-and-so accepts it for me, she is betrothed.
This is the same clause as the previous one, just with So-and-so except for her father and his father.
וצריכא דאי אשמעינן אבא ואביך התם הוא דכי אמרה על מנת שיקבלום לי הוו קידושין דסמכה דעתה עילייהו סברה עבדין לי שליחותאי אבל פלוני לא
And both these cases are necessary. For if it had taught us the law with respect to my father and your father, [I might have thought that] there the kiddushin is valid when she replies, on condition that they accept it for me, because she relies upon them, thinking, They will [certainly] act as agents for me. But in the case of So-and-so, this is not so.
The Talmud now needs to explain why both clauses are necessary. If it had only taught the clause about the fathers I might have thought that she relies on the fathers to give her the money. Therefore it is kiddushin. But if she says, On condition that So-and-so accept for me, she does not rely on this person and therefore she is not betrothed. Therefore the baraita teaches that in either case she is betrothed. She can choose whom she relies on.
ואי אשמעינן פלוני הכא הוא דכי אמרה תנם לפלוני לא הוו קידושי דלא מקרבא דעתה לגביה למיתבה ליה במתנה אבל אבא ואביך דמקרבא דעתה לגבייהו אימא במתנה יהביתיה ניהלייהו צריכא
And if it had taught us the case of So-and-so, [I might have thought that] there the kiddushin is invalid when she says: Give it to So-and-so, because she is not close enough to him that she would give it [the maneh] to him as a gift. But as for my father or your father, with whom she is close, I might think that she was giving them a gift. Thus both are necessary.
If the baraita had only taught the case of So-and-so I might have thought that when she says Give it to him the kiddushin is not valid because we would not assume she is giving a gift to them. But she might give a gift to her father or his father in which case she would be betrothed. Therefore, the baraita needed to teach us that when she says give it to him she is not betrothed in any of these cases.