Kiddushin, Daf Mem Het, Part 4

 

Introduction

Today s sugya continues trying to explain the dispute between R. Meir and the sages in yesterday s baraita. For the purpose of clarification I am copying that baraita again here:

 

[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.

 

 

ואיבעית אימא דכ"ע ישנה לשכירות מתחלה ועד סוף ומקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת והכא באומן קונה בשבח כלי קמיפלגי מר סבר אומן קונה בשבח כלי ומר סבר אין אומן קונה בשבח כלי

 

Alternatively, all hold that wages are incurred from beginning to end, and that one who betroths by a loan is not betrothed, but here they dispute whether an artisan acquires by improvement of the vessel; one Master holds that an artisan does acquire title by the improvement of the vessel, and the other holds that an artisan does not acquire title by the improvement of the utensil.

 

The Talmud now suggests that R. Meir and the sages argue over whether the artisan making the vessel with material given to him acquires title to the vessel while working on it. If he does, acquire it, then he is selling it back when he gives it back to her. Instead of her paying him, she is betrothed through it. This is how R. Meir would hold. The other sages would say that the vessel is not his so he cannot be betrothing her by giving it to her.

 

ואי בעית אימא דכ"ע אין אומן קונה בשבח כלי וישנה לשכירות מתחלה ועד סוף ומקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת והכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהוסיף לה נופך משלו דמר סבר מלוה ופרוטה דעתיה אפרוטה ומר סבר דעתיה אמלוה

 

Alternatively, all hold that an artisan does not obtain a title by the improvement of the vessel, and that wages are incurred from beginning to end, and that betrothal with debt is not valid, but what are we dealing with here? When he added a jewel of his own: one Master holds, [When one betroths a woman with a] debt and a perutah, her mind is on the perutah; the other holds, her mind is on the debt.

 

According to this last interpretation of the dispute, the issue is whether a man can betroth a woman by forgiving her a debt and at the same time giving her a perutah. According to R. Meir, if the jeweler adds something of his own to that which she gave him, she is agreeing to betrothal by accepting the material that belonged to him, which must be worth a perutah. Therefore, this betrothal works. According to the sages, her mind is on the forgiving of the loan, and therefore, she is not betrothed by him giving her this perutah.

 

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא בשכר שעשיתי עמך אינה מקודשת בשכר שאעשה עמך מקודשת ר’ נתן אומר בשכר שאעשה עמך אינה מקודשת וכל שכן בשכר שעשיתי עמך רבי יהודה הנשיא אומר באמת אמרו בין בשכר שעשיתי בין בשכר שאעשה עמך אינה מקודשת ואם הוסיף לה נופך משלו מקודשת

 

And [they differ] in the [same] dispute as the following Tannaim. For it was taught: [Be betrothed to me] with the wage for what I have done for you, she is not betrothed; with the wage for what I will do for you, she is betrothed.

R. Natan said: With the wage for what I will do for you, she is not betrothed; all the more so, with the wage for what I have done for you. R. Yehudah Hanasi said: In truth it was stated, whether [he said], with the wage for what I have done for you or with the wage for what I will do for you, she is not betrothed; yet if he adds something of his own, she is betrothed.

 

The Talmud now cites another dispute about whether one can betroth with owed wages or with wages that will be owed.

 

בין ת"ק לרבי נתן איכא בינייהו שכירות

 

The first tanna and R. Natan differ in respect to wages.

 

All tannaim hold that one cannot betroth by simply forgiving a debt. That is why all agree that with regard to back wages, one cannot use them for betrothal. But the first tanna holds that one may betroth with future wages. This tanna would hold that as soon he finishes the work, he becomes entitled to the wages and by forgiving them he betroths her. There is no debt incurred. R. Natan would hold that the wages are incurred incrementally and therefore this is betrothal with a debt.

 

בין רבי נתן לר’ יהודה הנשיא איכא בינייהו מלוה ופרוטה מר סבר מלוה ופרוטה דעתיה אמלוה ומר סבר דעתיה אפרוטה

 

R. Natan and R. Yehudah Hanasi differ in respect to [betrothal by] debt and a perutah: one holds that then her mind is on the debt, whereas the other holds that it is on the perutah.

 

R. Natan would hold that even if he adds something of his own and gives it to her, when a man betroths by forgiving a debt and with a perutah, her mind is on the debt. Therefore, adding something of his own does not help make this a valid form of kiddushin.

But R. Yehudah Hanasi would say that her mind is on the perutah, and therefore by adding something of his own, he is performing a valid act of kiddushin.