Kiddushin - Daf 47

• If one is embarrassed to demand the final dinar of a maneh

Rav says that kiddushin made with a loan is ineffective, because מלוה להוצאה ניתנה – a loan is given to be spent, and the money was hers beforehand. The Gemara quotes a machlokes Tannaim about being mekadesh with a loan and suggests that they argue about Rav’s ruling. This is disproven, however, because the Baraisa concludes that everyone agrees that paying with a loan can effect a sale transaction, and forgiving a loan should be equally ineffective for a sale!? Rather, Rav Huna explained the Baraisa is discussing one who says, “Be married to me with a maneh (one hundred dinar),” and the coins were found to be missing one dinar. The Tanna Kamma holds: כסיפא לה מילתא למיתבעיה – it is embarrassing for her to demand the final dinar from him, and she is not confident she will receive it (so her agreement to kiddushin is deficient). The other Tanna maintains she is not embarrassed to demand it. Regarding a sale, however, all agree that the seller is comfortable demanding his full payment. Although Rebbe Elazar taught that the kiddushin is valid if he only gave her a dinar, that is because she is not embarrassed to demand ninety-nine dinar, since that is a substantial amount.

• If an unspent loan belongs to the lender or borrower

Another machlokes Tannaim is quoted about marrying with a loan, and Rabbah reported that scholars in the Beis Medrash explained: במלוה ברשות בעלים לחזרה והוא הדין לאונסין קמיפלגי – they argue if a loan which has not been spent is in the domain of the lender regarding retraction, as well as responsibility for mishaps. The Tanna Kamma holds it is the borrower’s immediately, even before any spending (and therefore it cannot effect kiddushin). The second Tanna (Rebbe Shimon ben Elazar) holds that although Rav taught that loan money belongs to the borrower, that is only after he begins to spend it. Before any was spent, however, the lender retains ownership of the money, such that he can retract the loan and demand it back. Similarly, if the money is lost or stolen, the lender would suffer the loss. Rabbah disputed this last point and said that even if the money belongs to the lender, the borrower is still responsible for any loss, just as someone who borrows an item (to use and return) is responsible for all mishaps. The Gemara notes that regarding one who borrows an item (e.g., a hatchet), everyone can agree that the lender can retract before the borrower has used it.

• Machlokes about kiddushin with a שטר חוב

In was taught in a Baraisa that one who is mekadesh with a שטר חוב – a document of debt, Rebbe Meir says it is effective, and the Chachomim say it is not. The Gemara initially suggests it is a שטר of her debt, and they argue about kiddushin made through forgiving her loan. The Gemara then says that the שטר is for someone else’s debt, and he is marrying her by enabling her to collect that debt. Four explanations are given for the machlokes: (1) They argue if אותיות נקנות במסירה – “letters” (i.e., a debt recorded in a שטר) can be acquired by merely handing over the שטר. The Chachomim hold she does not acquire the debt until he additionally writes her a שטר transferring the debt. (2) Everyone agrees he must write a שטר but argue if he must write the words: קני לך הוא וכל שעבודיה – [the שטר] and all its obligations are acquired to you. (3) They argue if the lender can forgive the debt after transferring it to someone else (if he can, she lacks confidence she will receive the funds). (4) Everyone agrees he can forgive the debt and argue if she trusts him not to do so.