Kiddushin 95

Chapter 95

א המוכר שטר חוב לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול ואפי' יורש מוחל דמר אית ליה דשמואל ומר לית ליה דשמואל
1 If one sells a note of debt to his neighbour and then renounces it [the debt], it is renounced; and even an heir can renounce it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. suggests that the reason is that the sale of an IOU is only Rabbinically valid, and is therefore not strong enough to annul the first creditor's right of renunciation. [According to R. Tam (v. R. Nissim on Keth. 85b) it is based on the dual conception of the lien of the creditor or ;udv sucga ohxfb sucga the debtor: (a) a lien on his person; (b) a lien on his property - a conception that has its parallel in the Greek and Old Babylonian Systems of Law. Whilst the latter is assignable, the former is not, and whenever the creditor chooses to renounce the inalienable part of his lien, the other automatically lapses; v. Neubauer. J. op. cit. pp. 112-114, n. 1.]');"><sup>1</sup></span> One Master agrees with Samuel; the other does not agree with Samuel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna agrees: hence the woman relies upon it, and the betrothal is valid.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב ואיבעית אימא דכ"ע אית להו דשמואל והכא באשה קמיפלגי מר סבר אשה סמכה דעתה מימר אמרה לא שביק ליה לדידי ומחל ליה לאחריני ומר סבר אשה נמי לא סמכה דעתה
2 Alternatively, all agree with Samuel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And therefore in the case of an ordinary transaction of real estate, a note does not rank as money to confer possession upon the purchaser.]');"><sup>3</sup></span> and here they differ in respect to the woman.
ג במלוה על פה במאי פליגי בדרב הונא אמר רב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מנה לי בידך תנהו לפלוני במעמד שלשתן קנה
3 One Master holds, The woman has full confidence [in him], reasoning, he will not leave me in the lurch and renounce [the debt] in favour of another; whereas the other Master holds, The woman too has no confidence. Wherein do they differ concerning a debt contracted verbally? - In [the law of] R'Huna in Rab's name.
ד מר סבר כי קאמר רב ה"מ בפקדון אבל מלוה לא ומר סבר לא שנא מלוה ולא שנא פקדון
4 For R'Huna said in Rab's name: [If A says to B,] 'The maneh which I have in your possession, give it to C': [if said] 'in the presence of the three of them' [viz. , A, B and C], he acquires it. One Master holds, Rab ruled thu only of a deposit, but not of a loan;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence in the case under discussion the woman is not betrothed.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה נימא כתנאי התקדשי לי בשטר ר"מ אומר אינה מקודשת ור' אלעזר אומר מקודשת וחכ"א שמין את הנייר אם יש בו שוה פרוטה מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת
5 and the other maintains that there is no difference between a deposit and a loan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Git. (Sonc. ed.) p. 47. n. 3.');"><sup>5</sup></span> [Again,] Shall we say that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's dictum, supra 47a.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ו האי שטר ה"ד אילימא שט"ח דאחרים קשיא דר"מ אדר"מ אלא בשט"ח דידה ובמקדש במלוה קא מיפלגי
6 is disputed by Tannaim? [For it was taught: If he says:] 'Be thou betrothed unto me with a note:' R'Meir said: She is not betrothed; R'Eleazar said: She is betrothed; the Sages ruled: The paper is valued: if it is worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed.
ז א"ר נחמן בר יצחק הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שקדשה בשטר שאין עליו עדים
7 How is this note meant: shall we say, a note of debt against others - then R'Meir is self-contradictory?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 47b.');"><sup>7</sup></span> Hence it must mean her own note of debt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Recording her debt.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ח ור"מ לטעמיה דאמר עדי חתימה כרתי ור' אלעזר לטעמי' דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי ורבנן מספקא להו אי כר"מ אי כרבי אלעזר הלכך שמין את הנייר אם יש בו שוה פרוטה מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת
8 and thus they differ in respect to betrothal by debt! - Said R'Nahman B'Isaac: The meaning here is that he betroths her with a deed unattested by witnesses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2a; that is the note referred to here, but that it was not signed; it was, however, given to her in the presence of witnesses.');"><sup>9</sup></span> R'Meir being in harmony with his view that the witnesses who sign dissolve [the marriage]; while R'Eleazar is in agreement with his opinion that the witnesses to the delivery dissolve it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to a Get (q.v. Glos.) bearing no signature of witnesses. R. Meir holds that it is invalid, For only these witnesses give it its power of dissolution. R. Eleazar rules that it is valid, for the dissolution is really effected by the witnesses who attest its delivery. v. Git. 3b. The same applies to a deed of betrothal.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ט ואיבעית אימא כגון שכתבו שלא לשמה ובדר"ל קמיפלגי דבעי ר"ל שטר אירוסין שכתבו שלא לשמה מהו הויה ליציאה מקשינן מה יציאה בעינן לשמה אף הויה נמי בעינן לשמה או דלמא הויות להדדי מקשינן מה הויה דכסף לא בעינן לשמה אף הויה דשטר לא בעינן לשמה
9 while the Rabbis are in doubt whether it is as R'Meir or R'Eleazar; therefore the paper is valued, [and] if it is worth a perutah she is betrothed, and if not, she i not betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi and Tosaf. observe that the last clause must be omitted, For since we are in doubt, even if it is not worth a perutah she stands as doubtfully betrothed, and needs a divorce to free her.');"><sup>11</sup></span> Alternatively, [we] suppose, that it was not written specifically for her sake, and they differ in respect t Resh Lakish's [view].
י בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה (דברים כד, ב) ויצאה והיתה מקיש הויה ליציאה מר אית ליה דר"ל ומר לית ליה דר"ל
10 For Resh Lakish propounded: What if a deed of betrothal is not written expressly for her [the betrothed's] sake? Do we assimilate betrothal to divorce: just as divorce must be expressly for her sake, so must betrothal be likewise; or perhaps, [different] forms of betrothal are assimilated to each other: just as betrothal by money need not be for her sake, so betrothal by deed need not be for her sake?
יא ואי בעית אימא דכ"ע אית להו דר"ל והכא במאי עסקינן שכתבו לשמה ושלא מדעתה ובפלוגתא דרבא ורבינא ורב פפא ורב שרביא קמיפלגי דאיתמר כתבו לשמה ושלא מדעתה רבא ורבינא אמרי מקודשת רב פפא ורב שרביא אמרי אינה מקודשת
11 After propounding, he resolved it: Betrothal is assimilated to divorce, [for Scripture writes] and when she is departed. she may be [another man's wife].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 95 for notes.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יב נימא כהני תנאי דתניא עשה לי שירים נזמים וטבעות ואקדש אני לך כיון שעשאן מקודשת דברי רבי מאיר וחכ"א אינה מקודשת עד שיגיע ממון לידה
12 One Master agrees with Resh Lakish; the other does not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst the Rabbis are in doubt on the point.');"><sup>13</sup></span> Alternatively, all agree with Resh Lakish, and here the circumstances are that it [the deed] was written expressly for her sake but without her knowledge, and they differ in the same dispute as Raba and Rabina, R'Papa and R'Sherabia.
יג האי ממון ה"ד אילימא אותו ממון מכלל דת"ק סבר אפי' אותו ממון נמי לא אלא במאי בו מקדשא אלא לאו בממון אחר ושמע מינה במקדש במלוה קמיפלגי
13 For it was stated: If it is written for her sake but without her knowledge, - Raba and Rabina maintain: She is betrothed; R'Papa and R'Sherabia rule: She is not betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');"><sup>14</sup></span> Shall we say that it [Rab's dictum] is dependent on the following Tannaim?
יד וסברי דכ"ע ישנה לשכירות מתחלה [ועד] סוף והוה מלוה מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר המקדש במלוה מקודשת ומר סבר המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת
14 For it was taught: [If a woman says to a man,] 'Make me a necklace, earrings and [finger] rings, and I will be betrothed unto thee,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In return for his labour, the gold being her own.');"><sup>15</sup></span> as soon as he makes them, she is betrothed: this is R'Meir's view.
טו לא דכולי עלמא מקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת והכא בישנה לשכירות מתחלה ועד סוף קמיפלגי מר סבר
15 But the Sages rule: She is not betrothed until the money reaches her hand. What is meant by this 'money'? Shall we say, those self-same valuables? hence it follows that in the first Tanna's view even those self-same valuables [need] not [reach her hand]; then wherewith is she betrothed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely she must actually receive something!');"><sup>16</sup></span> Hence it must surely refer to different money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in addition to the jewels she must receive money.');"><sup>17</sup></span> which proves that they differ over betrothal by debt. For it is assumed that all hold that wages are a liability from beginning to end, hence it is a debt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a man does work, as he completes each perutah's worth his employer is liable for the payment of it. Consequently, when this goldsmith makes the jewellery, as soon as he finishes each perutah's worth of labour, she becomes indebted to him to the amount of a perutah, so that when he completes the work entirely, the fee, which is to effect betrothal, is a retrospective debt.');"><sup>18</sup></span> surely then they differ in this: one Master holds, If he betroths [a woman] with a debt, she is betrothed, while the other holds that she is not? - No: all agree that if he betroths with a debt, she is not betrothed, but here they differ as to whether wages are a liability from beginning to end. One Master holds,