Study Kiddushin folio 47B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
הרי היא כפקדון. עד כאן לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר: מלוה, אף על גב דלא נשתייר הימנה שוה פרוטה, ומר סבר: נשתייר הימנה שוה פרוטה – אין, ואי לא נשתייר הימנה שוה פרוטה – לא. אבל דכולי עלמא מקדש במלוה מקודשת!
is like a deposit. The Talmud analyzes this: They disagree only with regard to this: There is one Sage who holds that one can betroth a woman with a loan, even though the value of one peruta does not remain of it. And one Sage holds that if the value of one peruta remains from it, yes, he can betroth her with it, but if the value of one peruta does not remain of it, he cannot. But everyone agrees that if one betroths a woman with a loan, she is betrothed. This presents a difficulty for Rav, who stated that one cannot betroth a woman with a loan.
אמר ליה רבא: ותסברא הא מתרצתא? הא משבשתא היא.
Rava said to him: And how can you understand it that way? Is this baraita fully explainable? It is corrupted and cannot be cited as a proof.
האי פקדון היכי דמי? אי דקביל עליה אחריות, היינו מלוה. אי דלא קביל עליה אחריות – אי הכי אדתני סיפא: ובמלוה, אף על פי שלא נשתייר הימנה שוה פרוטה – מקודשת, ניפלוג וניתני בדידה: במה דברים אמורים – שלא קבלה עליה אחריות, אבל קבלה עליה אחריות, אף על גב דלא נשתייר הימנה שוה פרוטה מקודשת!
He explains why the baraita must be corrupted: What are the circumstances of this deposit discussed in the baraita? If she assumed financial responsibility to repay the owner for it if it is stolen or lost, it is the same as a loan, as even if it is entirely lost she must still repay its value. If she did not assume financial responsibility for it, then if so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the baraita: But if he betroths her with a loan that he had given her, she is betrothed despite the fact that the value of one peruta of it does not remain; let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself, as follows: In what case is this statement said, that she is not betrothed if less than the value of one peruta remains from the deposit? If she did not assume financial responsibility upon herself for it. But if she assumed financial responsibility upon herself, even though the value of one peruta did not remain from it, she is betrothed.