Kiddushin, Daf Mem Zayin, Part 4

 

Introduction

Today s section continues to deal with betrothal by forgiving a loan.

 

מיתיבי האומר לאשה התקדשי לי בפקדון שיש לי בידך והלכה ומצאתו שנגנב או שאבד אם נשתייר הימנו שוה פרוטה מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת

ובמלוה אף על פי שלא נשתייר הימנו שוה פרוטה מקודשת

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי מאיר מלוה הרי היא כפקדון

 

They objected: If one says to a woman, Be betrothed to me with the deposit which I have in your possession, and she goes and finds that it is stolen or destroyed; if the value of a perutah is left of it, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed.

But in the case of a loan, even if a perutah s worth of it is not left, she is betrothed.

R. Simeon b. Elazar said in the name of R. Meir: A loan is the same as a deposit.

 

This baraita is raised as an objection against Rav. The Talmud will now clarify the difficulty.

 

עד כאן לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר מלוה אע"ג דלא נשתייר הימנה שוה פרוטה ומר סבר נשתייר הימנה שוה פרוטה אין ואי לא נשתייר הימנה שוה פרוטה לא אבל דכולי עלמא מקדש במלוה מקודשת

 

They differ only in so far as one master holds that a loan, even if there is not a perutah’s worth left [is valid kiddushin], whereas the other holds it is [valid] only if a perutah’s worth is left, but not otherwise: but all agree that if one betroths [a woman] with a loan [and the money is still in her possession], she is betrothed!

 

The tannaim disagree only with regard to the issue of whether the woman must still have in her possession a perutah of the money given to her as a loan. The first tanna holds that it need not be in her possession whereas R. Meir holds that it must be. But all tannaim would seem to hold that if she has a perutah of the loan in her possession and the husband forgives the loan, she is betrothed. This is a difficulty against Rav.

 

אמר (ליה) רבא ותסברא הא מתרצתא הא משבשתא היא האי פקדון היכי דמי אי דקביל עליה אחריות היינו מלוה אי דלא קביל עליה אחריות אי הכי אדתני סיפא ובמלוה אע"פ שלא נשתייר הימנה שוה פרוטה מקודשת ניפלוג וניתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים שלא קבלה עליה אחריות אבל קבלה עליה אחריות אע"ג דלא נשתייר הימנה שוה פרוטה מקודשת

 

Rava said: Is this reasonable? Is this baraita correct; surely it is corrupt! [For] this deposit, what is the case? If she guaranteed against loss, it is identical with a loan. If she did not guarantee against loss, if so, instead of the second clause teaching, but in the case of debt, even if a there is not a perutah’s worth left, she is betrothed, let a distinction be made and taught in the case [of deposit] itself: When is this so? Only if she did not guarantee against loss; but if she did, even if there is not a perutah’s worth left, she is betrothed.

 

Rava says this baraita is corrupt and should not be used as a difficulty against Rav. The baraita does not explain what the case of the deposit is. If she guaranteed the deposit, then it is essentially the same as a loan. She must pay it back if it was stolen or lost, the same as is true for a loan. But if she did not guarantee the deposit, then instead of making a distinction in the second clause between a deposit and a loan, the baraita should have distinguished between a guaranteed deposit and a non-guaranteed deposit. This would have presented a more precise teaching. Therefore, this baraita is corrupt and should not be used as a difficulty. Note that this is a common strategy to resolve difficulties against amoraim.

 

אלא תריץ הכי ובמלוה אע"פ שנשתייר הימנה שוה פרוטה אינה מקודשת ר’ שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום ר"מ מלוה הרי היא כפקדון

Rather, resolve [the baraita] in this manner: in the case of debt, even if a perutah’s worth is left, she is not betrothed. R. Shimon b. Elazar said in the name of R. Meir: A loan is the same as a deposit.

 

Having stated that the baraita is corrupt, Rava now can emend the first clause. Rather than saying even if a perutah s worth of it is not left, she is betrothed it should read even if a perutah’s worth is left, she is not betrothed. According to this understanding of this tannaitic opinion, betrothal cannot be done with a loan, just as Rav said. R. Meir would hold that it can be performed with a loan, but this is not a problem for Rav for he has a tanna with which to agree.