Kiddushin, Daf Yod Gimmel, Part 3
Introduction
Today s section discusses a story in which a man snatches an object from a woman and tries to betroth her with it.
ההיא איתתא דהוה קא מזבנה וורשכי
אתא ההוא גברא חטף וורשכא מינה
אמרה ליה הבה ניהלי
אמר לה אי יהיבנא ליך מיקדשת לי שקלתיה ואישתיקה
ואמר ר"נ יכולה למימר אין שקלי ודידי שקלי
A certain woman was selling belts. A man came and snatched one away from her.
She said to him, Give it back to me.
He said back, If I give it to you, will become betrothed to me?
She took it and was silent.
R. Nahman ruled: She can say: Indeed, I took it, but it was my own.
R. Nahman ruled that she is not betrothed.
איתיביה רבא לר"נ קידשה בגזל ובחמס ובגניבה או שחטף סלע מידה וקדשה מקודשת
התם בדשדיך
Rava raised an objection against R. Nahman: If he betroths her with [something obtained] by robbery, violence, or theft, or if he snatches a sela from her hand and betroths her, she is betrothed?
In that case, he had already made a shiddukh [marriage arrangement].
The baraita clearly states that if he steals something from her and then uses it for betrothal, she is betrothed. This is a direct contradiction with R. Nachman.
R. Nachman answers that in that case he had already made a shiddukh arranged the marriage. This bolsters the assumption that she was accepting the betrothal.
ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין שדיך ודלא שדיך
דתניא אמר לה כנסי סלע זו שאני חייב ליכי וחזר ואמר לה התקדשי לי בו בשעת מתן מעות רצתה מקודשת לא רצתה אינה מקודשת
לאחר מתן מעות אפילו רצתה אינה מקודשת
מאי רצתה ומאי לא רצתה אילימא רצתה דאמרה אין לא רצתה דאמרה לא הא אישתיקה הוו קידושין ונתני מקודשת סתם כי התם
And on what basis do I say that we draw a distinction between one who made a shidukh and one who did not?
As it was taught: If one says to a woman, Take this sela which I owe you, and then he says: Be betrothed to me with it : [if he said this] when giving the money and she consented, she is betrothed; if she did not consent, she is not betrothed;
After giving the money, even if she consented, she is not betrothed.
Now, what is the meaning of she consented, she did not consent ? If we say: she consented means that she said yes, she did not consent, that she said no : [We would then have to deduce] that if she remained silent, the kiddushin is valid?
Then it should simply have been taught: she is betrothed, just as there.
R. Nahman here is using a baraita that we have seen before to prove that there is a difference between a case where he did shiddukhin before the betrothal and one where he did not.
The Talmud asks what the meaning of the words she consented and she did not consent are in the first part of the baraita.
If we take these words literally, then by implication if she is silent, she would be betrothed. But if this is so, why not simply state she is betrothed. After all, this is simply a normal case if she says no, she is not betrothed, and if she says nothing, she is betrothed.
אלא רצתה דאמרה אין לא רצתה דאישתיקה וקא תני דאינה מקודשת
מאי טעמא יכולה למימר אין שקלי ודידי שקלי
But [we must say,] she consented means that she said yes, while she did not consent, that she was silent, and it was taught that she is not betrothed.
What is the reason? Because she can say: Indeed, I took it, and I took what was mine.
Rather, the baraita must mean that if she is silent, then she is not betrothed because she is only taking back what is hers. Note that this now agrees with R. Nahman s ruling from the case above. Essentially, R. Nahman has a baraita that supports his ruling.
ואלא קשיא הך דקדשה בגזל ובחמס ובגניבה או שחטף סלע מידה וקדשה מקודשת
אלא לאו שמע מינה הא דשדיך הא דלא שדיך
But then there is a difficulty, If he betroths her with [something obtained] by robbery, violence, or theft, or if he snatches a sela from her hand and betroths her, she is betrothed. Rather, learn from this that in the one case he had made a shidukh, whereas in the other he had not.
The problem now is that the two baraitot contradict each other. Therefore, R. Nahman resolves them by saying that one baraita refers to a case where he made a shiddukh first (arranged the marriage) and one where he did not. If he made a shidukh, he can betroth her even with something stolen because we can assume that she is agreeing to her marriage.
We should note that these questions comes up only when she is silent. If she says yes we know she is betrothed. If she says no, we know she is not. The only question is in a case where she stays silent.