Kiddushin, Daf Nun, Part 5
Introduction
Our sugya is about gifts sent from the groom to the bride. Might these be considered betrothal money?
איתמר רב הונא אמר חוששין לסבלונות
וכן אמר רבה חוששין לסבלונות
It was stated: R. Huna said: We are concerned about gifts: and Rabbah also said: We are concerned about gifts.
According to both of these amoraim, if a woman agreed to be betrothed and then the husband sent gifts, the gifts may be considered betrothal money.
אמר רבה ומותבינן אשמעתין אף על פי ששלח סבלונות לאחר מכאן אינה מקודשת
אמר ליה אביי התם כדקתני טעמא שמחמת קידושין הראשונים שלח
Rabbah said: They raised an objection against our teaching: even if he subsequently sends gifts, she is not betrothed!
Abaye answered him: There the reason is as stated: because they were sent on account of the first kiddushin.
The mishnah says that gifts are not considered betrothal money, which seems to contradict R. Huna and Rabbah. But Abaye explains this is only if there was an invalid act of betrothal that preceded the gifts. If there was no prior formal betrothal act, the gifts may actually be betrothal money, even though they were sent as gifts.
איכא דאמרי אמר רבה מנא אמינא לה כדקתני טעמא שמחמת קידושין הראשונים שלח הכא הוא דטעי הא בעלמא הוו קידושין
There are those who say: Rabbah said: From where do I know this? From the reason stated: because they were sent on account of the first kiddushin: Here, where he made a mistake [the gifts are not kiddushin]; but elsewhere, they [the gifts] may be kiddushin.
In this version, Rabbah uses the mishnah as a proof that gifts may be considered kiddushin. Only when they are sent because of a mistaken act are they not. This is similar to Abaye s statement in the first version.
ואביי לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא בעלמא דלא נחית לתורת קידושין כלל אלא אפילו הכא דנחית לתורת קידושין אימא הוו קידושין קא משמע לן
And Abaye? It was stated in the form of it was not necessary. It is unnecessary to state in general [that gifts are not betrothal], seeing that he has not entered into the laws of kiddushin at all.
But even here, when he has entered into the laws of kiddushin, I might think that they [the gifts] are kiddushin: hence it teaches us that it is not.
In this version, Abaye now rejects Rabbah. When the man has not performed any act of kiddushin, it is obvious that the gifts he sends are not kiddushin. But when he first betroths her I might have thought that the gifts are for the sake of kiddushin. That is why the mishnah needs to tells us that they are not.
So now we have a dispute between Abaye and Rabbah over whether gifts sent not following kiddushin can be concerned kiddushin.
מאי הוי עלה אמר רב פפא באתרא דמקדשי והדר מסבלי חיישינן מסבלי והדר מקדשי לא חיישינן
What do we have to say about this?
R. Papa said: In a place where one [first] betroths and then sends gifts, we are concerned about [the gifts being kiddushin]; but in a place where gifts are [first] sent and then one betroths, we are not concerned.
R. Papa mediates between the two opinions. If the custom is to first betroth and then send gifts, the gifts might be a sign that betrothal occurred. But if the opposite, then the gifts are just gifts.
מקדשי והדר מסבלי פשיטא לא צריכא דרובא מקדשי והדר מסבלי ומיעוטא מסבלי והדר מקדשי מהו דתימא ניחוש למיעוטא קא משמע לן
[Where] one [first] betroths and then sends gifts. But that is obvious!
It is necessary [to state it] only where the majority [first] betroth and then send gifts, but the minority first send gifts and then betroths: What might you have said? Let us be concerned for the minority; hence it teaches us [otherwise].
Even if a minority first send gifts and then betroth, we still need to be concerned lest the gifts are a sign that betrothal occurred.
בעא מיניה רב אחא בר רב הונא מרבא הוחזק שטר כתובה בשוק מהו אמר ליה וכי מפני שמחזיק שטר כתובה בשוק נחזיק בה כאשת איש
מאי הוי עלה אמר רב אשי באתרא דמקדשי והדר כתבי כתובה חיישינן כתבי והדר מקדשי לא חיישינן מקדשי והדר כתבי פשיטא לא צריכא דלא שכיח ספרא מהו דתימא ספרא הוא דאתרמי קא משמע לן
R. Aha son of R. Huna asked of Rava: If a ketubah document was established in the marketplace, what is the rule [is she assumed to be married]?
He said to him: Simply because a ketubah document was established in the marketplace we should assume her to be a married woman!
What did they say about this?
R. Ashi said: In a place where they first betroth and then write a ketubah, we are concerned; but in a place where they first write a ketubah and then betroth we are not concerned.
In a place where they first betroth and then write? That is obvious!
It is necessary to state it only where scribes are not common: What might you have said? He found a scribe. Therefore, it teaches us [that this is not so].
This last section is about a case where a ketubah was seen by the people in the shuk do we assume that this woman was married. Or perhaps the ketubah was written before betrothal?
R. Ashi explains that it depends on the custom. If they usually first betroth and then write a ketubah, then the ketubah might indeed be a sign of betrothal. But if they first write the ketubah and only later betroth, then it is not a sign that she was married.