Kiddushin, Daf Zayin, Part 2
Today s section continues with Rava s discussions of pushing the limits of betrothal law.
בעי רבא הילך מנה ואקדש אני לך מהו?
אמר מר זוטרא משמיה דרב פפא מקודשת
Rava asked: What [if a woman declares,] Here is a maneh and I will become betrothed to you?
Mar Zutra said in the name of R. Papa: She is betrothed.
R. Papa rules that the woman may give the money to the man and say that she will become betrothed to him. Note that some commentators say that the man must also say back Behold you are betrothed to me. But this is not necessarily the meaning of the text.
It might be argued that this is a glimpse of a more egalitarian version of betrothal. The woman gives the money and makes the declaration. I am not sure if this is what motivates these amoraim, but it certainly might be possible.
אמר ליה רב אשי למר זוטרא אם כן הוה ליה נכסים שיש להם אחריות נקנין עם נכסים שאין להם אחריות ואנן איפכא תנן נכסים שאין להם אחריות נקנין עם נכסים שיש להם אחריות בכסף בשטר ובחזקה
R. Ashi objected to Mar Zutra: If so, property which serves as a guarantee [real estate] is acquired as together with property which does not serve as a guarantee [movables]; whereas we learned the reverse: Property which does not serve as a guarantee may be acquired together with property which does serve as a guarantee by money, deed, or hazakah?
According to a mishnah we will learn later in the tractate, one can acquire money along with a transaction of real estate. So if I buy a piece of land, I can acquire things with it, without a special act. But the opposite is not true I cannot acquire land by acquiring movables. The case brought above, to R. Ashi, is a case of the woman transferring money to the man, and through this money, transferring herself, and she counts as real estate. Thus it would be a breach of mishnaic halakhah.
Hazakah is the rule of possession. We will learn about this more later in the masechet.
אמר ליה מי סברת דאמרה ליה אגב הכא באדם חשוב עסקינן דבההיא הנאה דקא מקבל מתנה מינה גמרה ומקניא ליה נפשה
He said to him: Do you think that she said to him, Along with ? Here we are referring to an important person and in return for the benefit [she derives] from his accepting a gift from her, she completely cedes herself.
Mar Zutra points out that the woman was not saying you will acquire me [in betrothal] along with this money. This would indeed not work. The mechanism of betrothal is that she is deriving benefit. If he is an important man, she might derive benefit from the very fact that he receives a present from him. Thus this is a quid pro quo she receives benefit and she gives herself in betrothal. Note that Mar Zutra is willing to abstract the notion of benefit in order to allow this form of betrothal to work.
איתמר נמי משמיה דרבא וכן לענין ממונא
It has been stated likewise in Rava s name: The same applies to monetary matters.
This refers back to what Rava taught in yesterday s section. All of the strange ways that Rava said betrothal can work, can also work for selling a field.
וצריכא דאי אשמועינן קידושין משום דהא איתתא ניחא לה בכל דהו כדריש לקיש דאמר ר"ל טב למיתב טן דו מלמיתב ארמלו אבל ממונא אימא לא
Now, both are necessary: had it taught us this about kiddushin [only], that is because a woman is pleased [even] with very little, in accordance with Resh Lakish, for Resh Lakish said: It is better to dwell in a partnership than to dwell in widowhood; but as for money, I might have said it is not so.
The Talmud now asks why we need to know that these roundabout means of acquisition work for both betrothal and sales.
If we had said that they work for betrothal, it might have been because the Talmud assumes that women would prefer to be married to unmarried. Thus we might have said that a woman allows herself to be betrothed even though she receives no benefit. But when it comes to selling a field, I would have said that this is not true. The seller must receive benefit for the sale to be valid. Therefore, Rava says that the same is true with regard to selling.
Resh Lakish s statement appears several times in the Talmud and has, on occasion, been used to assume that a woman would prefer a bad marriage over no marriage. However, this is not necessarily the original meaning. It might just mean that she prefers to be married in general, but not if the marriage is bad.
ואי אשמועינן ממונא משום דאיתיהיב למחילה אבל קידושין אימא לא צריכא :
And if he had taught us this regarding monetary matters, that is because it can be waived; but as for kiddushin, I would say it is not so. Hence both are necessary.
A person can just give away his property I can waive my rights to my property. Therefore, it seems obvious that a person could transfer his property without receiving any benefit. But kiddushin does require a transfer of money, otherwise it cannot happen. Therefore, Rava had to tell us that a woman can actually, in a roundabout way, be betrothed without receiving any money.