Jewish%20thought for Kiddushin 117:1

ומאי שנא התם דקתני האומר לשלוחו

whilst elsewhereit is taught. 'If he says to his agent'?— We are informed of something noteworthy here, and likewise there. We are informed of something noteworthy here: for if 'his agentS were stated: I might think, Only his agent is stigmatised a cheat, because he relies upon him, thinking, 'He will perform my bidding';but as for his neighbour, seeing that he does not rely upon him,I might say that he is not a cheat. There too we are taught what is noteworthy. For if it were stated: 'If he says to his neighbour.' I might think, Only if his neighbour betroths her elsewhere is she not betrothed, because he thinks that he will not trouble;but as for his agent, who will trouble. I might think, He merely indicates the place to him.Hence we are taught [otherwise]. Rabinthe pious went to betroth a certain woman for his son, but betrothed her for himself. But was it not taught. What he did is done, but that he has behaved toward him as a cheat? — They would not give her to him [his son]. Then he should have informed him!— He feared that in the meantime another man might come and betroth her. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah gave money to Rab [and] instructed him, 'Buy this land for me,' but he went and bought it for himself. But did we not learn, What he did is done, yet he has behaved toward him as a cheat? — It was a stretch of land belonging to lawlessmen; for Rab they shewed respect, but would not for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah. Then he should have informed him? He feared that in the meantime another person might come and buy it. R. Giddal was negotiating for a certain field, when R. Abba went and bought it. Thereupon R. Giddal went and complained about him to R. Zera, who went [in turn] and complained to R. Isaac Nappaha. 'Wait until he comes up to us for the Festival,' said he to him. When he came up he met and asked him, 'If a poor man is examining a cake and another comes and takes it away from him, what then?' 'He is called a wicked man,' was his answer: 'Then why did you, Sir, act so?' he questioned him. T did not know [that he was negotiating for it],' he rejoined. 'Then let him have it now,' he suggested. T will not sell it to him,' he returned, 'because it is the first field [which I have ever bought], and it is not a [good] omen; but if he wants it as a gift, let him take it.' Now, R. Giddal would not take possession, because it is written: But he that hateth gifts shall live, nor would R. Abba, because R. Giddal had negotiated for it; and so neither took possession, and it was called'The Rabbis'field'.  LIKEWISE, IF ONE SAYS TO A WOMAN, BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME etc. What if another does not come and betroth her within these thirty days? — Rab and Samuel both rule: She is betrothed, even if the money [of betrothal] is consumed. What is the reason? This money is neither like a loan nor like a deposit. It is not like a deposit, [because] a deposit is consumed in its owner's possession, whereas this is consumed in her possession. Again, it is not like a loan, [because] a loan is given to be expended, whereas this was given to her for betrothal. What if another does not come and betroth her, but she herself retracts? — R. Johanan said: She can retract, [because] words can come and nullify words. Resh Lakish maintained: She cannot retract, [because] words cannot come and nullify words — R. Johanan refuted Resh Lakish: If he annuls, if before he [his agent] has made a separation, his separation is invalid. Now here it is speech against speech, yet one comes and nullifies the other? — Giving money into a woman's hand is different, because it is like action, and words cannot come and annul action. He refuted him: If one sends a divorce to his wife, and then overtakes the messenger or sends [another] messenger after him and says to him, 'The divorce which I gave you is null,' it is indeed null. Now, giving the divorce into the messenger's hand is like giving money into a woman's hand, and yet it is taught: 'it is indeed null'? — There too, as long as the divorce has not reached her hand, it is speech against speech, and so one comes and annuls the other. Resh Lakish objected to R. Johanan: All utensils become liable to their uncleanness by intention, but ascend thence only by a change in substance.

Explore jewish%20thought for Kiddushin 117:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.

Full Chapter Next Verse