Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

September 29, 2023 | 讬状讚 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Kiddushin 47

Rava holds that according to Rabbi Ami who thinks that the case in the Mishna where the woman ate each date as it was given to her is referring to the case of “this one and this one,” it would be limited to that case only and not to one where the man said, “betroth me with all of these.” A braita is brought to support this statement of Rava. After explaining how the braita supports Rava, they need to explain how to read the last line in the braita according to Rav and Shmuel and Rabbi Ami. Rav holds that a betrothal cannot be effected by canceling a loan that the woman owes the man because a loan is intended for spending and therefore the money owed is not considered owned by the man. Is this a subject of debate among tannaim? Two braitot are brought to attempt to show that what Rav said is a tannaitic debate. However, they reject both suggestions as each braita can be explained to be referring to a debate about a different subject. Another braita is brought to raise a difficulty against Rav. But, again, to resolve the difficulty, they suggest an alternative reading of the braita, which then again raises the possibility that Rav’s statement is a subject of debate among tannaim, but this too is rejected.

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讛 讘讗诇讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇转 谞诪讬 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻讬 拽讗 讗讻诇讛 诪讚谞驻砖讛 拽讗讻诇讛


The mishna taught that if she ate the dates one by one their value is not added together only if he said to her that she is betrothed: With this one, and with this one, and with this one, which indicates that she is not betrothed until she has received them all. But if he said to her that he is betrothing her: With these, i.e., with all of them together, even if she is eating them one by one she is also betrothed if their combined value is one peruta. The reason is that when she eats, she eats of her own food. Once she has accepted the dates as money for betrothal, they become her own property and she is betrothed.


转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讗诇讜谉 讘专诪讜谉 讜讘讗讙讜讝 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讻讜诇谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讻讜诇诐 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘讝讜 谞讟诇转讜 讜讗讻诇转讜 讘讝讜 谞讟诇转讜 讜讗讻诇转讜 讜注讜讚 讘讝讜 讜注讜讚 讘讝讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with the fruit of an oak tree, i.e., an acorn, with a pomegranate, and with a nut, or if he said to her: Be betrothed to me with these, if combined they are worth one peruta, she is betrothed. But if not, she is not betrothed. If he said to her: Be betrothed to me with this one, and with this one, and with this one, if combined they are worth one peruta, she is betrothed. But if not, she is not betrothed. If he said to her: Be betrothed to me with this one, and she took it and ate it; with this one, and she took it and ate it; and also with this one and also with this one, she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth one peruta. This concludes the baraita.


讛讗讬 讘讗诇讜谉 讘专诪讜谉 讘讗讙讜讝 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讗讜 讘讗诇讜谉 讗讜 讘专诪讜谉 讗讜 讘讗讙讜讝 讗诐 讬砖 讘讻讜诇谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讛讗 讗讜 拽讗诪专 讜讗诇讗 讘讗诇讜谉 讜讘专诪讜谉 讜讘讗讙讜讝 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讘讗诇讜 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘讗诇讜 注住拽讬谞谉


The Gemara proceeds to prove Rava鈥檚 ruling from the baraita. What are the circumstances in this first case, where he said: With the fruit of an oak tree, with a pomegranate, with a nut? If we say that he said to her: Either with the fruit of an oak tree, or with a pomegranate, or with a nut, why is the halakha that if combined they are worth one peruta she is betrothed? But didn鈥檛 he say: Or, which indicates that she is betrothed with only one of them, and that one item should need to be worth one peruta? But rather, if we say that he said to her: With the fruit of an oak tree, and with a pomegranate, and with a nut together, that is the same as saying: With this one, and with this one, and with this one. That halakha is stated in the subsequent clause of the baraita, and would be redundant. Rather, is it not referring to a case where he said to her: Be betrothed to me with these? But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: Or if he said to her: Be betrothed to me with these, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with a situation where he said: These.


驻讬专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讗诇讜谉 讘专诪讜谉 讘讗讙讜讝 讻讬爪讚 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讗诇讜


The Gemara continues with the explication of the baraita: Rather, it is to be understood as an initial, general statement, which the tanna is then explaining, as follows: If one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with the fruit of an oak tree, with a pomegranate, with a nut; the baraita pauses and explains the circumstances of the case: How so? For example, when he gave her these three items and said to her: Be betrothed to me with these.


讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讘讝讜 谞讟诇转讜 讜讗讻诇转讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讗讞转 诪讛诐 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


The Gemara continues with its proof: And the latter clause of the baraita teaches a second possibility: If he said to her that she is betrothed: With this one, and she took it and ate it, then if one of them is worth one peruta, she is betrothed. And if not, she is not betrothed.


讜讗讬诇讜 专讬砖讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪驻诇讬讙 讘讬谉 讗讜讻诇转 诇诪谞讞转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讘讗诇讜 讻讬 拽讗 讗讻诇讛 诪谞驻砖讛 拽讗 讗讻诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


While in contrast to this, in the first clause of the baraita the tanna does not distinguish between a woman who is eating the items and one who is placing them in her possession. In either case, she is betrothed. You can conclude from the baraita that any case where he said to her: With these, if they were worth one peruta combined, then when she is eating them she is eating of her own food. It is not considered a loan. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that Rava鈥檚 statement is correct.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诪讗讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one, i.e., Rabbi Ami, who says that the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, where he said: Be betrothed to me with this and with that, and who explained: What is the meaning of: She is not betrothed unless one of them is worth one peruta? Unless the last one is worth one peruta. So too, the baraita can be explained: Unless the last one is worth one peruta.


讗诇讗 诇专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜讗讜讻诇转 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讻诇诇讬 拽讞砖讬讘 驻专讟讬 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘


But according to Rav and Shmuel, who both say that the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the first clause of the mishna, how would they explain the statement of the baraita? In the first clause of the mishna, one said: Be betrothed to me with this, be betrothed to me with that, and if one of them is worth one peruta she is betrothed. And Rav and Shmuel explained that it was necessary for the tanna to mention the case of a woman who is eating to teach that despite her immediate benefit, one of the dates must be worth one peruta for her to be betrothed. The phrase: Unless one of them is worth one peruta, indicates that one alone must be worth one peruta. But here the baraita lists only groupings; it does not list individual items. The baraita states a case where he said to her: Be betrothed to me, only once, followed by a statement that the three items should serve as the betrothal money. Why, then, does one of them need to be worth one peruta?


讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬


The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha of the baraita taught? It is that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says with regard to the laws of piggul, which is an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume an olive-bulk of it after its appointed time or outside the boundaries of where it must be consumed: There is no difference whether he says that he intends to consume: An olive-bulk after its time, an olive-bulk outside its boundaries, i.e., without employing the word: And; or whether he said that he intends to consume an olive-bulk after its time and an olive-bulk outside its boundaries, i.e., employing the word: And. Both expressions are considered individual statements, since he is treating each statement separately, and in neither case does he intend to combine the two amounts. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, when one says: With this and with this, each statement is distinct. Consequently, although she derives immediate benefit by eating the dates she receives, she is betrothed only if one of them is worth one peruta on its own.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪诇讜讛 诇讛讜爪讗讛 谞讬转谞讛 谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 诇讛讜爪讗讛 谞讬转谞讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 诇讗讜 诇讛讜爪讗讛 谞讬转谞讛


Rav says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, since a loan is given to be spent. Consequently, from the moment the money is lent it no longer belongs to the lender, and he cannot betroth a woman with it. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, and some say she is betrothed. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage holds that a loan is given to be spent, and one Sage holds that a loan is not given to be spent?


讜转住讘专讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜砖讜讬诐 讘诪讻专 砖讝讛 拽谞讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪诇讜讛 诇讛讜爪讗讛 谞讬转谞讛 讘诪讗讬 拽谞讬


The Gemara questions this suggestion: And how can you understand it that way? Say the latter clause of that same baraita: And they agree with regard to the case of a sale that he acquires it. Although they disagree as to whether one can betroth a woman with a loan he has given her, they agree that a lender can purchase an item from the debtor in exchange for forgiving the money he has lent him. If you say that a loan is given to be spent, with what has he acquired it? There is no money with which to effect an acquisition. No proof can be derived from this baraita, which cannot be understood as stated.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘诪讬诇讬 讗讜讞专讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讜谞诪爪讗 诪谞讛 讞住专 讚讬谞专 诪专 住讘专 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬转讘注讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬转讘注讬讛


Rav Na岣an says: Our colleague Rav Huna interprets the baraita as referring to other matters and not as referring to a straightforward case of a loan. And with what are we dealing here? A case where he said to her: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and it was found to be one hundred dinars less one dinar, the missing dinar is considered to be a loan that he has taken from her. One Sage, who said the woman is not betrothed, holds that the matter is embarrassing for her, preventing her from claiming the final dinar from him, and since he has failed to fulfill his statement she is not betrothed. And one Sage, who said that she is betrothed, holds that the matter is not embarrassing for her and is not preventing her from claiming the final dinar. He is therefore considered to have fulfilled his statement and borrowed one dinar from her, which he will repay in due course, but she is nevertheless betrothed.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讜谞转谉 诇讛 讚讬谞专 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讬砖诇讬诐 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专讬 诪谞讛 讞住专 讚讬谞专 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬转讘注讬讛 诪谞讛 讞住专 转砖注讬诐 讜转砖注 诇讗 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬转讘注讬讛


The Gemara asks: But rather, with regard to that which Rabbi Elazar says: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and he gave her one dinar, she is betrothed and he must later finish giving the full sum; let us say that his statement is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. The Sages say to distinguish between the cases: Where he gave her one hundred dinars less a dinar, the matter is embarrassing for her, preventing her from claiming the final dinar from him, since he has given her almost the entire sum. But if he gave her one hundred dinars less ninety-nine, the matter is not embarrassing for her and is not preventing her from claiming the rest of the dinars. Therefore, all would agree that she is betrothed in the latter case.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘驻拽讚讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讻讛 讜诪爪讗转讜 砖谞讙谞讘 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 讗诐 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讘诪诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪诇讜讛


The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav from a baraita: In the case of one who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with the deposit that I have in your possession, and she went and found that the deposit had been stolen or that it had been lost, if the value of one peruta of it remains she is betrothed with that amount. And if not, she is not betrothed, since there is nothing to effect the betrothal. But if he said to her that he is betrothing her with a loan that he had given her, she is betrothed, even though the value of one peruta of it does not remain. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A loan


讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻驻拽讚讜谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜诪专 住讘专 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讗 讗讘诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


is like a deposit. The Gemara analyzes this: They disagree only with regard to this: There is one Sage who holds that one can betroth a woman with a loan, even though the value of one peruta does not remain of it. And one Sage holds that if the value of one peruta remains from it, yes, he can betroth her with it, but if the value of one peruta does not remain of it, he cannot. But everyone agrees that if one betroths a woman with a loan, she is betrothed. This presents a difficulty for Rav, who stated that one cannot betroth a woman with a loan.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 诪转专爪转讗 讛讗 诪砖讘砖转讗 讛讬讗


Rava said to him: And how can you understand it that way? Is this baraita fully explainable? It is corrupted and cannot be cited as a proof.


讛讗讬 驻拽讚讜谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 诪诇讜讛 讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讘诪诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 谞讬驻诇讜讙 讜谞讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讘诇 拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


He explains why the baraita must be corrupted: What are the circumstances of this deposit discussed in the baraita? If she assumed financial responsibility to repay the owner for it if it is stolen or lost, it is the same as a loan, as even if it is entirely lost she must still repay its value. If she did not assume financial responsibility for it, then if so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the baraita: But if he betroths her with a loan that he had given her, she is betrothed despite the fact that the value of one peruta of it does not remain; let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself, as follows: In what case is this statement said, that she is not betrothed if less than the value of one peruta remains from the deposit? If she did not assume financial responsibility upon herself for it. But if she assumed financial responsibility upon herself, even though the value of one peruta did not remain from it, she is betrothed.


讗诇讗 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讜讘诪诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


Rather, since the wording of the baraita cannot remain as is, answer this way: But if he betroths her with a loan that he had given her, she is not betrothed, despite the fact that the value of one peruta of it remains.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪诇讜讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻驻拽讚讜谉 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讘讘讬 专讘 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讘诪诇讜讛 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 诇讞讝专讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讗讜谞住讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The baraita stated that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A loan is like a deposit. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabba said: I found the scholars in the study hall of Rav who were sitting and saying: They disagree with regard to the issue of whether a loan the debtor had not yet begun to spend is in the possession of the owner with regard to the possibility of retraction of the loan by the lender. And the same is true, i.e., they also disagree, with regard to who bears responsibility for accidents.


讚诪专 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 讘专砖讜转 诇讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讗讜谞住讬诐 讜诪专 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讗讜谞住讬诐


As one Sage, the first tanna, holds: A loan stands in the possession of the debtor, i.e., even if it has not been spent, the lender cannot demand the return of the money. And the same is true with regard to responsibility for accidents, i.e., if the money is lost, it is considered lost from the debtor鈥檚 possession and he bears responsibility for it. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds: A loan that the debtor has not yet begun to spend stands in the possession of the owner, and the same is true with regard to responsibility for accidents. He can therefore betroth a woman with the money he has already lent her, provided that she has not yet begun to spend it.


讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 诇讗讜谞住讬诐 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘专砖讜转 诇讜讛 拽讬讬诪讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讙专注讗 诪砖讗诇讛 诪讛 砖讗诇讛 讚讛讚专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讜谞住讬诐 诪诇讜讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪诇讜讛 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 诇讞讝专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


Rabba continues: And I said to them: With regard to accidents, everyone agrees that it stands in the possession of the debtor and he is responsible for the money. What is the reason? A loan of money is no worse than borrowing an item. Just as in the case of borrowing an item, whereby the item is returned to its owner intact and yet the debtor is liable for accidents, as explicitly stated in the Torah, is it not all the more so that with regard to a loan, which the debtor spends and repays with other money, it should be considered in the debtor鈥檚 possession and he should bear responsibility for it? Rather, here the practical difference between them concerns the question of a loan in the possession of the owner with regard to the possibility of retraction of the loan. The first tanna is of the opinion that he cannot retract the loan, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that he can do so.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛砖讜讗诇 拽讜专讚讜诐 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘讬拽注 讘讜 拽谞讗讜 诇讗 讘讬拽注 讘讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛


The Gemara asks: But rather, with regard to that which Rav Huna says: In the case of one who borrows an ax from his friend for a certain period of time, if he chops wood with it he has acquired it in the sense that the lender cannot demand its immediate return. If he has not chopped wood with it he has not acquired it. Let us say that this halakha that Rav Huna stated is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. According to the explanation of Rabba, it would be a dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.


诇讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘诪诇讜讛 讚诇讗 讛讚专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讘砖讗诇讛 讚讛讚专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讬拽注 讘讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讘讬拽注 讘讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, they disagree only with regard to a loan, which is not returned intact. Since there is no need for the debtor to return the same money to the lender, this means that the money has been transferred to the debtor鈥檚 domain, and the first tanna holds that the lender may not retract the loan. But with regard to the borrowing of an item, for example the ax, which is returned intact, everyone agrees that if one chopped with it, yes, he has acquired it and is responsible for it. If he has not chopped with it, he has not acquired it.


谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘砖讟专 讞讜讘 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诪诇讜讛 讘讬讚 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讬专砖讛 注诇讬讛诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讗讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讚讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 诪诇讜讛 讘讬讚 讗讞专讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讚讬讚讛 讜讘诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav鈥檚 statement that one cannot betroth a woman with a loan is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. The baraita teaches: If one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with a promissory note, or if he had a loan in the possession of others and he authorized her to collect the money for herself, Rabbi Meir says she is betrothed and the Rabbis say she is not betrothed. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this promissory note? If we say it is a promissory note of others who owe him money, this is the same as a loan in the possession of others, and why would the baraita state it twice? Rather, is it not referring to her promissory note, i.e., a loan she has taken from him, and they disagree with regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, whether forgiving the debt by returning the promissory note counts as betrothal money?


诇注讜诇诐 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讚讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讻讗 讘诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讜讘诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Actually, the baraita is referring to a promissory note of others, and here they disagree in two cases: In the case of a loan with a promissory note and in the case of a loan by oral agreement.


讘诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讻转讘 讜诇讗 诪住专 讘讬谉 砖诪住专 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讜讬诪住讜专


The Gemara explains: With regard to a loan with a promissory note, concerning what matter do they disagree? They disagree concerning the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: Letters, i.e., the content of a promissory note, are acquired by merely transferring the document. If the lender hands over a promissory note to a third party, the latter can collect the debt. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: Whether one wrote a document of sale for the promissory note but did not transfer the promissory note itself, or whether he transferred the promissory note but did not write a document of sale for it, the recipient has not acquired the promissory note. The recipient acquires it only once the other writes a document of sale and transfers the promissory note.


诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬


The suggestion is that one Sage, Rabbi Meir, is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and therefore one can betroth a woman by giving her a promissory note even without writing a document of sale for it. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, is not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and she is not betrothed because she has not received anything.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讚专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讟专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诇讱 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 砖注讘讜讚讬讛 诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗


And if you wish, say instead the following answer: No one is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and here they disagree with regard to the statement of Rav Pappa, as Rav Pappa says: This one who sells a promissory note to his friend must write the following formula for him: Let it be acquired by you, it and all its liens. Otherwise, the debt discussed in the promissory note is not transferred. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, is not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa. He holds that the debt is acquired even if one did not write this phrase, and a man can betroth a woman by giving a promissory note to her.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇


And if you wish, say instead: Everyone is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa, and even Rabbi Meir agrees that she is betrothed only if he wrote in the document: Let it be acquired by you, it and all its liens. And here they disagree with regard to the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says:


  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddushin: 46 – 52 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the law if a man betrothes a woman by telling her he will give her...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 47: How a Woman’s Sensibility Affects Kiddushin

Betrothing with a loan does not work - but why not? What is the rationale for the mechanism not bringing...
date rimon date tree

Species Story

While today most people get married using a ring, the Mishnah and the Gemara offer us some more creative options:...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 37: Settling the Land – with Mitzvot

Mitzvot that depend on the land only apply in the land of Israel. Mitzvot that are not dependent on the...

Kiddushin 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 47

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讛 讘讗诇讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇转 谞诪讬 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻讬 拽讗 讗讻诇讛 诪讚谞驻砖讛 拽讗讻诇讛


The mishna taught that if she ate the dates one by one their value is not added together only if he said to her that she is betrothed: With this one, and with this one, and with this one, which indicates that she is not betrothed until she has received them all. But if he said to her that he is betrothing her: With these, i.e., with all of them together, even if she is eating them one by one she is also betrothed if their combined value is one peruta. The reason is that when she eats, she eats of her own food. Once she has accepted the dates as money for betrothal, they become her own property and she is betrothed.


转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讗诇讜谉 讘专诪讜谉 讜讘讗讙讜讝 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讻讜诇谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讻讜诇诐 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘讝讜 谞讟诇转讜 讜讗讻诇转讜 讘讝讜 谞讟诇转讜 讜讗讻诇转讜 讜注讜讚 讘讝讜 讜注讜讚 讘讝讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with the fruit of an oak tree, i.e., an acorn, with a pomegranate, and with a nut, or if he said to her: Be betrothed to me with these, if combined they are worth one peruta, she is betrothed. But if not, she is not betrothed. If he said to her: Be betrothed to me with this one, and with this one, and with this one, if combined they are worth one peruta, she is betrothed. But if not, she is not betrothed. If he said to her: Be betrothed to me with this one, and she took it and ate it; with this one, and she took it and ate it; and also with this one and also with this one, she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth one peruta. This concludes the baraita.


讛讗讬 讘讗诇讜谉 讘专诪讜谉 讘讗讙讜讝 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讗讜 讘讗诇讜谉 讗讜 讘专诪讜谉 讗讜 讘讗讙讜讝 讗诐 讬砖 讘讻讜诇谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讛讗 讗讜 拽讗诪专 讜讗诇讗 讘讗诇讜谉 讜讘专诪讜谉 讜讘讗讙讜讝 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讘讗诇讜 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘讗诇讜 注住拽讬谞谉


The Gemara proceeds to prove Rava鈥檚 ruling from the baraita. What are the circumstances in this first case, where he said: With the fruit of an oak tree, with a pomegranate, with a nut? If we say that he said to her: Either with the fruit of an oak tree, or with a pomegranate, or with a nut, why is the halakha that if combined they are worth one peruta she is betrothed? But didn鈥檛 he say: Or, which indicates that she is betrothed with only one of them, and that one item should need to be worth one peruta? But rather, if we say that he said to her: With the fruit of an oak tree, and with a pomegranate, and with a nut together, that is the same as saying: With this one, and with this one, and with this one. That halakha is stated in the subsequent clause of the baraita, and would be redundant. Rather, is it not referring to a case where he said to her: Be betrothed to me with these? But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: Or if he said to her: Be betrothed to me with these, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with a situation where he said: These.


驻讬专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讗诇讜谉 讘专诪讜谉 讘讗讙讜讝 讻讬爪讚 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讗诇讜


The Gemara continues with the explication of the baraita: Rather, it is to be understood as an initial, general statement, which the tanna is then explaining, as follows: If one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with the fruit of an oak tree, with a pomegranate, with a nut; the baraita pauses and explains the circumstances of the case: How so? For example, when he gave her these three items and said to her: Be betrothed to me with these.


讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讘讝讜 谞讟诇转讜 讜讗讻诇转讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讗讞转 诪讛诐 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


The Gemara continues with its proof: And the latter clause of the baraita teaches a second possibility: If he said to her that she is betrothed: With this one, and she took it and ate it, then if one of them is worth one peruta, she is betrothed. And if not, she is not betrothed.


讜讗讬诇讜 专讬砖讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪驻诇讬讙 讘讬谉 讗讜讻诇转 诇诪谞讞转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讘讗诇讜 讻讬 拽讗 讗讻诇讛 诪谞驻砖讛 拽讗 讗讻诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


While in contrast to this, in the first clause of the baraita the tanna does not distinguish between a woman who is eating the items and one who is placing them in her possession. In either case, she is betrothed. You can conclude from the baraita that any case where he said to her: With these, if they were worth one peruta combined, then when she is eating them she is eating of her own food. It is not considered a loan. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that Rava鈥檚 statement is correct.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诪讗讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one, i.e., Rabbi Ami, who says that the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, where he said: Be betrothed to me with this and with that, and who explained: What is the meaning of: She is not betrothed unless one of them is worth one peruta? Unless the last one is worth one peruta. So too, the baraita can be explained: Unless the last one is worth one peruta.


讗诇讗 诇专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜讗讜讻诇转 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讻诇诇讬 拽讞砖讬讘 驻专讟讬 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘


But according to Rav and Shmuel, who both say that the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the first clause of the mishna, how would they explain the statement of the baraita? In the first clause of the mishna, one said: Be betrothed to me with this, be betrothed to me with that, and if one of them is worth one peruta she is betrothed. And Rav and Shmuel explained that it was necessary for the tanna to mention the case of a woman who is eating to teach that despite her immediate benefit, one of the dates must be worth one peruta for her to be betrothed. The phrase: Unless one of them is worth one peruta, indicates that one alone must be worth one peruta. But here the baraita lists only groupings; it does not list individual items. The baraita states a case where he said to her: Be betrothed to me, only once, followed by a statement that the three items should serve as the betrothal money. Why, then, does one of them need to be worth one peruta?


讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬


The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha of the baraita taught? It is that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says with regard to the laws of piggul, which is an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume an olive-bulk of it after its appointed time or outside the boundaries of where it must be consumed: There is no difference whether he says that he intends to consume: An olive-bulk after its time, an olive-bulk outside its boundaries, i.e., without employing the word: And; or whether he said that he intends to consume an olive-bulk after its time and an olive-bulk outside its boundaries, i.e., employing the word: And. Both expressions are considered individual statements, since he is treating each statement separately, and in neither case does he intend to combine the two amounts. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, when one says: With this and with this, each statement is distinct. Consequently, although she derives immediate benefit by eating the dates she receives, she is betrothed only if one of them is worth one peruta on its own.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪诇讜讛 诇讛讜爪讗讛 谞讬转谞讛 谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 诇讛讜爪讗讛 谞讬转谞讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 诇讗讜 诇讛讜爪讗讛 谞讬转谞讛


Rav says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, since a loan is given to be spent. Consequently, from the moment the money is lent it no longer belongs to the lender, and he cannot betroth a woman with it. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, and some say she is betrothed. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage holds that a loan is given to be spent, and one Sage holds that a loan is not given to be spent?


讜转住讘专讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜砖讜讬诐 讘诪讻专 砖讝讛 拽谞讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪诇讜讛 诇讛讜爪讗讛 谞讬转谞讛 讘诪讗讬 拽谞讬


The Gemara questions this suggestion: And how can you understand it that way? Say the latter clause of that same baraita: And they agree with regard to the case of a sale that he acquires it. Although they disagree as to whether one can betroth a woman with a loan he has given her, they agree that a lender can purchase an item from the debtor in exchange for forgiving the money he has lent him. If you say that a loan is given to be spent, with what has he acquired it? There is no money with which to effect an acquisition. No proof can be derived from this baraita, which cannot be understood as stated.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘诪讬诇讬 讗讜讞专讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讜谞诪爪讗 诪谞讛 讞住专 讚讬谞专 诪专 住讘专 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬转讘注讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬转讘注讬讛


Rav Na岣an says: Our colleague Rav Huna interprets the baraita as referring to other matters and not as referring to a straightforward case of a loan. And with what are we dealing here? A case where he said to her: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and it was found to be one hundred dinars less one dinar, the missing dinar is considered to be a loan that he has taken from her. One Sage, who said the woman is not betrothed, holds that the matter is embarrassing for her, preventing her from claiming the final dinar from him, and since he has failed to fulfill his statement she is not betrothed. And one Sage, who said that she is betrothed, holds that the matter is not embarrassing for her and is not preventing her from claiming the final dinar. He is therefore considered to have fulfilled his statement and borrowed one dinar from her, which he will repay in due course, but she is nevertheless betrothed.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讜谞转谉 诇讛 讚讬谞专 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讬砖诇讬诐 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专讬 诪谞讛 讞住专 讚讬谞专 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬转讘注讬讛 诪谞讛 讞住专 转砖注讬诐 讜转砖注 诇讗 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬转讘注讬讛


The Gemara asks: But rather, with regard to that which Rabbi Elazar says: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and he gave her one dinar, she is betrothed and he must later finish giving the full sum; let us say that his statement is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. The Sages say to distinguish between the cases: Where he gave her one hundred dinars less a dinar, the matter is embarrassing for her, preventing her from claiming the final dinar from him, since he has given her almost the entire sum. But if he gave her one hundred dinars less ninety-nine, the matter is not embarrassing for her and is not preventing her from claiming the rest of the dinars. Therefore, all would agree that she is betrothed in the latter case.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘驻拽讚讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讻讛 讜诪爪讗转讜 砖谞讙谞讘 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 讗诐 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讘诪诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪诇讜讛


The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav from a baraita: In the case of one who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with the deposit that I have in your possession, and she went and found that the deposit had been stolen or that it had been lost, if the value of one peruta of it remains she is betrothed with that amount. And if not, she is not betrothed, since there is nothing to effect the betrothal. But if he said to her that he is betrothing her with a loan that he had given her, she is betrothed, even though the value of one peruta of it does not remain. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A loan


讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻驻拽讚讜谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜诪专 住讘专 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讗 讗讘诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


is like a deposit. The Gemara analyzes this: They disagree only with regard to this: There is one Sage who holds that one can betroth a woman with a loan, even though the value of one peruta does not remain of it. And one Sage holds that if the value of one peruta remains from it, yes, he can betroth her with it, but if the value of one peruta does not remain of it, he cannot. But everyone agrees that if one betroths a woman with a loan, she is betrothed. This presents a difficulty for Rav, who stated that one cannot betroth a woman with a loan.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 诪转专爪转讗 讛讗 诪砖讘砖转讗 讛讬讗


Rava said to him: And how can you understand it that way? Is this baraita fully explainable? It is corrupted and cannot be cited as a proof.


讛讗讬 驻拽讚讜谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 诪诇讜讛 讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讘诪诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 谞讬驻诇讜讙 讜谞讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讘诇 拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


He explains why the baraita must be corrupted: What are the circumstances of this deposit discussed in the baraita? If she assumed financial responsibility to repay the owner for it if it is stolen or lost, it is the same as a loan, as even if it is entirely lost she must still repay its value. If she did not assume financial responsibility for it, then if so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the baraita: But if he betroths her with a loan that he had given her, she is betrothed despite the fact that the value of one peruta of it does not remain; let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself, as follows: In what case is this statement said, that she is not betrothed if less than the value of one peruta remains from the deposit? If she did not assume financial responsibility upon herself for it. But if she assumed financial responsibility upon herself, even though the value of one peruta did not remain from it, she is betrothed.


讗诇讗 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讜讘诪诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


Rather, since the wording of the baraita cannot remain as is, answer this way: But if he betroths her with a loan that he had given her, she is not betrothed, despite the fact that the value of one peruta of it remains.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪诇讜讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻驻拽讚讜谉 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讘讘讬 专讘 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讘诪诇讜讛 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 诇讞讝专讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讗讜谞住讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The baraita stated that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A loan is like a deposit. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabba said: I found the scholars in the study hall of Rav who were sitting and saying: They disagree with regard to the issue of whether a loan the debtor had not yet begun to spend is in the possession of the owner with regard to the possibility of retraction of the loan by the lender. And the same is true, i.e., they also disagree, with regard to who bears responsibility for accidents.


讚诪专 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 讘专砖讜转 诇讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讗讜谞住讬诐 讜诪专 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讗讜谞住讬诐


As one Sage, the first tanna, holds: A loan stands in the possession of the debtor, i.e., even if it has not been spent, the lender cannot demand the return of the money. And the same is true with regard to responsibility for accidents, i.e., if the money is lost, it is considered lost from the debtor鈥檚 possession and he bears responsibility for it. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds: A loan that the debtor has not yet begun to spend stands in the possession of the owner, and the same is true with regard to responsibility for accidents. He can therefore betroth a woman with the money he has already lent her, provided that she has not yet begun to spend it.


讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 诇讗讜谞住讬诐 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘专砖讜转 诇讜讛 拽讬讬诪讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讙专注讗 诪砖讗诇讛 诪讛 砖讗诇讛 讚讛讚专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讜谞住讬诐 诪诇讜讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪诇讜讛 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 诇讞讝专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


Rabba continues: And I said to them: With regard to accidents, everyone agrees that it stands in the possession of the debtor and he is responsible for the money. What is the reason? A loan of money is no worse than borrowing an item. Just as in the case of borrowing an item, whereby the item is returned to its owner intact and yet the debtor is liable for accidents, as explicitly stated in the Torah, is it not all the more so that with regard to a loan, which the debtor spends and repays with other money, it should be considered in the debtor鈥檚 possession and he should bear responsibility for it? Rather, here the practical difference between them concerns the question of a loan in the possession of the owner with regard to the possibility of retraction of the loan. The first tanna is of the opinion that he cannot retract the loan, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that he can do so.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛砖讜讗诇 拽讜专讚讜诐 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘讬拽注 讘讜 拽谞讗讜 诇讗 讘讬拽注 讘讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛


The Gemara asks: But rather, with regard to that which Rav Huna says: In the case of one who borrows an ax from his friend for a certain period of time, if he chops wood with it he has acquired it in the sense that the lender cannot demand its immediate return. If he has not chopped wood with it he has not acquired it. Let us say that this halakha that Rav Huna stated is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. According to the explanation of Rabba, it would be a dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.


诇讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘诪诇讜讛 讚诇讗 讛讚专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讘砖讗诇讛 讚讛讚专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讬拽注 讘讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讘讬拽注 讘讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, they disagree only with regard to a loan, which is not returned intact. Since there is no need for the debtor to return the same money to the lender, this means that the money has been transferred to the debtor鈥檚 domain, and the first tanna holds that the lender may not retract the loan. But with regard to the borrowing of an item, for example the ax, which is returned intact, everyone agrees that if one chopped with it, yes, he has acquired it and is responsible for it. If he has not chopped with it, he has not acquired it.


谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘砖讟专 讞讜讘 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诪诇讜讛 讘讬讚 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讬专砖讛 注诇讬讛诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讗讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讚讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 诪诇讜讛 讘讬讚 讗讞专讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讚讬讚讛 讜讘诪拽讚砖 讘诪诇讜讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav鈥檚 statement that one cannot betroth a woman with a loan is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. The baraita teaches: If one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with a promissory note, or if he had a loan in the possession of others and he authorized her to collect the money for herself, Rabbi Meir says she is betrothed and the Rabbis say she is not betrothed. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this promissory note? If we say it is a promissory note of others who owe him money, this is the same as a loan in the possession of others, and why would the baraita state it twice? Rather, is it not referring to her promissory note, i.e., a loan she has taken from him, and they disagree with regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, whether forgiving the debt by returning the promissory note counts as betrothal money?


诇注讜诇诐 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讚讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讻讗 讘诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讜讘诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Actually, the baraita is referring to a promissory note of others, and here they disagree in two cases: In the case of a loan with a promissory note and in the case of a loan by oral agreement.


讘诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讻转讘 讜诇讗 诪住专 讘讬谉 砖诪住专 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讜讬诪住讜专


The Gemara explains: With regard to a loan with a promissory note, concerning what matter do they disagree? They disagree concerning the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: Letters, i.e., the content of a promissory note, are acquired by merely transferring the document. If the lender hands over a promissory note to a third party, the latter can collect the debt. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: Whether one wrote a document of sale for the promissory note but did not transfer the promissory note itself, or whether he transferred the promissory note but did not write a document of sale for it, the recipient has not acquired the promissory note. The recipient acquires it only once the other writes a document of sale and transfers the promissory note.


诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬


The suggestion is that one Sage, Rabbi Meir, is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and therefore one can betroth a woman by giving her a promissory note even without writing a document of sale for it. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, is not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and she is not betrothed because she has not received anything.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讚专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讟专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诇讱 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 砖注讘讜讚讬讛 诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗


And if you wish, say instead the following answer: No one is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and here they disagree with regard to the statement of Rav Pappa, as Rav Pappa says: This one who sells a promissory note to his friend must write the following formula for him: Let it be acquired by you, it and all its liens. Otherwise, the debt discussed in the promissory note is not transferred. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, is not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa. He holds that the debt is acquired even if one did not write this phrase, and a man can betroth a woman by giving a promissory note to her.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇


And if you wish, say instead: Everyone is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa, and even Rabbi Meir agrees that she is betrothed only if he wrote in the document: Let it be acquired by you, it and all its liens. And here they disagree with regard to the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says:


Scroll To Top