Kiddushin, Daf Mem Zayin, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today s section deals with betrothing with a loan, a topic the rabbis seem to talk about a lot, and which can mean various different things.

 

אמר רב המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת מלוה להוצאה ניתנה

 

Rav said: If one betroths [a woman] with a debt, she is not betrothed: a loan is given to be expended.

 

According to Rav, one cannot betroth a woman by forgiving a debt. Once the loan is given, the loan may be used and therefore he is not giving her anything at the time of betrothal.

 

נימא כתנאי המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת ויש אומרים מקודשת מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר מלוה להוצאה ניתנה ומר סבר מלוה לאו להוצאה ניתנה

 

Shall we say that this is disputed by tannaim: If one betroths [a woman] with a debt, she is not betrothed; but some say she is betrothed. Do they not disagree about this: one master holds that a loan is given to be expended, whereas the other holds that it is not?

 

The Talmud suggests that tannaim disagree over Rav s reasoning and halakhic ruling.

 

ותסברא אימא סיפא ושוים במכר שזה קנה אי אמרת מלוה להוצאה ניתנה במאי קני

 

Now, is that plausible? Consider the second clause: And both agree in respect to purchase that he acquires it; but if you say that a loan is given to be expended, how does he acquire it?

 

In the second half of the baraita all tannaim agree that one can acquire an object by forgiving a loan. But if one tanna holds that a loan is given to be expended, how can forgiving a loan acquire an object. What is given in order to acquire the object?

 

אמר רב נחמן הונא חברין מוקים לה במילי אוחרי והכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאמר לה התקדשי לי במנה ונמצא מנה חסר דינר מר סבר כסיפא לה מילתא למיתבעיה ומר סבר לא כסיפא לה מילתא למיתבעיה

 

R. Nahman said: Huna our companion relates this [baraita] to another matter. What are we dealing with here? For instance he said to her, Be betrothed to me with a maneh, and the maneh was found to be short of a dinar: one Master holds that she is ashamed to claim it; the other, that she is not.

 

R. Huna changes the topic of the baraita such that it is not the same issue addressed by Rav (forgiving an already existent loan). The baraita deals with a case where he says to her, be betrothed with a maneh (100 dinars). This is way more than a perutah. The problem is that the money was short a dinar. So now he owes her a dinar. One tanna thinks that she will be embarrassed to claim the extra dinar, and therefore she is not betrothed. This is kiddushin with a loan for he still owes her more money.

 

ואלא הא דאמר רבי אלעזר התקדשי לי במנה ונתן לה דינר הרי זו מקודשת וישלים לימא כתנאי אמרה לשמעתיה

אמרי מנה חסר דינר כסיפא לה מילתא למיתבעיה מנה חסר תשעים ותשע לא כסיפא לה מילתא למיתבעיה

 

But rather with regard to what R. Elazar said: [One who says,] Be betrothed to me with a maneh, and he gives her a dinar, she is betrothed, and he must pay the rest; shall we say that he stated this ruling as one side in a tannaitic dispute?

I will say: when the maneh lacks [but] a dinar, she may be embarrassed to claim it; when the maneh is short ninety-nine, she is not embarrassed to claim it.

 

R. Elazar seems to have made a statement that agrees with one opinion in the tannaitic dispute. To avoid this, the Talmud suggests that there is a difference between being one dinar short and 99 dinars short. In the first case, she might be embarrassed to ask for one extra dinar. She ll look cheap. Therefore, one tanna holds she is not betrothed. But 99 dinars short is essentially not paying and she will not be embarrassed to claim the remainder of the money. Therefore, all tannaim would agree that she is betrothed and he owes her the rest.