Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Gimmel, Part 2

 

Introduction

This mishnah teaches that a man may stipulate that his betrothal to a woman is contingent upon his performing for her a certain favor.

 

מתני׳ האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שאדבר עליך לשלטון ואעשה עמך כפועל דבר עליה לשלטון ועשה עמה כפועל מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת

 

If he says to a woman, Behold you are betrothed to me on condition that I speak to the government on your behalf , or That I work for you as a laborer , if he speaks to the government on her behalf or works for her as a laborer, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed.

 

The question which the Talmud will ask is whether he must also give her money for the betrothal to be effective. Or is the favor he does for her sufficient to count as the money for kiddushin.

[Speaking to the government on her behalf sounds a bit like something out of the Trump or Netanyahu regime].

 

גמ׳ אמר ריש לקיש והוא שנתן לה שוה פרוטה

 

GEMARA. Resh Lakish said: Providing that he gives [her] the value of a perutah.

 

According to Resh Lakish, the man must also give her kiddushin money. The fact that he will perform a favor for her is not sufficient.

 

ובשכר לא והתניא בשכר שהרכבתיך על החמור שהושבתיך בקרון או בספינה אינה מקודשת בשכר שארכיבך על החמור שאושיבך בקרון או בספינה מקודשת וכי תימא ה"נ בדיהב לה שוה פרוטה והא בשכר קאמר

ועוד תניא שב עמי בצוותא ואקדש לך שחוק לפני רקוד לפני עשה כדימוס הזה שמין אם יש בו שוה פרוטה מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת וכי תימא ה"נ בדיהב לה שוה פרוטה והא שמין אותו קאמר תיובתא דריש לקיש

 

But with the payment [for speaking on her behalf to the government] she is not [betrothed]? Was it not taught: [Be betrothed to me] in payment for driving you on a donkey, or seating you in a carriage or ship, she is not betrothed.

In payment that I will drive you on a donkey, or that I will seat you on a carriage or ship, she is betrothed?

And should you say: Here too it means that he also gave her the value of a perutah: but it states: in payment?

And it was also taught: [If a woman says,] Sit with me as a companion, and I will be betrothed to you, Entertain me, Dance before me, Do for me as was done in this building, we assess it: if it is worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed.

And should you say, here too it means that he gives her the value of a perutah [in addition]; surely it states, we assess it.

This is a refutation of Resh Lakish.

 

The two baraitot cited here prove that a man can betroth a woman by performing work or some sort of favor for her as long as that work has not yet been done and it is worth the value of a perutah. So this is a refutation of Resh Lakish.

 

אמר לך ריש לקיש האי תנא ברא סבר אינה לשכירות אלא לבסוף ותנא דידן סבר ישנה לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף

 

Resh Lakish could answer you: The Tanna of these baraitot holds: Wages are incurred only at the end; whereas our Tanna holds, wages are incurred from beginning to end.

 

Resh Lakish could resolve those baraitot by connecting them to a tannaitic dispute as to how to reckon wages. When one performs work for another, does that person become liable to pay the worker all at one time or incrementally? If incrementally, then at no point is he giving her the value of a perutah, because we could divide the moments up into units worth less than a perutah. This is the opinion of our mishnah wages cannot be used for betrothal because there is no point at which they are worth a perutah. The other baraitot hold that the obligation is incurred only at the end of the labor, when they are worth a perutah.

 

ומאי דוחקיה דריש לקיש לאוקמיה למתניתין בישנה לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף ובדיהב לה

אמר רבא מתניתין קשיתיה מאי איריא דתני על מנת ניתני בשכר אלא ש"מ כל על מנת היכא דיהב לה הוא

Now, what forced Resh Lakish to explain our Mishnah in accordance with the opinion that wages are incurred from beginning to end and that he gives her [a perutah in addition]?

Rava said: Our mishnah was difficult for him: why state particularly, on condition : let it teach, in payment for ? Hence this proves that wherever on condition [is taught], it means that he gives her [something in addition].

 

Rava explains why Resh Lakish had to explain that our mishnah holds that wages are incurred from beginning to end and that therefore he also gave her an additional perutah. In the baraita, the man stated in payment for. Clearly the work was the betrothal money. Our mishnah teaches on condition. This teaches that on condition is an external stipulation; it is not the mechanism through which betrothal is contracted. Therefore, he must also give her an additional perutah.