Kiddushin, Daf Heh, Part 5
Introduction
Today s sugya discusses how kiddushin with money is performed.
ת"ר כיצד בכסף נתן לה כסף או שוה כסף ואמר לה הרי את מקודשת לי הרי את מאורסת לי הרי את לי לאינתו הרי זו מקודשת אבל היא שנתנה ואמרה היא הריני מקודשת לך הריני מאורסת לך הריני לך לאינתו אינה מקודשת
Our rabbis taught: How [is a woman acquired] by money? If he gave her money or its equivalent and declared to her, Behold, you are consecrated (mekudeshet) to me, [or] you are betrothed (me ureset) to me, [or] Behold, you are a wife to me , then she is betrothed.
But if she gives him [money or its equivalent] and says Behold, I am consecrated to you, I am betrothed to you, I am a wife to you, she is not betrothed.
This baraita teaches two things: 1) he must say to her certain words, words that can clearly be construed as words of betrothal. There are a variety of different phrases he may use to betroth her. 2) He must give the money to her. She cannot say the words and give the money to him. Yes, this is most definitely not egalitarian.
מתקיף לה רב פפא טעמא דנתן הוא ואמר הוא הא נתן הוא ואמרה היא אינה מקודשת
אימא סיפא אבל היא שנתנה לו ואמרה היא לא הוו קידושין טעמא דנתנה היא ואמרה היא הא נתן הוא ואמרה היא הוו קידושין
R. Papa raised a difficulty: The reason it is valid is that he gave [the money] and made the declaration; but if he gave the money and she made the declaration, she is not betrothed.
Then say the second clause: But if she gave the money, and she made the declaration, the kiddushin is not valid. The reason is that she gave [the money] and made the declaration, but if he gave the money and she made the declaration, the kiddushin is valid?
R. Papa notes that since there are two factors giving the money and making the declaration, it is difficult to tell which is determinative. Particularly he wants to know if the kiddushin is valid if the husband gave the money and the wife made the declaration. It is interesting that R. Papa does not even consider what the rule would be if the woman gave the money.
רישא דוקא סיפא כדי נסבה
The first clause is exact, while the second is mentioned incidentally.
The first resolution is to say that the husband must both give and say.
ותני סיפא מילתא דסתרא לה לרישא
אלא ה"ק נתן הוא ואמר הוא פשיטא דהוו קידושין
נתן הוא ואמרה היא נעשה כמי שנתנה היא ואמרה היא ולא הוו קידושין
But does it teach a second clause that contradicts the first?
Rather this is the meaning: If he gives [the money] and he speaks, the kiddushin is obviously valid; [but] if he gives, and she says the declaration, it is as though she both gives and speaks, so that the kiddushin is not valid.
According to this interpretation, the second clause seems to clarify an unclear point in the first clause. In any case, the result is the same he must give the money and make the statement.
ואב"א נתן הוא ואמר הוא מקודשת נתנה היא ואמרה היא אינה מקודשת נתן הוא ואמרה היא ספיקא היא וחיישינן מדרבנן :
And if you want you can say, if he gives and speaks, she is betrothed; if she gives and speaks, she is not betrothed; but if he gives and she speaks, it is doubtful, and we are concerned about the validity of the [kiddushin] from rabbinic law.
Here we see the slimmest of more egalitarian possibilities. If she makes the declaration, maybe the kiddushin are valid as long as he gives the money. The kiddushin would be valid and to be divorced she would need a get. We will also see that in rabbinic thinking the statement is less significant than the giving of the money.