Kiddushin, Daf Mem Het, Part 1

 

Introduction

This week s daf continues to discuss betrothal through a loan. Earlier we learned that the tannaim disagree whether one can betroth with a loan contracted verbally. Today s sugya opens by explaining both positions.

 

במלוה על פה במאי פליגי בדרב הונא אמר רב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מנה לי בידך תנהו לפלוני במעמד שלשתן קנה מר סבר כי קאמר רב ה"מ בפקדון אבל מלוה לא ומר סבר לא שנא מלוה ולא שנא פקדון

 

With regard to a debt contracted verbally, what do they disagree about? With regard to the statement of R. Huna in the name of Rav. For R. Huna said in the name of Rav: [If A says to B,] The maneh which I have in your possession, give it to C : [if said] in the presence of the three of them [viz., A, B and C], he acquires it.

One Master holds, when Rav said this, he said it only of a deposit, but not of a loan; and the other holds that there is no difference between a deposit and a loan.

 

Rav allows one to transfer debt verbally when all three parties are present the creditor, the debtor and the person to whom the debt is being transferred. So if the debtor is present, the husband could transfer the debt to the woman he is betrothing. R. Meir would hold that this is true of loans, but the tanna kamma would hold that it is true only of deposits, not of loans.

 

נימא כתנאי התקדשי לי בשטר ר"מ אומר אינה מקודשת ור’ אלעזר אומר מקודשת וחכ"א שמין את הנייר אם יש בו שוה פרוטה מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת

האי שטר ה"ד אילימא שט"ח דאחרים קשיא דר"מ אדר"מ אלא בשט"ח דידה ובמקדש במלוה קא מיפלגי

 

Let us say that this is disputed by tannaim? [For it was taught: If he says:] Be betrothed to me with a document: R. Meir said: She is not betrothed; R. Elazar said: She is betrothed. The sages say: They evaluate the paper: if it is worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed.

This document, what is the case? If we say, a note of debt against others, then R. Meir would contradict himself. Hence it must mean her own debt document, and thus they differ in respect to betrothal by debt!

 

The Talmud again suggests that Rav s statement, that one may not betroth with a loan, is part of a tannaitic dispute. In this baraita, the tannaim argue over whether one may betroth with a debt document. If this debt document was a document stating that others owed money to him, then R. Meir cannot say that he cannot use this for betrothal, because earlier he said that one can use a debt document for betrothal. Rather, it must mean a document stating that she owes him money. Rav would then hold like R. Meir but unlike the other tannaim.

 

א"ר נחמן בר יצחק הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שקדשה בשטר שאין עליו עדים ור"מ לטעמיה דאמר עדי חתימה כרתי ור’ אלעזר לטעמי’ דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי ורבנן מספקא להו אי כר"מ אי כרבי אלעזר הלכך שמין את הנייר אם יש בו שוה פרוטה מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת

 

R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: What are we dealing with here? Where he betroths her with a document without witnesses, and R. Meir follows his own view that the witnesses who sign dissolve [the marriage]; while R. Elazar follows his own view that the witnesses to the delivery dissolve it; while the Rabbis are in doubt whether it is as R. Meir or R. Elazar; therefore the paper is evaluated, [and] if it is worth a perutah she is betrothed, and if not, she is not betrothed.

 

R. Nahman b. Yitzchak says that the topic of this baraita is not betrothal by loan but rather the validity of a document without witnesses signed on to it. To interpret this way, R. Nahman refers to a dispute concerning divorce documents. R. Meir says that signees are essential and thus a document without them is invalid. R. Elazar says that the essential act is transfer of the document to the woman, and that signees are necessary only as a backup. Since this document is valid, it may be used for kiddushin. The other rabbis are not sure as to whom the halakhah follows and therefore demand that the paper be worth a perutah. In such case, she is betrothed through the paper and not the debt.