Kiddushin, Daf Mem Vav, Part 3

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues with interpreting the next line of the mishnah.

 

בזו ובזו ובזו אם יש בכולן ש"פ כו’

 

With this and with this and with this [and they are all together worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. If she eats them one by one, she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth a perutah].

 

אהייא אילימא ארישא מאי איריא אוכלת אפי’ מנחת נמי דהא התקדשי לי בזו קאמר

 

To what does this refer? If we say, to the first clause, why specifically if she eats them; even if she put them down she is also [betrothed], since he says: Be betrothed to me with this one.

 

The last clause of the mishnah describes her eating the dates one at a time. She is not betrothed unless one of them is worth a perutah. To what does this clause refer? It cannot refer to the first clause where he said, Be betrothed to me with this one, be betrothed to me with this one, because she is not eating the dates. She could even put them down and as long as one of the dates is worth a perutah, she is betrothed.

 

אלא אסיפא

 

Rather it refers to the second clause.

 

Where he said with this one and with this one and with this one. If she is eating them one at a time, one of them alone must be worth a perutah.

 

ואפילו בקמייתא והא מלוה היא

אמר רבי יוחנן הרי שלחן והרי בשר והרי סכין ואין לנו לאכול

 

And even [if there is a perutah’s worth] in the first one [only]? But it is a debt!

R. Yohanan said: Behold a table, meat and knife, yet we have no mouth to eat!

 

If the first date is worth a perutah, and he keeps giving her dates, the betrothal is not complete until he gives her the last date. The rabbis view the first dates as a loan, because were he to retract his offer, she would have to give the date back. By the time she is betrothed, this date is gone and he is saying to her if you become betrothed to me, you do not need to give me the loan back. But then this is betrothal through forgiving a loan, and this is not a valid form of kiddushin. R. Yohanan is indeed puzzled by the conundrum and offers a colorful statement to express it.

 

רב ושמואל אמרי תרוייהו לעולם ארישא ולא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא מנחת דאי איכא שוה פרוטה אין אי לא לא אבל אוכלת הואיל ומיקרבא הנייתה אימא גמרה ומקניא נפשה קמ"ל

 

Rav and Shmuel said: After all, it refers to the first clause, and it is stated in the form of it is not even necessary to state. It is not even necessary to state that if she put them down she is [betrothed] only if [one] is worth a perutah, and not otherwise. But if she eats them, I might argue that since her benefit is immediate, she resolves to give over herself [even for less than a perutah]. Hence we are informed [otherwise].

 

Rav and Shmuel return to saying that the last clause refers to the first clause of the mishnah, where he says Be betrothed to me with this one, be betrothed to me with this one. If she puts the dates down it is obvious that she is not betrothed unless one is worth a perutah because she has not yet derived any benefit from them. But if she is eating them, and deriving immediate benefit, I might have thought that even if no date is worth a perutah, she has agreed to be taken in marriage. Therefore, the mishnah teaches that this is not so. A woman never agrees to be betrothed for less than a perutah.

 

רבי אמי אמר לעולם אסיפא ומאי עד שיהא באחת מהן שוה פרוטה עד שיהא באחרונה שוה פרוטה

 

R. Ammi said: After all, it applies to the second clause; and what is meant by, unless one of them is worth a perutah? Unless the last one is worth a perutah.

 

R. Ammi says that it can refer to the last clause of the mishnah as long as we read it as saying that the last date he gives her has to be worth a perutah. This last date is not a loan, it is the date on which she must agree to be betrothed. This date, and not the earlier dates, must be worth a perutah.

 

אמר רבא שמע מינה מדרבי אמי תלת שמע מינה המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת ושמע מינה המקדש במלוה ופרוטה דעתה אפרוטה ושמע מינה מעות בעלמא חוזרים

 

Rava said: Learn from R. Ammi’s [explanation] three things; [1] Learn that if one betroths with a loan, she is not betrothed; [2] Learn that if one betroths [a woman] with a debt and a perutah [i.e., cash], her mind is set upon the perutah. [3] Learn that money in general is returned.

 

Rava derives three halakhic lessons from R. Ammi s statement. First of all, kiddushin cannot be performed by forgiving a debt, as was stated above. Second, if one forgives a debt and at the same time gives the woman a perutah, she is thinking about the perutah and is betrothed. This is what happened in this situation. The first dates were a loan which he is now forgiving. And the last date is worth a perutah. Third, if she in the end does not want to be betrothed, she must return the money, which here refers to the first dates.