Commentary for Kiddushin 104:1
והא מתניתין דגזל דידה וקאמר רב אינה מקודשת לא קשיא הא דשדיך הא דלא שדיך
But our Mishnah [deals with] her own robbery,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it states 'IT WAS THEIRS'.');"><sup>1</sup></span> yet Rab said: She is not betrothed? There is no difficulty: in the one case, he had [previously] negotiated [with her for marriage];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then she accepts it as kiddushin, and thereby it ceases to be robbery, as explained.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The problem is that the story in the mishnah was a case where he stole an object from her and tried to use it to betroth her. Nevertheless she is not betrothed. This was the source Rav used to prove his halakhah. So how can we say that she is betrothed if the stolen item was hers.
The resolution is that the mishnah refers to a case where the marriage had not been arranged. In such a case, we don’t know if by accepting the article she is agreeing to marriage. She might just want her object back and this is the best way to do so. But if the marriage was already arranged, then we can assume that she wanted to get married. Only in such a case can we assume that by accepting it as kiddushin, she was forgiving him from having to pay her back.
The resolution is that the mishnah refers to a case where the marriage had not been arranged. In such a case, we don’t know if by accepting the article she is agreeing to marriage. She might just want her object back and this is the best way to do so. But if the marriage was already arranged, then we can assume that she wanted to get married. Only in such a case can we assume that by accepting it as kiddushin, she was forgiving him from having to pay her back.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy