Kiddushin, Daf Mem Het, Part 3

Introduction

Yet again, the Talmud attempts to tie Rav s statement, that one cannot betroth with a loan, into a tannaitic dispute. I think by this point we can sense where this is going. It seems to be more of an exploration of many different possibilities for how betrothal can be done, than a belief that Rav s opinion is connected to a tannaitic dispute.

נימא כהני תנאי דתניא עשה לי שירים נזמים וטבעות ואקדש אני לך כיון שעשאן מקודשת דברי רבי מאיר וחכ"א אינה מקודשת עד שיגיע ממון לידה

האי ממון ה"ד אילימא אותו ממון מכלל דת"ק סבר אפי’ אותו ממון נמי לא אלא במאי בו מקדשא אלא לאו בממון אחר ושמע מינה במקדש במלוה קמיפלגי

Shall we say that it [Rav s statement] is similar to the debate between the following tannaim? For it was taught: [If a woman says to a man,] Make me a necklace, earrings and [finger] rings, and I will be betrothed to you, as soon as he makes them, she is betrothed, the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: She is not betrothed until the money reaches her hand.

This money, what does it refer to? If we say, the same money, it would follow that according to the first view even if that money does not [reach her hand]; but if so, with what would he be betrothing her? Hence it must surely refer to other money, which proves that they differ over betrothal by debt.

The topic of the tannaitic dispute is a woman who commissions a man to betroth her by making some jewelry for her. Instead of paying him, she will be betrothed to him by him not charging her for making the jewelry. According to R. Meir this works and she is betrothed as soon as the jewelry is finished. The sages say he must give her money, which the Talmud here interprets to be other money, and not the jewelry itself. Therefore, this would be a dispute over one who betroths with a loan. R. Meir says that this is possible she owes him money and he forgives the debt. The other sages say that this does not work.

וסברי דכ"ע ישנה לשכירות מתחלה [ועד] סוף והוה מלוה מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר המקדש במלוה מקודשת ומר סבר המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת

And they reason that according to all tannaim wages are owed from beginning to end, hence it is a loan. And do they not differ on the following: one Master holds, If he betroths [a woman] with a loan, she is betrothed, and one master holds that if he betroths with a loan she is not betrothed?

The Talmud further clarifies another assumption we must make. When A hires B to do a job, the debt accrues as the work is done and is not incurred only at the end, upon completion of work. As the man works to make the jewelry, the woman gradually owes him money. She owes him a debt, and then he forgives the debt at the point of betrothal. R. Meir says that this works, whereas the other sages say that it does not.

לא דכולי עלמא מקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת והכא בישנה לשכירות מתחלה ועד סוף קמיפלגי מר סבר

אינה לשכירות אלא בסוף ומר סבר ישנה לשכירות מתחלה ועד סוף

No: all agree that if he betroths with a loan, she is not betrothed, but here they differ as to whether wages are incurred from beginning to end. One Master holds, Wages are incurred only at the end; while the other holds that wages are incurred from beginning to end.

The Talmud now rejects the idea that this debate is over betrothal with a loan. The issue here is whether we consider wages to incur incrementally while the work is performed or only at the end. The sages would say that they incur incrementally, from beginning to end. At the end of his work, she owes him money and he forgives the debt. This is not a valid form of kiddushin. R. Meir would say that the debt is incurred only at the end, when he actually performs the betrothal. There is no loan here, only him converting the money she now owes him into betrothal. Since there was never a loan, this is not betrothal by loan.