Kiddushin, Daf Vav, Part 6
Introduction
Abaye discusses here betrothing through a loan. What this means is forgiving her from repaying a loan he previously gave her.
After this the Talmud continues to discuss variations of giving the woman money.
אמר אביי המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת
בהנאת מלוה מקודשת ואסור לעשות כן מפני הערמת רבית
Abaye said: If a man betroths [a woman] with a loan, she is not betrothed;
with the benefit of a loan, she is betrothed; but it is forbidden to do so, as it constitutes an evasion of the prohibition of interest.
For the woman to be betrothed the man must currently give her something. He cannot simply forgive her from repaying a debt that she already owes him.
But technically he can betroth her with the benefit of a loan a term which will be explained shortly. However, this is prohibited because it constitutes an evasion of interest.
האי הנאת מלוה ה"ד אילימא דאזקפה דאמר לה ארבע בחמשה הא רבית מעלייתא הוא
ועוד היינו מלוה
לא צריכא דארווח לה זימנא :
This benefit of a loan, what is the case? If we say, that he fixed [the interest] as a loan, having said, [I am lending you] four [zuz] for five, that is real interest!
Moreover, this is the same as [betrothing] with a loan!
It was only necessary to say this if he extended the term [for repayment].
If benefit of a loan means forgiving her the interest he had already charged her, then this was A) prohibited to do in the first place; B) essentially the same thing as betrothing by forgiving a loan.
Therefore, benefit of a loan is interpreted to mean that he extended the terms of repayment. This is a tangible new benefit and therefore it is effective as a means of betrothal. But it is also considered interest she is repaying him by agreeing to be betrothed and by paying back the debt. The betrothal is the interest. Therefore such an act is prohibited.
אמר רבא הילך מנה על מנת שתחזירהו לי במכר לא קנה באשה אינה מקודשת בפדיון הבן אין בנו פדוי בתרומה יצא ידי נתינה ואסור לעשות כן מפני שנראה ככהן המסייע בבית הגרנות
Rava said: [If one says,] Here is a maneh on condition that you return it to me, in respect to purchase, he has not made an acquisition; in the case of a woman, she is not betrothed; in the matter of a redemption of the firstborn, the firstborn is not redeemed: in respect of terumah, he fulfils the obligation of giving yet it is forbidden to do so, as it looks like a priest who assists in the threshing floor.
Rava says that in general if one says here is some money on condition that you return it to me the act does not count as an act of giving. It does not work to acquire a purchase, betroth a woman or redeem a first-born. However, it does work in the act of giving terumah to a priest. [Terumah is part of one s produce that must be given to a priest]. However, it is prohibited to do so because doing so makes it look as if the priest is assisting on the threshing floor. The rabbis did not want priests to have to work to get their terumah. So too here we can imagine a scenario where a priest would agree to give back a high percentage of the terumah in return for the terumah being given to him and not to a different priest.
מאי קסבר רבא אי קסבר מתנה על מנת להחזיר שמה מתנה אפילו כולהו נמי ואי קסבר לא שמה מתנה אפילו תרומה נמי לא
What does Rava hold? If he holds that a gift on condition that it be returned is a valid gift, then even the others too [are valid]; but if he holds that it is not a valid gift, then even in the case of terumah it is not [valid]?
Rava seems to be inconsistent in his thinking.
ועוד הא רבא הוא דאמר מתנה על מנת להחזיר שמה מתנה דאמר רבא הילך אתרוג זה על מנת שתחזירהו לי נטלו והחזירו יצא ואם לאו לא יצא
Furthermore, it was Rava who said: A gift on condition that it is returned is valid. For Raba said: [If one says to another,] This etrog is yours, on condition that you return it to me, if [the other] takes and [then] returns it, he fulfils his duty; if not, he does not fulfil [it]!
Rava clearly holds that if someone gives someone something on condition that they return it, the object is theirs while they hold it even though they must return it. We can see this from the case of the etrog. Each person needs to own his own etrog, but what to do if etrogim are hard to find, as is often the case. Basically one passes it around, each time giving it as a gift on condition that it be given back. This is enough for us to consider the person as owning his own etrog.
אלא אמר רב אשי בכולהו קני לבר מאשה לפי שאין אשה נקנית בחליפין
Rather R. Ashi said: In all of these cases [the conditional gift] is valid, with the exception in that of a woman, because a woman cannot be acquired by symbolic exchange.
Rav Ashi says that gifts on condition that they be returned always count except for the case of betrothal. The problem is that this seems to be a case of symbolic exchange, a mechanism that allows for property to be exchanged in cases in which property is not present. But such a mechanism is not valid for betrothal.
א"ל רב הונא מר בריה דרב נחמיה לרב אשי הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבא כוותיך :
R. Huna Mar, son of R. Nehemiah, said to R. Ashi: We teach in Rava s name as you [have stated].
Here we see a very late amora tell R. Ashi that they teach R. Ashi s statement in the name of Rava. Here we can see a process that probably lies behind a lot of cases of amoraic transmission of oral material. An amora makes a statement, others raise difficulties on the statement, and then the statement is emended but still taught in the name of the original amora.