Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MUTIPLE ACTS OF KIDUSHIN

(a) (Rava): (The Mishnah says that if she was eating them, she is Mekudeshes only if 1 was worth a Perutah by itself) - this is only if he said '(Be Mekudeshes to me) with this, and with this, and with this';

1. If he said 'With these', even if she was eating them, she is Mekudeshes as long as the sum value is at least a Perutah.

(b) Support (Beraisa): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with an acorn, with a pomegranate, and with a nut', or he said 'Be Mekudeshes to me with these' - if the sum value is at least a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes.

1. 'With this, and with this, and with this' - if the sum value is at least a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes;
2. 'With this' - she took it and ate it; 'With this' - she took it and ate it - 'And also with this, and also with this' - she is Mekudeshes only if 1 was worth a Perutah by itself.
3. Question: What is the case of 'with an acorn, with a pomegranate, and with a nut'?

i. Suggestion: He said to her 'Or with an acorn, or with a pomegranate, or with a nut'.
ii. Rejection: If so, she would be Mekudeshes only if 1 is worth a Perutah by itself!

4. Answer #1: Rather, he said 'With an acorn and with a pomegranate, and with a nut'.
5. Rejection: If so, that is the same case as 'With this, and with this, and with this' (the Mishnah would not teach both cases)!
6. Answer #2: Rather, he said 'With these'.
7. Question: But the second clause of the Beraisa teaches 'With these' - implying, the first clause is not this case!
8. Answer: The second clause explains the first.

i. 'Be Mekudeshes to me with an acorn, with a pomegranate, with a nut' - that is, he said 'With these';
ii. The last clause of the Beraisa teaches 'if she was eating them, she is Mekudeshes only if 1 was worth a Perutah by itself' - the first clause (when he said 'with these') did not distinguish between eating them and storing them. (This is as Rava.)

(c) This fits the opinion that the last clause of the Mishnah (when she was eating them) refers to the second clause (when he said 'With this, and with this, and with this');

1. When the Mishnah says 'She is Mekudeshes only if 1 was worth a Perutah by itself' - this means, the last one;

(d) Rav and Shmuel say that the last clause of the Mishnah refers to the first clause (when he said 'Be Mekudeshes to me with this, be Mekudeshes to me with this'); the Mishnah teaches that even when she eats them, 1 must be worth a Perutah;
(e) Question: How do they explain our Beraisa - every clause in the Beraisa deals with 1 encompassing Kidushin (so why must 1 be worth a Perutah by itself)?!
(f) Answer: The Beraisa is as Rebbi, who says that whether a person says 'An olive's worth, an olive's worth' or 'An olive's worth, and an olive's worth' these are separate statements (regarding Pigul);

1. Likewise, whether a person says 'With this, with this' or 'With this, and with this' these are separate acts of Kidushin.

(a) (Rav): A man was Mekadesh a woman with money he had lent her - she is not Mekudeshes, for a loan is given to be spent (and she already acquired the money as a loan, he only pardons her debt, he does not give her anything new).
(b) Suggestion: Tana'im argue regarding Rav's law.

1. (Beraisa): A man was Mekadesh a woman with a loan - she is not Mekudeshes; some say, she is Mekudeshes.
2. Suggestion: The first Tana holds that a loan is given to be spent, the first Tana says that it is not.
3. Rejection (end of the Beraisa): All agree that this acquires by a sale.

i. If a loan is given to be spent, how can it acquire?!

(c) Rejection (Rav Huna): No, the Beraisa is when he said that he is Mekadesh her with 100 Dinarim, and he only gave 99.

1. Suggestion: The first Tana says that she is not Mekudeshes, because she is too embarrassed to ask for the last Dinar (so she does not agree to 99);

i. The latter Tana says that she is not ashamed to ask for the last Dinar (so she accepts 99, expecting to get the last 1 later).

(d) Suggestion: If so, Tana'im argue regarding R. Elazar's law!

1. (R. Elazar): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with 100 Dinarim', and he gave her 1 Dinar - she is Mekudeshes, he must pay the rest.

(e) Rejection: No - Tana'im argue if she is ashamed to ask for the last of 100 Dinarim, but all agree that she is not ashamed when he owes 99 of the 100.
(f) Question (Beraisa): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with the deposit I have by you' - she went and found that it was stolen or lost. She is Mekudeshes only if a Perutah of it remained;

1. By a loan, she is Mekudeshes even if a Perutah does not remain;
2. R. Shimon ben Elazar says, a loan has the same law as a deposit.

i. The Tana'im only argued whether a Perutah must remain from the loan - but all agree that she is Mekudeshes through a loan!

3. (Rava): This Beraisa is erroneous - how can one explain the case of a deposit?

i. Suggestion: If she accepted responsibility for it (she owes him, since it was lost) - this is just as when she owes him a loan!
ii. Suggestion: If she did not accept responsibility - why does the end of the Beraisa speak of a loan - it should say that even by a deposit, she is sometimes Mekudeshes (when she accepted responsibility), even when nothing remained!

(g) Answer (Rava): One must correct the Beraisa to say 'by a loan, she is not Mekudeshes even if a Perutah remains; R. Shimon ben Elazar says, a loan is as a deposit.'
(h) Question: On what do they argue?
(i) Answer #1 (Rabanan): They argue whether the lender may take back a loan before the borrower has spent any of it; they similarly argue regarding who loses if the money is lost before any was spent.
(j) (Rabah): No - all agree, the borrower pays if the money is lost, even before any was spent;

1. When one borrows an object, he must return the same object - if it is lost (even through Ones), he pays for it;
2. When one borrows money, he need not return the same coins - all the more so, if the coins are lost, he must pay (since the coins lost do not belong to the lender)!

(k) Answer #2 (Rabah): They (only) argue whether the lender may take back a loan before the borrower has spent any of it.
(l) Question: But Rav Huna taught, one who borrows an axe - once he chops with it, he acquires it (to use it for the promised time); before chopping, he has not acquired it;

1. Suggestion: The Tana'im argue regarding Rav Huna's law!

(m) Answer: No - they only argue regarding money, for when one borrows money, he need not return the same coins;

1. When one borrows an object, he must return the same object, all agree that before using it, the lender may retract.

(a) Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue whether a loan can make Kidushin.
(b) (Beraisa - R. Meir): 'Be Mekudeshes to me through this loan document'; or, he authorized her to collect a debt others owed him - she is Mekudeshes;

1. Chachamim say, she is not Mekudeshes.
2. Question: What is the case of the loan document?

i. Suggestion: If it is for a loan that others owe him - this is the next case, a debt owed to him by others!

3. Answer: Rather, it is for a debt she owes him; they argue whether one may Mekadesh a woman with money she owes him.

(c) Rejection #1: Really, the document is for a loan that others owe him; they argue both by a loan with a document and an oral loan (i.e. on which no document was written).
(d) Question: Regarding a loan with a document, on what do they argue?
(e) Answer #1: As Rebbi and Chachamim.

1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): One acquires a document when it is handed to him; Chachamim say, he only acquires it if the giver also writes a second document to transfer ownership of the first document.
2. (The case is, the man gave the document to the woman, without writing a second document;) R. Meir holds as Rebbi, Chachamim are as Chachamim.

(f) Answer #2: R. Meir and his Chachamim (i.e. those that argue on him) all hold as Rebbi; they argue regarding Rav Papa's law.

1. (Rav Papa): One who sells a document, he must write (or say) 'Acquire it, and all the liens it has'.
2. R. Meir does not hold as Rav Papa, Chachamim hold as Rav Papa.

(g) Answer #3: R. Meir and his Chachamim all hold as Rav Papa; they argue regarding Shmuel's law.

1. (Shmuel): A lender sold his loan document, and then pardoned the borrower from paying the debt - the debt is cancelled;

i. Even the lender's heir may cancel the debt.
ii. (The case is, he gave her a document on a loan which he pardoned;) R. Meir does not hold as Shmuel, Chachamim hold as Shmuel.

(h) Answer #4: R. Meir and his Chachamim all hold as Shmuel; they argue regarding the psychology of women.

1. R. Meir holds that a woman sincerely accepts the document - she is not worried that her husband will pardon the debt and prevent her from collecting;
2. Chachamim holds that a woman is not satisfied with a document - she is worried that her husband will pardon the debt.