Kiddushin

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.1 One Master agrees with Samuel; the other does not agree with Samuel.2 Alternatively, all agree with Samuel,3 and here they differ in respect to the woman. 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. 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 thus only of a deposit, but not of a loan;4 and the other maintains that there is no difference between a deposit and a loan. 5 [Again,] Shall we say that this6 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. How is this note meant: shall we say, a note of debt against others — then R. Meir is self-contradictory?7 Hence it must mean her own note of debt,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,9 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;10 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 is not betrothed. 11 Alternatively, [we] suppose, that it was not written specifically for her sake, and they differ in respect to Resh Lakish's [view]. 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? 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].12 One Master agrees with Resh Lakish; the other does not. 13 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. 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.14 Shall we say that it [Rab's dictum] is dependent on the following Tannaim? 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,’15 as soon as he makes them, she is betrothed: this is R. Meir's view. 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?16 Hence it must surely refer to different money,17 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;18 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, 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 the debtor: (a) ;udv sucga a lien on his person; (b) ohxfb sucga 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.] possession upon the purchaser.] of witnesses. 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. perutah she stands as doubtfully betrothed, and needs a divorce to free her. 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.