Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 6

6b

QUESTION: Abaye teaches that when a man is Mekadesh a woman with a loan that she owes him, she is not Mekudeshes. When a man is Mekadesh a woman with "Hana'as Milveh" (the "pleasure of [having] the loan"), then she is Mekudeshes, even though it involves "Ha'aramas Ribis." The Gemara explains that "Hana'as Milveh" means that the man "lengthened the time" of her loan.

Why is lengthening the time of the loan able to effect a Kidushin more than letting her keep the money of the loan entirely?

If Abaye means to differentiate between being Mekadesh with the actual *money* that the woman owes him, and being Mekadesh with the *Hana'ah* that she gets when he lengthens the time of the loan, then why does Abaye say that Kidushin can be made with the Hana'ah that she receives from him when he *lengthens* the loan? He should have said that Kidushin can be made with the Hana'ah that he gives her by lending money to her, or by forgiving the loan. Why does he discuss instead *lengthening* the loan?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ishus 5:15) indeed learns that when Abaye says that a man can be Mekadesh a woman with "Hana'as Milveh," he means that he can be Mekadesh her with the Hana'ah that she receives when she receives the initial loan. This is what the Gemara means when it says that he lengthened the time of the loan for her; it means that he specified a length of time during which she is permitted to use the money.

(b) RABEINU CHANANEL, cited by the RASHBA and other Rishonim, explains that "Hana'as Milveh" means that the woman returned the money that she owed the husband, and he gave it back to her l'Shem (for the sake of) Kidushin. He explains that the Gemara does not mean to differentiate between Kidushin done with money and Kidushin done with the Hana'ah of receiving money. Perhaps any time the woman receives a quantifiable monetary benefit, the Kidushin must be accomplished by the money itself and not by the pleasure that she experiences from receiving the money. Rather, in the case of "Hana'as Milveh" as well, the Kidushin is being created by the *money* that the man loaned to the woman. The husband takes back the loan and says "from now on I will give the money to you as Kidushin and you will no longer owe it to me as a loan."

According to Rabeinu Chananel, what is the Chidush of Abaye, who says that one can make Kidushin in such a manner? If the man receives payment for the loan and then gives the money to the woman, it is obvious that it is no longer a loan and that it is the normal Kesef of Kidushin!

Rabeinu Chananel apparently learns that the husband did not actually take back the money as repayment for the loan. Rather, he specified that instead of taking it for himself as payment, he was returning it to the woman as Kidushin. The money can be designated as the money of the loan, even though the money of a Milveh is normally "l'Hotza'ah Nitnah" (given to be spent and used) and no coin can be specified as the specific money of the loan. The money can be designated as the money of the loan because once the woman sets aside money to use as payment for the loan, those coins become the coins "of the loan" that the man gave to her, and when the man is Mochel those coins to her, they can be used as Kesef for Kidushin. (Rabeinu Chananel apparently learns that "Milvah l'Hotza'ah Nitnah" applies only when the money is actually spent, but not when the specific coins that were loaned are still present.)

(c) The RA'AVAD cited by the Rashba explains that "Hana'as Milveh" means that the time arrived for the loan to be repaid. Therefore, it is as if the money was already returned to the man and now he can be Mekadesh the woman with that money. This is similar to the way Rabeinu Chananel explains the Gemara; the Kidushin is made with the money itself, and not with the Hana'ah of being able to use it.

However, the Ra'avad's words as they appear in our texts (in Perush ha'Ra'avad, and in Hilchos Ishus 5:15) does not write that it is as if the loan has been repaid. Rather, since the time has come to repay the loan, the woman benefits immediately from being given extra time to hold on to the money. The man is Mekadesh her with this Hana'ah that she receives of being able to use the money.

This is also the explanation of RABEINU TAM (cited by Tosfos, DH d'Arvach), and this is the intention of the RIF, according to the way he is quoted by the TOSFOS RI HA'ZAKEN. Apparently, if the woman would not be benefiting immediately from being given extra time to keep the loan (for example, if the time has not yet arrived to repay the loan), then the Kidushin would not be valid.

According to this explanation, why does the Beraisa suggest a case of being Mochel the loan when it is due, rather than being Mekadesh her with the giving of the loan in the first place? (According to Rabeinu Tam, even if he is Mekadesh her at the time the loan is given, it would not be Ribis; see following Insight.) Perhaps the Beraisa wants to give a case in which Kidushin does work to parallel the case of Reisha (Mekadesh with a Milveh) in which Kidushin does not work. The Reisha discusses a case of a loan that was due and which the man forgave, and therefore the Seifa discusses a case where the loan is due, where the man is able to be Mekadesh her by giving her the loan, since he mentions the Hana'ah and not the loan itself. Why, though, does the Beraisa not mention a case where the man *forgives* the loan at the time that it is due, rather than giving her more time to pay it? The RITVA explains that the Beraisa wants to teach us a Halachah of "Ha'aramas Ribis;" if he forgave the loan, there would be no "Ha'aramas Ribis" at all.

(d) RASHI (DH Tzericha) and the RITVA explain that "Hana'as Milveh" refers to the Hana'ah that she experiences when the man gives her extra time to pay the loan (like Rabeinu Tam explains). However, they do not specify that the man gives her extra time when the loan is due. They seem to learn that even before the loan becomes due, the man can be Mekadesh her with the Hana'ah that she experiences knowing that she will have more time to pay back the loan.

According to Rashi, the case of the Seifa is not discussing the time when the loan is due (like the Reisha is discussing). Why, then, does the Beraisa not mention in the Seifa a case in which the man is Mekadesh the woman with the Hana'ah of *giving* her a loan, rather than the Hana'ah of letting her keep a loan? Rashi cannot answer that the Beraisa wants to give a case similar to the Reisha, where the loan has become due, because according to Rashi the Seifa is not discussing a case where the loan has become due.

The answer is that Rashi is following his own reasoning that when the loan is being given, it is prohibited to be Mekadesh her with the loan because of the problem of Ribis. The Beraisa does not want to teach a case in which the Kidushin was made through an Isur d'Oraisa of Ribis. The Beraisa does not teach a case where he was Mekadesh her with the Hana'ah of being Mochel a loan, because it wants to teach the Isur d'Rabanan of "Ha'aramas Ribis," like the Ritva explains.

QUESTION: When a man is Mekadesh a woman with "Hana'as Milveh," the Hana'ah of allowing her to keep the loan longer (see previous Insight), it is Asur mid'Rabanan because of "Ha'aramas Ribis." Why, though, is it not Ribis mid'Oraisa?

ANSWERS:

(a) The TOSFOS RI HA'ZAKEN explains that through Kidushin, each of the parties becomes obligated to the other. Therefore, the woman is not the only party who is giving; the man is also obligating himself by committing to fulfill his responsibilities as a husband. Therefore, Kidushin cannot be considered Ribis because the *lender* is giving something to the borrower, in addition to the borrower giving something to the lender.

The RITVA adds that someone who chooses a wife is "k'Koneh Adon l'Atzmo," meaning that his responsibilities to his wife are even greater than the wife's responsibilities to him.

(b) The RASHBA explains that a woman does not become the material possession of the husband, like the rest of his property, but rather she just obligates herself in certain ways to the husband. The prohibition of Ribis forbids only giving concrete items to the lender; it does not forbid merely obligating oneself to the lender. Therefore, Kidushin cannot be considered Ribis. (This might be the intention of Rashi as well.)

TOSFOS (DH d'Arvach) rejects this explanation. Since Kidushin can be accomplished only with a Perutah or more, that gives the obligations of Kidushin the value of at least a Perutah. If she gives herself to the man in Kidushin in return for keeping the loan longer, she has given him a commodity that is worth a Perutah in return for keeping the loan, and thus it should be Ribis!

(c) RAV ELYASHIV (in He'oros b'Maseches Kidushin) points out that "Agar Natar," which means taking money for allowing a borrower to keep a loan for a longer time, is certainly not Ribis mid'Oraisa. Ribis mid'Oraisa is only when the borrower gives something to the lender at the time that he receives the loan. Accordingly, perhaps the Rabanan were not Machmir to prohibit receiving benefit (such as the Kidushin of a woman) for extending a loan. They only prohibited paying a concrete object, or promising a pre-determined value, in return for extending the term of a loan. This is what Rashi means when he says that it is not "Agar Natar" since the woman did not given the man a set sum.

The TALMID HA'RASHBA indeed cites such an explanation from the RI MI'GASH.

(d) TOSFOS cites from RABEINU TAM an entirely different explanation. Rabeinu Tam explains that the woman did not owe the man any money. Rather, she owed someone else money. The man was Mekadesh her by paying (or convincing) the lender to extend the time of the loan, and thereby he gave the woman the benefit of the value of a Perutah. The Gemara in Bava Metzia (69b) explains that if the borrower himself is not the one who pays the lender to extend the time of the loan, it is not considered Ribis or "Agar Natar."