Kiddushin, Daf Yod Gimmel, Part 1

 

Introduction

Rava issues a ruling in a case of kiddushin that came in front of him.

 

ההוא גברא דקדיש בציפתא דאסא

אמרו ליה והא לית בה ש"פ

אמר להו תיקדוש בארבע זוזי דאית בה

שקלתא ואישתיקא

אמר רבא הוה שתיקותא דלאחר מתן מעות וכל שתיקותא דלאחר מתן מעות לאו כלום היא

 

A certain man betrothed [a woman] with a mat of myrtle twigs.

They said to him, But it is not worth a perutah!

He said back, Then let her be betrothed with the four zuz that are in it.

She took it and remained silent.

Rava said: It is silence after receipt of the money, and such silence has no significance.

 

The issue here is what was the man was betrothing her with the mat of myrtle twigs or the money in it? She thought it was a worthless mat of twigs before she received it, and only saw the money after. The fact that she is silent after receiving it and does not protest is not, according to Rava, sufficient for her to be betrothed.

 

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתניא אמר לה כנסי סלע זו בפקדון וחזר ואמר לה התקדשי לי בו בשעת מתן מעות מקודשת לאחר מתן מעות רצתה מקודשת לא רצתה אינה מקודשת

מאי רצתה ומאי לא רצתה אילימא רצתה דאמרה אין לא רצתה דאמרה לא מכלל דרישא כי אמרה לא נמי הוו קידושין אמאי והא קאמרה לא אלא לאו רצתה דאמרה אין לא רצתה דאישתיקה משתקה ושמע מינה שתיקה דלאחר מתן מעות ולא כלום היא

 

Rava said: How do I know this? For it was taught: If he says to her, Take this sela as a deposit and then he says to her, Be betrothed to me with it, [if he made the declaration] when giving the money, she is betrothed; after giving the money, if she consented, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed.

What is meant by she consented, or she did not consent ? If we say: she consented means that she said yes, and she did not consent, that she said: no ? Then it follows that the first clause means that even if she said no, it is [valid] kiddushin. But why? She said no ?

Rather, she consented means that she said yes , while she did not consent, means she kept silent. Learn from this that silence after receipt of money has no significance.

 

Rava uses this baraita to prove that silence after accepting the money is not akin to consent. There are two situations in the baraita:

1) He says he is giving her the money as a deposit and then changes his mind and say it is kiddushin money. If she accepts the money, she is betrothed, even if she does not say yes. This is because she knows it is kiddushin before she accepts it.

2) He gives her the money as a deposit and then says it is kiddushin. If she accepts the proposal, she is betrothed. But if all she does is remain silent, she is not betrothed. Since she did not know what it was before she accepted it, she needs to have an active affirmation of her acceptance.

This is how Rava learns that silence after accepting the money is not legally significant. On the other hand, silence before receiving the money is legally significant. The very act of taking the money from the husband counts as kiddushin.