Kiddushin, Daf Nun Tet, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today s sugya deals with the next clause in the mishnah.

 

וכן האומר לאשה התקדשי לי כו’ לא בא אחר וקידשה בתוך שלשים מהו רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו מקודשת ואע"פ שנתאכלו המעות

 

Likewise, if one says to a woman, be betrothed to me etc.

What if another does not come and betroth her within these thirty days?

Rav and Shmuel both say: She is betrothed, even if the money [of betrothal] has been consumed.

 

According to the mishnah, if the first man says to her be betrothed to me after thirty days and another comes and betroths her in the meanwhile, she is betrothed to the second. But what if no one else comes and betroths her during these thirty days?

Rav and Shmuel both say she is betrothed even though the money has been used up. This is slightly surprising because at the time the kiddushin go into effect, she is not getting any money. She received it already.

 

מאי טעמא הני זוזי לא למלוה דמו ולא לפקדון דמו

לפקדון לא דמו פקדון ברשותא דמרא קא מתאכלי והני ברשותא דידה קא מתאכלי למלוה נמי לא דמו מלוה להוצאה ניתנה הני בתורת קידושין יהבינהו ניהלה

 

What is the reason? This money is neither like a loan nor like a deposit.

It is not like a deposit [because] a deposit is consumed in its owner’s possession, whereas this is consumed in her possession.

It is not like a loan, [because] a loan is given to be used, whereas this was given to her for betrothal.

 

Had the money been given to her as a deposit or a loan she would not be betrothed. But that is not the case. The money he gave her is not a deposit. It s her money and when she uses it she is not using the original owner s money. It s also not a loan because a loan would be given for her to use and therefore there would be no money around at the time of betrothal. Here, the money was for betrothal.

 

לא בא אחר וקידשה וחזרה בה מהו ר’ יוחנן אמר חוזרת אתי דיבור ומבטל דיבור ריש לקיש אמר אינה חוזרת לא אתי דיבור ומבטל דיבור

 

What if another does not come and betroth her, but she changes her mind?

R. Yohanan said: She can change her mind, [because] words can come and nullify words.

Resh Lakish said: She cannot change her mind, [because] words cannot come and nullify words.

 

This is the beginning of a classic dispute between R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish. Can the woman change her mind within this thirty day period? After all, she is not betrothed until after thirty days. R. Yohanan says that she can change her mind her subsequent words can nullify her earlier words. Resh Lakish says that they cannot.

 

איתיביה ר’ יוחנן לריש לקיש ביטל אם עד שלא תרם ביטל אין תרומתו תרומה והא הכא דדיבור ודיבור הוא וקאתי דיבור ומבטל דיבור

 

R. Yohanan raised a difficulty against Resh Lakish: If he annuls, if before he [his agent] has made a separation, his separation is invalid.

Now here it is speech against speech, yet one comes and nullifies the other?

 

The case here is one who sends an agent to separate terumah but then annuls the agency. If he does so before the agent separates the terumah, the separation is not valid. But here is a case of speech annulling speech. This seems to support R. Yohanan.

 

שאני נתינת מעות ליד אשה דכי מעשה דמו ולא אתי דיבור ומבטל מעשה

 

Giving money into a woman’s hand is different, because it is like an action, and speech cannot come and annul action.

 

Here Resh Lakish retreats from his position a bit. Speech can annul speech. But the case of kiddushin was more than just speech. The woman received money. Since she accepted it for the sake of kiddushin, she cannot retract because this is like an action.

 

איתיביה השולח גט לאשתו והגיע בשליח או ששלח אחריו שליח ואמר לו גט שנתתי לך בטל הוא הרי זה בטל והא נתינת גט ליד שליח דכי נתינת מעות ליד אשה דמי וקתני הרי זה בטל

התם נמי כל כמה דלא מטא גיטא לידה דיבור ודיבור הוא אתי דיבור ומבטל דיבור

 

He raised another difficulty against him: If one sends a get to his wife, and then overtakes the messenger or sends [another] messenger after him and says to him, The divorce which I gave you is null, it is indeed null.

Now, giving the divorce into the messenger s hand is like giving money into a woman s hand, and yet it is taught: it is indeed null ?

There too, as long as the get has not reached her hand, it is speech against speech, and so one comes and annuls the other.

 

If a man sends an agent to deliver a get, a divorce document, to his wife, he can cancel the agency by telling the agent not to deliver the get. But this seems to be a case of a speech cancelling an action (giving the get to the agent). Therefore, it is a difficulty against Resh Lakish.

Resh Lakish resolves the difficulty by pointing out that until the get reaches the woman s hand, this is a case of speech nullifying speech. The giving of the get to the agent is really not relevant. And Resh Lakish agrees that speech can nullify another act that consisted purely of speech.