Kiddushin - Daf 6
- היה מדבר עם האשה על עיסקי גיטה וקידושיה
It was taught in a Baraisa: היה מדבר עם האשה על עיסקי גיטה וקידושיה – If he was speaking with a woman about matters of her get or kiddushin, and then he gave her a get or kiddushin without explaining, Rebbe Yose says: דיו – it is sufficient, and the divorce or marriage takes effect. Rebbe Yehudah says: צריך לפרש – he must explain his purpose for it to take effect. Shmuel said: והוא שעסוקין באותו ענין – This ruling of Rebbe Yose is only when they were dealing with this subject when the kiddushin or get was given. The Gemara notes that this is the opinion of Rebbe, but Rebbe Elazar bar Rebbe Shimon says it is effective even if they were not discussing this topic at the time. Abaye explains how she knew, according to this opinion, what his purpose was: מענין לענין באותו ענין – the case is where they switched from topic to topic, within the same general topic of marriage.
- המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת בהנאת מלוה מקודשת
Abaye says: המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת – One who attempts to marry with a loan (i.e., he forgives a loan she owes him as payment for kiddushin), she is not married, because he did not give her anything now. בהנאת מלוה מקודשת – But if he attempts to marry her with the benefit of a loan, she is married, ואסור לעשות כן – but it is forbidden to do so, מפני הערמת רבית – because it constitutes Rabbinically forbidden evasion of interest. This cannot mean that she agreed to pay five coins for a loan of four, and he forgave the fifth coin as payment for kiddushin, because that would be full-fledged רבית (not "הערמת רבית"), and it would also not effect kiddushin, since he gave her nothing at the time of kiddushin!? Rather, the case is: דארווח לה זימנא – where he extended the term of the loan for her and offered to marry her with the benefit received from this extension. Since it is a new benefit, he is giving her something of value for kiddushin. It is not Biblically prohibited רבית, because it was not fixed at the outset, and he did not receive anything from her. Rashi notes that if one would marry with the benefit of loan forgiveness, it would be effective. Abaye’s case is where he attempted to marry her with the loan money itself, which he did not give her now.
- מתנה על מנת להחזיר re: kiddushin, terumah, and others
Rava said that if one says, הילך מנה על מנת שתחזירהו לי – Here is a maneh for you, on condition you return it to me,” במכר לא קנה – if the money was given to effect a sale, he does not acquire the item, באשה אינה מקודשת – if it was given to marry a woman, she is not married, and it also does not qualify for the five-sela requirement for פדיון הבן. It does qualify for “giving” terumah to a Kohen, although he must return it (and it is forbidden to do so, having the appearance of a Kohen providing favors to receive terumah). The Gemara asks that if Rava holds מתנה על מנת להחזיר שמה מתנה – a gift on condition to return it is considered a gift, then it should qualify for all these cases, and if he does not, it should not qualify as giving terumah either!? Furthermore, Rava himself said that if someone is given an esrog on condition to return it, it is considered his (for the mitzvah of esrog), provided he returns it!? Therefore, Rav Ashi corrected the statement: בכולהו קני לבר מאשה – in all these cases, the recipient acquires the item to effect the transaction, except for a woman’s kiddushin, לפי שאין אשה נקנית בחליפין – because a woman cannot be acquired with חליפין (and here, too, the item must be returned).
