Kiddushin, Daf Samekh, Part 2
מתני׳ האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שאתן לך מאתים זוז הרי זו מקודשת והוא יתן
Mishnah: If one says to a woman. Behold, you are betrothed to me on condition that I give you two hundred zuz, she is betrothed, and he must give it.
In such a case the woman is immediately betrothed and the man must thereafter give her two hundred zuz. If he does not give her two hundred zuz, the betrothal becomes invalid. The problem is that since he didn t set a time limit he has an unlimited time to give her the two hundred zuz. Potentially, the only way for the betrothal to become invalid would be for him to die before he gives her the money. In such a case she would not be considered his widow and she would not be liable for yibbum. Therefore, this is not a particularly good way of performing betrothal, especially for the woman.
על מנת שאתן לך מכאן ועד ל’ יום נתן לה בתוך שלשים מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת
On condition that I give you [two hundred zuz] within thirty days from now : if he gives her within thirty days, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed.
In this case he did set a time limit for the fulfillment of his condition. Therefore, if he doesn t give her the betrothal within thirty days, she is not betrothed. In fact, this may have been a common form of betrothal. The man would have thirty days (or a longer period of time) to come up with the money necessary to betroth the woman and if he did not, the betrothal was invalidated with no need for a get. This prevented the woman from being left hanging.
ע"מ שיש לי מאתים זוז הרי זו מקודשת ויש לו
On condition that I have two hundred zuz, she is betrothed, providing he has [two hundred zuz].
In this case, all the man has to do is demonstrate that he owns two hundred zuz. Again, she is betrothed immediately and he must prove that he has two hundred zuz. However, we should note that in order to be certain that the betrothal is invalid she would have to prove that he doesn t own two hundred zuz. This will not be easy and again the woman is in a disadvantageous situation.
על מנת שאראך מאתים זוז הרי זו מקודשת ויראה לה ואם הראה על השלחן אינה מקודשת
On condition that I show you two hundred zuz, she is betrothed, and he must show her.
But if he shows her [money lying] on the table, she is not betrothed.
Here he must not only own two hundred zuz, but show her the cash (or its equivalent). He may not show her two hundred zuz lying on a table unless he actually owns them. Just as in section two, this too seems to be better for the woman. Here she can actually see that he owns the two hundred zuz and need not worry about proving (or disproving) it.
גמ׳ איתמר רב הונא אמר והוא יתן רב יהודה אמר לכשיתן
רב הונא אמר והוא יתן תנאה הוי מקיים תנאה ואזיל
רב יהודה אמר לכשיתן לכי יהיב הוו קידושי השתא מיהא לא הוו קידושי
GEMARA. It was stated: R. Huna said: [The mishnah means] and he must give it.
Rav Judah said: When he gives it:
R. Huna said: and he must give it : it is a condition, [and so] he fulfills the condition and goes on.
Rav Judah said: When he gives it: when he gives it, the kiddushin is valid; nevertheless now it is not kiddushin.
The mishnah only stated that he must give the two hundred zuz. The amoraim disagree over whether this means that she is betrothed immediately and he owes her 200 zuz, or whether the betrothal takes effect only after he gives her the two hundred zuz.
מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו שפשטה ידה וקבלה קידושין מאחר לרב הונא לא הוו קידושי לרב יהודה הוו קידושי
What is the practical difference between them? They differ over a case where she stretches out her hand and accepts kiddushin from another: according to R. Huna view it is not kiddushin; according to Rav Yehudah it is kiddushin.
The practical difference between these two opinions would arise in a case where before receiving the two hundred zuz she accepted kiddushin from another man. If the original act of kiddushin was a condition then the second act of kiddushin is not valid. But if we say that the first act is not valid until he gives the money, then the second act would be valid.
ותנן נמי גבי גיטין כי האי גוונא האומר לאשה הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז הרי זו מגורשת והיא תתן
איתמר רב הונא אמר והיא תתן רב יהודה אמר לכשתתן
רב הונא אמר והיא תתן תנאה הוי מקיימא תנאה ואזלה רב יהודה אמר לכשתתן לכי יהיבה ליה הוא דהוי גט השתא מיהא לא הוי גט
מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו שנתקרע הגט או שאבד לרב הונא הוי גט לרב יהודה לא הוי גט
Now, we taught similarly with regard to divorce. If one says to his wife, Behold this is your divorce on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, she is divorced, and she must give [it].
It was stated: R. Huna said: And she must give it; Rava Judah said: When she gives it.
R. Huna said: And she must give it : it is a condition, [and so] she proceeds to fulfill the condition and goes on.
Rav Judah said: When she gives it : when she gives it to him, then it is a divorce; now, however it is not a divorce.
What is the practical difference between them? They differ where the get is torn or lost [before the money is given]: according to R. Huna, it is a divorce; according to Rav Judah, it is not a divorce.
As we have already seen a few times, the same exact debate occurs with regard to divorce is the divorce valid and then she must give the money. Or is the divorce valid only when she gives the money.
וצריכא דאי אשמעינן גבי קידושין בהא קאמר רב הונא משום דלקרובה קאתי אבל גירושין דלרחקה קאתי אימא מודי ליה לרב יהודה
Now, it is necessary [to state both cases]. For if we were told this of kiddushin [only, I would say] in that case R. Huna says [that it is valid immediately and he must give the money], because he comes to draw her near [to himself]; but as for divorce, where he comes to distance her, I might say that he agrees with Rav Judah.
The Talmud asks the question we could certainly anticipate why teach the same dispute twice? The answer begins by explaining what would have happened if it taught the dispute only about kiddushin. We might have thought that only in this case does R. Huna say that the kiddushin takes effect immediately. Since the husband is drawing her near, he would want to draw her near as soon as possible. However, in the case of divorce we might have thought that he would agree with R. Judah. She is divorced only once she gives the money.
ואי איתמר בהך בהך קאמר רב הונא משום דאיהו לא כסיף ליה למתבעה אבל הכא דאיהי כסיפא לה למיתבעיה אימא מודי ליה לרב יהודה צריכא
And if only this were taught: only there does R. Huna rule thus, for he [the husband] is not ashamed to demand it of her; but here [in the case of betrothal], seeing that she is ashamed to demand it of him, I would argue that he agrees with Rava Judah. Thus both are necessary.
If we had taught the dispute only in relation to divorce, I might have said that in that case she is divorced immediately according to R. Huna because we can be sure that the husband will ask the money from her. Since they are divorced, he will not be ashamed. But we might have thought that in the case of kiddushin he agrees with R. Judah that she is betrothed only when he gives her the money since the woman might be ashamed to ask the money. In that case, R. Huna might agree that since we re not sure she ll get the money, she is not betrothed until she gets it. To correct both these errors, we need to teach the dispute in both the context of divorce and betrothal.