Kiddushin, Daf Mem Zayin, Part 5

 

Introduction

In yesterday s baraita, R. Meir and the tanna kamma disagreed over whether a woman can be betrothed with a loan that a man had given her and that was still in her hands. The tanna kamma ruled that she may not and R. Meir ruled that as long as she still has some of the loan in her hands, she may be betrothed with it.

 

במאי קמיפלגי אמר רבה אשכחתינהו לרבנן בבי רב דיתבי וקאמרי במלוה ברשות בעלים לחזרה והוא הדין לאונסין קמיפלגי דמר סבר מלוה ברשות לוה קיימא והוא הדין לאונסים ומר סבר מלוה ברשות בעלים קיימא והוא הדין לאונסים

 

What are they arguing about?

Rabbah said: I found the rabbis at the academy sitting and explaining. They differ as to whether a loan rests in the possession of the owner [the creditor] in respect of retraction, and likewise in respect of unpreventable accidents: one Master holds that a loan rests in the possession of the debtor, and likewise in respect of unpreventable accidents; and the other holds that it rests in the possession of the creditor, and likewise in respect of unpreventable accidents.

 

The rabbis at the academy say that the debate is over whether a loan that has not yet begun to be spent belongs to the creditor or the debtor. There are two ramifications to this: 1) whether the creditor can retract the loan; 2) If an unpreventable accident happens, who is responsible. According to the first opinion, the loan belongs to the debtor, and therefore, the man who loaned the money to the woman cannot use it for betrothal. It is already hers, so he would not be giving her anything. According to R. Meir, the loan still belongs to the creditor and therefore he can use it for betrothal.

 

ואמינא להו לאונסים כולי עלמא לא פליגי דברשות לוה קיימי מאי טעמא לא גרעא משאלה מה שאלה דהדרה בעינא חייב באונסים מלוה לא כל שכן אלא הכא מלוה ברשות בעלים לחזרה איכא בינייהו

 

But I told them, as for unpreventable accidents, all agree that it is in the possession of the debtor. What is the reason? It is no less than a loaned item: if for a loaned item, which is returnable as it is, one is liable in respect of unpreventable accidents, how much more so for a debt!

Rather they [merely] differ as to whether a loan is the possession of the owner with respect to retraction.

 

Rabbah makes a small adjustment in what the other rabbis say. Everyone agrees that once the money is taken, the borrower is responsible for all accidents, even unpreventable ones. They argue only about whether the creditor can retract.

Note that this is still a viable interpretation of the dispute between the tanna kamma (one cannot betroth with a loan) and R. Meir (if the money is still in her possession, one can).

 

ואלא הא דאמר רב הונא השואל קורדום מחבירו ביקע בו קנאו לא ביקע בו לא קנאו לימא כתנאי אמרה לשמעתיה

 

If so, when R. Huna said: If one borrows an axe from his neighbor, if he chopped [wood] with it, he acquires it; if not, he does not acquire it. Shall we say that he gave his ruling as dependent upon [a dispute of] tannaim?

 

R. Huna seems to say that a borrower does not acquire the loaned object until he uses it. This seems to be R. Meir s opinion.

 

לא עד כאן לא פליגי אלא במלוה דלא הדרה בעינא אבל בשאלה דהדרה בעינא דברי הכל ביקע בו אין לא ביקע בו לא קנאו

No. They differ only in respect of a [monetary] loan, which does not need to be returned as it is; but with the loan of an item which is returnable as it is, all agree that if he chopped with it he does [acquire it,] but if he did not chop with it he does not acquire it.

 

The Talmud now distinguishes between lending money and lending objects. When it comes to lending money, the tannaim disagree whether it remains in the possession of the owner until the debtor has used it. But when it comes to objects, all agree that until the borrower uses it, it is still in the possession of the lender.