Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) KIDUSHIN WITH A LOAN

(a) Question: Regarding an oral loan, on what do they argue?
(b) Answer #1: Regarding Rav Huna's law.

1. (Rav Huna): Reuven has money of Shimon; Shimon says in front of Reuven and Levi 'Give the money to Levi' - Levi immediately acquires the money.
2. (In the Beraisa, Shimon told Reuven (in front of Leah) 'Give the money I lent to you to Leah, to be Mekadesh her to me'.)

i. Chachamim hold, Rav Huna's law only applies by deposits, not by loans;
ii. R. Meir says, it applies even by loans.

(c) Suggestion: Tana'im argue regarding Kidushin with a loan.

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with this document' - she is not Mekudeshes;
2. R. Elazar says, she is Mekudeshes;
3. Chachamim say, we evaluate the document: if it is worth a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes; (if not, not - Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (below) held that these words are not in the Beraisa).
4. Question: What kind of document is it?

i. Suggestion: It is a loan document that others owe to the man.
ii. Rejection: But R. Meir holds that she is Mekudeshes through such a document!

5. Answer: Rather, it is a document on a loan that she owes to him - the Tana'im argue if a loan can make Kidushin.

(d) Rejection #1 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): No, he gave her a document of Kidushin without witnesses.

1. R. Meir holds that a document must be signed by witnesses to be valid;
2. R. Elazar holds that a document given in front of witnesses is valid;
3. Chachamim are unsure if the law is as R. Meir or R. Elazar.

i. We evaluate the document - if it is worth a Perutah, she is surely Mekudeshes; if not, she is only doubtfully Mekudeshes.

(e) Rejection #2: He gave her a document of Kidushin that was not written Lishmah (with her in mind); the Tana'im argue regarding Reish Lakish's law.

1. Question (Reish Lakish): A document of Kidushin was not written Lishmah - is it valid?

i. Do we equate Kidushin to divorce - just as a Get must be Lishmah, also a document of Kidushin?
ii. Or - do we equate all methods of Kidushin - just as Kidushin money need not be (minted) Lishmah, also a document of Kidushin?

2. Answer (Reish Lakish): We equate Kidushin to divorce, it must be Lishmah.

(f) Rejection #3: All the Tana'im hold as Reish Lakish; he gave her a document of Kidushin that was written Lishmah without consulting her;

1. The Tana'im argue as Rava and Rav Papa argued.
2. (Rava): Such a document is valid.
3. (Rav Papa): Such a document is invalid.

(a) Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue whether a loan can make Kidushin.
(b) (Beraisa - R. Meir): 'Make this metal into chains and rings for me, and I will be Mekudeshes to you' - once he makes them, she is Mekudeshes;

1. Chachamim say, she is only Mekudeshes when she gets money.
2. Question: What money do they refer to?

i. Suggestion: If the jewelry she requested - R. Meir cannot say she is Mekudeshes before she gets it - he gave her nothing!

3. Answer: Rather, it means additional money; the Tana'im argue whether a loan (what she owes him for his labor) can Mekadesh.

i. Both Tana'im hold that wages are accrued continuously, from the start of the job until the end, so they are as a loan she owes him.
ii. Suggestion: R. Meir holds that a loan cannot Mekadesh, Chachamim say that it can.

(c) Rejection #1: No - all agree, a loan cannot Mekadesh.

1. They argue whether that wages are accrued continuously or not.

2. R. Meir holds, we view it as if all the work is done at the moment the work is completed (he gives her new money, not a loan).
3. Chachamim hold, her debt to him accrues from the start of the job until the end, so they are as a loan she owes him.

(d) Rejection #2: All agree, wages accrue from the start of the job until the end, and a loan cannot Mekadesh;

1. They argue by a worker asked to build a vessel, whether he acquires (part of) the vessel (according to the wages due to him).
2. R. Meir holds that he acquires, Chachamim say that he does not.

(e) Rejection #3: All agree, a worker asked to build a vessel does not acquire according to the wages due to him; also, wages accrue from the start of the job until the end, and a loan cannot Mekadesh;

1. The case is, he added his own material to the metal she gave him; he also pardoned her debt to him.

i. R. Meir holds, she intends to become Mekudeshes through the extra material he gives her (which is worth at least a Perutah);
ii. Chachamim say, she intends to become Mekudeshes through the loan, and this does not work.

(f) They argue as the following Tana'im.

1. (Beraisa): 'As wages for the work I did for you' - she is not Mekudeshes;
2. 'As wages for the work I will do for you' - she is Mekudeshes;
3. R. Noson says 'As wages for the work I will do for you' - she is Mekudeshes, all the more so 'As wages for the work I did for you'.
4. Rebbi says, in either case, she is not Mekudeshes - if he added material of his own, she is Mekudeshes.

i. The first Tana and R. Noson argue regarding wages: the first Tana holds, they accrue from the start of the job until the end; R. Noson holds, it is as if all the work is done at the end;
ii. R. Noson and Rebbi argue regarding Kidushin with a Perutah and a loan: R. Noson says, she intends to become Mekudeshes through the loan;
iii. Rebbi says, she intends to become Mekudeshes through the Perutah.

(a) (Mishnah): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with this cup of wine', and it was found to be honey, or vice-versa (he said honey, and it was wine) - she is not Mekudeshes;
(b) 'With this silver Dinar', and it was found to be gold, or vice-versa - she is not Mekudeshes;
(c) 'On condition that I am poor', and he was found to be rich, or vice-versa - she is not Mekudeshes;
(d) R. Shimon says, if he tricked her and gave her better than he said, she is Mekudeshes.
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa #1): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with this cup' - he means both the cup and its contents;
(f) (Beraisa #2): He only means the cup, not its contents;
(g) (Beraisa #3): He only means the contents, not the cup.

1. [Version #1 (Rashi): The Beraisos do not argue - Beraisa #2 is when the cup holds water, Beraisa #3 is when it holds wine, Beraisa #1 is when it holds oil.]
2. [Version #2 (Tosfos): The Beraisos do not argue - Beraisa #1 is when the cup holds water, Beraisa #2 is when it holds wine, Beraisa #3 is when it holds oil.]

(h) R. Shimon says, if it is better than he said, she is Mekudeshes.
(i) Question: Does R. Shimon argue on the following Mishnah?!

1. (Mishnah): The seller said he is selling wine, and it was found to be vinegar, or vice-versa - either party can retract.
2. This is because some people prefer wine, some prefer vinegar - here also, some people prefer gold, some prefer silver!

(j) Answer #1 (Abaye): Our Mishnah is when Reuven told Shimon 'Lend me a silver Dinar, and Mekadesh Leah to me'; Shimon decided to lend him a gold Dinar.

1. Chachamim say that Reuven was insistent that he give a silver Dinar; R. Shimon says, Reuven merely made a suggestion (that even silver is fine, all the more so gold).
2. Objection #1: If so, the Mishnah should say 'Be Mekudeshes to him', not 'Be Mekudeshes to me'!
3. Objection #2: If so, it should say 'If he tricked him', not 'If he tricked her'!
4. Objection #3: If so, it should not say 'It was found to be', since he openly gave her gold!

(k) Answer #2 (Rava and R. Chiya bar Avin): The case is, Leah told an agent 'Go receive my Kidushin from Reuven, who said he will Mekadesh me with a silver Dinar'; Reuven gave a gold Dinar.

1. Chachamim say that Leah was insistent to receive a silver Dinar; R. Shimon says, Leah merely indicated that even silver is fine, all the more so gold.
2. Question: Why does it say 'It was found to be gold'?
3. Answer: When Reuven gave the money to the agent, it was wrapped up, he did not see that it was gold.