Kiddushin

is the same as a deposit. Now, they differ only in so far as one Master holds that a debt, even if a perutah's worth thereof is not left [is valid kiddushin], whereas the other holds it is [valid] only if a perutah's worth thereof is left, but not otherwise: but all agree that if one betroths [a woman] with a debt [the money being still in her possession], she is betrothed! — Said Raba: Is it logical that this [Baraitha] is correct;1 surely it is corrupt! [For] what are the circumstances of this deposit? If she guaranteed against loss,2 it is identical with a loan.3 If she did not guarantee against loss — if so, instead of the second clause teaching, ‘but in the case of debt, even if a perutah's worth thereof is not left, she is betrothed’ — let a distinction be made and taught in the case [of deposit] itself: when is that? Only if she did not guarantee against loss; but if she did, even if a perutah's worth thereof is not left, she is betrothed. But amend it thus: in the case of debt, even if a perutah's worth thereof is left, she is not betrothed. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said on R. Meir's authority: Debt is as a deposit. Wherein do they differ? — Said Rabbah: I found the Rabbis at the schoolhouse sitting and explaining. They differ as to whether a loan vests in its owner [sc. the creditor] in respect of return, and likewise in respect of unpreventable accidents: one Master holds that a loan vests in the debtor, and likewise in respect of unpreventable accidents; and the other holds that it vests in the creditor, and even so in respect of unpreventable accidents.4 But I told them , As for unpreventable accidents, all agree that it vests in the debtor. What is the reason? It is no worse than a loaned article:5 if for a loaned article, which is returnable as it is, one is liable in respect of unpreventable accidents, how much more so for a debt!6 But here they [merely] differ as to whether a loan vests in its owner in respect of return. If so, when R. Huna said: If one borrows an axe from his neighbour, if he clave [wood] therewith, he acquires it;7 if not, he does not acquire it — shall we say that he gave his ruling as dependent upon [a dispute of] Tannaim?8 — No. They differ only in respect of a [monetary] loan, which is not returnable as it is; but with the loan of an article which is returnable as it is, all agree [on the prin — ciple] ‘if he clave therewith he indeed [acquires it,] but if he did not cleave therewith he does not acquire it’.9 Shall we say that this [Rab's dictum] is disputed by Tannaim? [For it was taught: If a man says to a woman:] ‘Be thou betrothed unto me with a note of debt,’ or if he has a loan in the hands of others10 and transfers it to her,11 R. Meir said: She is betrothed; the Sages ruled: She is not betrothed. Now, how is this ‘note of debt’ meant? Shall we say, a note of debt against others; then it is identical with ‘a loan in the hands of others?’ Hence it must surely mean a note against her debt,12 and thus they differ in respect to betrothing [a woman] by a debt! — After all, it means a note of debt against others, and here they differ both on a debt contracted with a bond and a debt contracted verbally.13 Concerning a debt contracted with a bond, wherein do they differ? In the dispute of Rabbi and the Rabbis. For it was taught: A note14 is acquired by delivery; this is Rabbi's view.15 But the Sages say: Whether he writes [a bill of sale] without delivering [the note itself] or whether he delivers it without writing [a bill of sale], he does not acquire it unless he both indites [a bill of sale] and delivers [the original note]. One Master agrees with Rabbi; the other does not agree with Rabbi.16 Alternatively, none accept Rabbi's view, while here they differ in R. Papa's [dictum]. For R. Papa said: When one sells a note to his neighbour he must write for him [in the conveyance]: ‘Acquire it together with all its obligations’: one Master agrees with R. Papa; the other does not agree with R. Papa.17 Alternatively, all agree with R. Papa. But here they differ over Samuel's dictum. For Samuel said: not valid. But here she had expended nothing of it: R. Simeon b. Eleazar holds that in such a case it vests in the creditor, and he can immediately demand its return, if he desires. Hence it is now that he gives it to the woman, and so she is betrothed. Likewise, should an unpreventable accident befall the money, the debtor is not responsible, since it is accounted as being in the creditor's possession. The first Tanna's view is the reverse. creditor's possession and he cannot demand its return, the same applies here even if he did not cleave wood with it. clave therewith does he acquire, and not otherwise. ‘obligation’ clause in it.