Kiddushin

Wherein do they differ? — They differ where the divorce document is torn or lost [before the money is given]: according to R. Huna, it is a divorce; according to Rab Judah, it is not a divorce. Now, it is necessary [to state both cases]. For if we were told this of kiddushin [only, I would say] in that case R. Huna says thus, because he comes to attach her [to himself];1 but as for divorce, where he comes to alienate her, I might say that he agrees with Rab Judah. And if the latter were taught: only there does R. Huna rule thus, for he [the husband] is not ashamed to demand it of her; but here [in the case of marriage], seeing that she is ashamed to demand it of him, I would argue that he agrees with Rab Judah. Thus both are necessary. An objection was raised: ‘Here is thy divorce, on condition that thou givest me two hundred zuz,’ she is divorced even though the document is torn or lost;2 yet she may not marry another until she has given it. Again, it was taught: ‘Here is thy divorce on condition that thou givest me two hundred zuz,’ and then he dies, if she gave it [before his death], she is not bound to the yabam; if not, she is bound to the yabam.3 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: She can give it to his brother, father, or one of his relations.4 Now, they differ only in so far as one Master holds, ‘To me’ [implies] ‘but not to my heirs’, whilst the other rules: ‘Even to my heirs’; but all agree that it is a condition, which refutes Rab Judah! — Rab Judah answers you: Who is the authority for this? Rabbi. For R. Huna said in Rabbi's name:5 He who says. ‘On condition,’ is as though he says: ‘From now’;6 but the Rabbis disagree with him, and I hold with the Rabbis. The text [says]: R. Huna said in Rabbi's name: He who says. ‘on condition,’ is as though he says: ‘From now.’ R. Zera observed: When we were in Babylon7 we used to say: With reference to R. Huna's dictum in Rabbi's name, ‘One who says: "on condition," is as though he says: "from now"’: the Rabbis dispute it. When I went up thither [Palestine], I found R. Assi sitting and expounding in R. Johanan's name: All agree that if he says: ‘on condition,’ it is as though he says: ‘From now’. They differ only in respect of ‘from to-day and after death’. And it was taught even so: ‘From to-day and after [my death]’: it is a divorce, yet not a divorce: this is the view of the Sages. Rabbi said: This indeed is a divorce.8 Now, according to Rab Judah who maintains that they differ in respect of ‘on condition’ too’ instead of disputing in [the case of] ‘from to-day and after [my] death,’ let them dispute in respect of ‘on condition?’ — That is to teach you the extent of Rabbi's view,9 that even in the case of ‘from to-day and after death,’ it is a valid divorce. Then let them dispute with reference to ‘on condition,’ to shew you the extent of the Rabbis’ view? — The extent of what is permitted is more important.10 ON CONDITION THAT I GIVE THEE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM NOW’ etc. But it is obvious? — I might have thought that it is not a condition,11 and he said it to urge her on; hence we are told [that it is not so.] ON CONDITION THAT I POSSESS TWO HUNDRED ZUZ’ etc. But let us fear that he may possess it [secretly]? Moreover, it was taught: We fear that he may possess it? — There is no difficulty: The one refers to certain kiddushin; the other, to doubtful kiddushin.12 ‘ON CONDITION THAT I SHEW THEE TWO HUNDRED ZUZ’ etc. A Tanna taught: Her purpose was to see none but his. BUT IF HE SHEWS HER [MONEY LYING] ON THE COUNTER, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. But it is obvious? — It is necessary [to teach it] only even when he holds the money in an investment.13 MISHNAH. [IF HE SAYS TO HER ‘BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME]14 ON CONDITION THAT I OWN A BETH KOR15 OF LAND’,16 SHE IS BETROTHED, PROVIDING THAT HE DOES OWN IT. ON CONDITION THAT I OWN IT IN SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE’, IF HE OWNS IT THERE SHE IS BETROTHED, BUT IF NOT SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. ‘ON CONDITION THAT I SHEW THEE A BETH KOR OF LAND,’ SHE IS BETROTHED, PROVIDING THAT HE DOES SHEW IT TO HER. BUT IF HE SHEWS IT TO HER IN A PLAIN,17 SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. GEMARA. But let us fear that he may possess it? Moreover, it was taught. We fear that he may possess it? — There is no difficulty: the one refers to certain kiddushin; the other, to doubtful kiddushin.18 Why must it be taught with respect to both land and money? — It is necessary: for if we were told this of money, [I would say] that is because people are accustomed to hide money;19 but as for land I would say: If he possesses land, it is known:20 hence we are informed [otherwise]. ON CONDITION THAT I POSSESS IT IN SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE,’ IF HE POSSESSES IT. etc. But it is obvious? — I might argue that he can say to her, ‘What does it matter to you? I will take the trouble of bringing [its produce where you want it].’ Hence we are informed [that it is not so]. ON CONDITION THAT I SHEW THEE A BETH KOR OF LAND. A Tanna taught: Her meaning was to see none but his. BUT IF HE SHEWS IT TO HER IN A PLAIN, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. But that is obvious? — It is necessary [to teach it] only if he holds it on a farming tenancy.21 With respect to hekdesh we learnt: first perutah shall effect it. here, it is referred to Rabbi. how far it is invalid, for one must be more positive to permit than to forbid. interest therein. Nevertheless she is not betrothed.