Kiddushin 48b (מח:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Meir

holds:

"

the rental fee exists only at the end"—

when the husband returned the jewelry to the woman, and since he waives the payment owed to him in exchange for the sake of kiddushin, she is betrothed.

And

the Sages

hold: "

the rental fee exists from the beginning until the end."

b.

Alternatively, if you wish,

one may explain the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages:

Everyone

holds:

the rental fee exists

from the beginning until the end, and

everyone also holds:

one who betroths with a loan is not betrothed—

And here

we are dealing with a contractor who undertook to make the earrings, whose payment for his work is not calculated according to the time he works on them, but is a fixed payment for making the earrings, and

with regard to a craftsman

(a contractor),

the craftsman acquires a share in the enhancement of the vessel

is the matter over which they

disagree—that is, whether a contractor who receives gold to make jewelry from it owns the enhancement he produces by making the earrings, or not:

Rabbi Meir

holds: A craftsman acquires a share in the enhancement of the vessel,

and therefore, when the jewelry came into her possession, the woman was acquired by him through the enhancement of the vessel, which belonged to him, and which he gave her for the sake of kiddushin.

And

the Sages

hold: A craftsman does not acquire a share in the enhancement of the vessel,

and he has nothing with which to betroth her except the payment for his work, which is a loan, and one who betroths with a loan is not betrothed.

c.

Alternatively, if you wish,

one may explain the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages:

Everyone: "

A craftsman does not acquire a share in the enhancement of the vessel,"

and the law governing the craftsman is the same as that governing a hired laborer,

and

also "

the rental fee exists from the beginning until the end,"

and

also "

one who betroths with a loan is not betrothed";

and here, with what are we dealing:

For example, where he added a precious stone

(a precious stone)

from his own property.

For

Rabbi Meir

holds: a loan and a peruta

that were given for kiddushin,

his intent

her intent

the woman’s

is directed toward the peruta,

and in this case as well, where he betrothed her with the payment for his work, which is a loan, and with the precious stone, which is a peruta, her intent is to be betrothed with the peruta.

And

the Sages

hold:

his intent

her intent

also

is directed toward the loan,

and in this case too she wishes to be betrothed also through the payment for the work, and one who betroths with a loan is not betrothed.

And

this dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages is

dependent on the dispute between these tanna’im

(Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi)

as it was taught:

One who says to a woman: "Be betrothed to me

with the payment for what I did for you"

[any kind of work],

she is not betrothed,

because it is a loan, and one who betroths with a loan is not betrothed.

But if he betrothed her "

with the payment for what I will do for you,"

she is

betrothed

once he completes the work and gives it to her, because the first tanna holds: "The rental fee exists only at the end."

Rabbi Natan says:

Even if he said to her, "

with the payment for what I will do for you,"

she is not betrothed,

because "the rental fee exists from the beginning until the end";

and all the more so "

with the payment for what I did for you,"

for she is not betrothed.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Indeed, they said: Whether

he said to her, "

with the payment for what I did,"

or

whether

he said to her, "

with the payment for what I will do for you,"

she is not betrothed—

But

if

he added a precious stone of his own,

she is

betrothed;

but according to Rabbi Natan, even if he added a precious stone of his own, she is not betrothed.

The Gemara explains their reasons and the matter over which they disagree:

Between the first tanna and Rabbi Natan—

they disagree about whether she is betrothed when he says to her, "with the payment for what I will do for you"—

the difference between them is the status of rental:

whether it exists from the beginning until the end, or only at the end:

The first tanna holds: The rental fee exists only at the end; therefore, when he says to her, "with the payment for what I will do for you," she is betrothed.

Rabbi Natan, by contrast, holds: "The rental fee exists from the beginning until the end"; and when he says to her, "with the payment for what I will do for you," it is a loan, and therefore she is not betrothed.

Between Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi—

they disagree, when he adds a precious stone of his own, about whether she is betrothed—

the difference between them is a loan and a peruta

given for kiddushin: whether the woman’s intent is also directed toward the loan.

One—

Rabbi Natan—

holds: a loan and a peruta

his intent

her intent

is directed toward the loan,

and in this case as well, where she was betrothed through rental, which is a loan, and through the precious stone, which is worth a peruta, her intent is directed toward the precious stone, and she is betrothed.

And the other holds:

his intent

her intent

is directed toward the peruta,

and in this case too her intent is directed toward the precious stone, and she is betrothed through it.

Mishna:

One who says to a woman: "

Be betrothed to me with this cup of wine,"

and it is found to contain honey,

which is more valuable than wine; and all the more so if he said to her: "Be betrothed to me with this cup

of honey,"

and it is found to contain wine,

which is less valuable than honey—

Or if he said to her: "Be betrothed to me

with this silver dinar,"

and it is found to be gold,

which is more valuable than silver; and all the more so if he said to her: "Be betrothed to me with this dinar

of gold,"

and it is found to be silver,

which is less valuable than gold—

Or if he said to her: "Be betrothed to me

on the condition that I am wealthy,"

and he is found to be poor;

and even if he said to her: "Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am

poor,"

and he is found to be wealthy—

In all these cases,

she is not betrothed.

Rabbi Shimon says:

If he misled her to her advantage—

for example, he misled her and gave her a gold dinar instead of a silver one—she is

betrothed.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

One who says to a woman: "

Be betrothed to me with this cup"

(and he did not say what it contains)—

one

baraita teaches that she acquired

it

(the cup itself)

and what is inside it,

and they combine to make a peruta.

And another baraita was taught,

that she acquired only

it, but not what is inside it,

and its contents do not combine to make a peruta.

And another baraita was taught:

She acquired

what is inside it but not the cup,

and she must return the cup to the one who betrothed her.

And this is not difficult

as a contradiction between the baraitot, because:

This—

the baraita in which we learned, "it but not what is inside it"—

is

where the cup was full of

water

[water], which is not valuable, and she did not intend to be betrothed through it.

This

baraita in which we learned, "what is inside it but not the cup,"

is

where the cup was filled with

wine

which one customarily gives to a person to drink on the condition that he return the cup.

This

baraita in which we learned, "it and what is inside it,"

is

where the cup was full of

fish brine

fish brine, which she needs the cup to preserve the brine in it, since she seasons food with it over an extended period.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Shimon says:

If he misled her to her advantage, she is betrothed:

And we challenge this:

But

what,

does Rabbi Shimon not have

what we learned in the Mishna in tractate Bava Batra:

One who sells his fellow

wine and it is found to be vinegar,

which is inferior to wine, or one who sells him

vinegar and it is found to be wine, both

—the seller and the buyer—

can withdraw from the transaction.

Apparently,

it is proven that although wine is more valuable than vinegar, we say:

Some people prefer vinegar, and some people prefer wine

(there is one who specifically wants vinegar, and there is one who specifically wants wine)—

And if so,

here too,

why is she betrothed when he gives her a gold dinar instead of a silver one? We should say:

There are some

who

prefer silver and do not prefer gold

(there is one who wants a silver dinar, and there is one who wants a gold dinar)!?

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: I found Abaye sitting and explaining the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon to his son

(I found Abaye sitting and explaining to his son the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s ruling):

In fact, if she was misled, even to her advantage, she is not betrothed.

And here

in our Mishna,

with what are we dealing? For example, where he said to his agent: "

Lend me a silver dinar, and go and betroth a certain woman on my behalf,"

and

the agent

lent her a gold one

and betrothed her with it.

One—

the first tanna—

holds: It is a precise instruction

for the sender was particular that the agent give her only a silver dinar, and since he gave her a gold dinar, she is not betrothed, because he is not his agent for this matter.

And the other—

Rabbi Shimon—

holds: When the sender said to him, "

a silver dinar,"

he is indicating a possible means

to him; that is, he is not particular if he gives her a gold dinar, since, on the contrary, it is more valuable to him. Rather, this is what he intended to say to him: If you cannot lend me a gold dinar, lend me a silver dinar.

If so,

once you have explained that the kiddushin was performed through an agent, and that he was the one who misled the sender, then what we learned in the words of the first tanna, over which Rabbi Shimon disagreed, presents a difficulty: "

Be betrothed to me,"

which implies that the husband himself is betrothing her!? But it should have said

"Be betrothed to him"

was required to be stated, since this is what the agent says when he betroths her on behalf of another person!?

say so, for this is what the agent says when he betroths her to another!?

There is also a difficulty from what we learned: "If he

misled her to her advantage"! For if he "

misled him [

misled him

[the agent misled the sender]

to his advantage,"

it should have said so according to the tanna! And there is also a difficulty from what we learned in the words of the first tanna: "And

and

it is found to be gold"! For

to be gold"! For

it was gold from the outset as well, since there is no discovery here; rather, the agent initially deviated from the sender’s instructions and gave something else!?

Rather, Rava said

to resolve the matter:

I and

the lion of the group interpreted it

(we explained our Mishna),

and who was he—

the lion of the group—

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin:

Here, with what are we dealing? For example, where she said to her agent: "

Go and receive my kiddushin from so-and-so, who said to me: Be betrothed to me with a silver dinar,"

and

the agent went and

he gave him

the man betrothing her

a gold dinar.

One—

the first tanna—

holds: It is a precise instruction,

for the woman is particular that she be betrothed only with a silver dinar, since there are people who prefer silver, and there are people who prefer only gold, and she prefers only silver.

And the other—

Rabbi Shimon—

holds: She is indicating a possible means to him,

and she is not particular if the husband ultimately gives her a gold dinar.

And regarding the difficulty:

what is difficult:

Why "

is found,"

since from the outset the man betrothed her with a dinar different from the one she wanted!?

It is not difficult, because here we are dealing with a case in which

the

dinar, when the husband handed it to the agent,

was wrapped in a cloth bundle

[wrapped in a rag], and when they opened it, it became known that the dinar was not as stated.

Abaye said:

Rabbi Shimon, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Elazar all hold:

When one instructs his agent to perform some act in an easier manner, and the agent goes and performs it in a more difficult manner, this is not a deviation, because the sender was not particular that he perform it in the easier manner; rather,

he is indicating a possible means to him,

to make it easier for him in carrying out his agency if it is difficult for him to perform it in another manner!

Rabbi Shimon,

who holds this way, is referring to

that which we stated

in our Mishna: The woman is betrothed when she sent the agent to receive a silver dinar for kiddushin, and he received a gold dinar.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

who holds that “he is merely indicating a location for him,” derives it from this,

as we learned

in tractate Bava Batra: