## Kiddushin Daf 47a

###### Kiddushin 47a:1
[Kiddushin 47a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:1)

לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר לָהּ: ״בָּזוֹ וּבָזוֹ וּבָזוֹ״. אֲבָל אָמַר לָהּ: ״בְּאֵלּוּ״ – אֲפִילּוּ אוֹכֶלֶת נָמֵי מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, כִּי קָא אָכְלָה – מִדְּנַפְשַׁהּ קָאָכְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna **taught** that if she ate the dates one by one their value is not added together **only if he said to her** that she is betrothed: **With this** one, **and with this** one, **and with this** one, which indicates that she is not betrothed until she has received them all. **But** if **he said to her** that he is betrothing her: **With these,** i.e., with all of them together, **even** if she **is eating** them one by one she is **also betrothed** if their combined value is one *peruta*. The reason is that **when she eats, she eats of her own** food. Once she has accepted the dates as money for betrothal, they become her own property and she is betrothed.


###### Kiddushin 47a:2
[Kiddushin 47a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:2)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּאַלּוֹן בְּרִמּוֹן וּבֶאֱגוֹז״ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לָהּ: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּאֵלּוּ״, אִם יֵשׁ בְּכוּלָּן שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. ״בָּזוֹ וּבָזוֹ וּבָזוֹ״, אִם יֵשׁ בְּכוּלָּם שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. ״בָּזוֹ״ – נְטָלַתּוּ וַאֲכָלַתּוּ, ״בָּזוֹ״ – נְטָלַתּוּ וַאֲכָלַתּוּ, וְעוֹד ״בָּזוֹ״ וְעוֹד ״בָּזוֹ״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava:** If one said to a woman: **Be betrothed to me with** the fruit of **an oak tree,** i.e., an acorn, **with a pomegranate, and with a nut, or if he said to her: Be betrothed to me with these, if combined they are worth one *peruta*, she is betrothed. But if not, she is not betrothed.** If he said to her: Be betrothed to me **with this** one, **and with this** one, **and with this** one, **if combined they are worth one *peruta*, she is betrothed. But if not, she is not betrothed.** If he said to her: Be betrothed to me **with this** one, and **she took it and ate it; with this** one, and **she took it and ate it; and also with this** one **and also with this** one, **she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth one *peruta*.** This concludes the *baraita*.


###### Kiddushin 47a:3
[Kiddushin 47a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:3)

הַאי ״בְּאַלּוֹן בְּרִמּוֹן בֶּאֱגוֹז״, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵימָא דְּאָמַר לַהּ: ״אוֹ בְּאַלּוֹן, אוֹ בְּרִמּוֹן, אוֹ בֶּאֱגוֹז״, אִם יֵשׁ בְּכוּלָּן שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת? וְהָא ״אוֹ״ קָאָמַר! וְאֶלָּא ״בְּאַלּוֹן וּבְרִמּוֹן וּבֶאֱגוֹז״ – הַיְינוּ ״בָּזוֹ וּבָזוֹ וּבָזוֹ״! אֶלָּא לָאו דַּאֲמַר לַהּ: ״בְּאֵלּוּ״, הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לָהּ ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּאֵלּוּ״ – מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו בְּ״אֵלּוּ״ עָסְקִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to prove Rava’s ruling from the *baraita*. **What are the circumstances** in **this** first case, where he said: **With** the fruit of **an oak tree, with a pomegranate, with a nut? If we say that he said to her: Either with** the fruit of **an oak tree, or with a pomegranate, or with a nut,** why is the *halakha* that **if combined they are worth one *peruta* she is betrothed? But didn’t he say: Or,** which indicates that she is betrothed with only one of them, and that one item should need to be worth one *peruta*? **But rather,** if we say that he said to her: **With** the fruit of **an oak tree, and with a pomegranate, and with a nut** together, **that is** the same as saying: **With this** one, **and with this** one, **and with this** one. That *halakha* is stated in the subsequent clause of the *baraita*, and would be redundant. **Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where he said to her:** Be betrothed to me **with these? But from** the fact **that the latter clause teaches: Or if he said to her: Be betrothed to me with these, it may be inferred that** in **the first clause we are not dealing with** a situation where he said: **These.**


###### Kiddushin 47a:4
[Kiddushin 47a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:4)

פָּירוּשֵׁי קָא מְפָרֵשׁ: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּאַלּוֹן בְּרִמּוֹן בֶּאֱגוֹז״, כֵּיצַד? כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר לַהּ ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּאֵלּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues with the explication of the *baraita*: Rather, it is to be understood as an initial, general statement, which the *tanna* **is** then **explaining,** as follows: If one says to a woman: **Be betrothed to me with** the fruit of **an oak tree, with a pomegranate, with a nut;** the *baraita* pauses and explains the circumstances of the case: **How so? For example, when he** gave her these three items and **said to her: Be betrothed to me with these.**


###### Kiddushin 47a:5
[Kiddushin 47a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:5)

וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״בָּזוֹ״ נְטָלַתּוּ וַאֲכָלַתּוּ, אִם יֵשׁ בְּאַחַת מֵהֶם שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues with its proof: **And the latter clause** of the *baraita* **teaches** a second possibility: If he said to her that she is betrothed: **With this** one, and she **took it and ate it,** then **if one of them is worth one *peruta*, she is betrothed. And if not, she is not betrothed.**


###### Kiddushin 47a:6
[Kiddushin 47a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:6)

וְאִילּוּ רֵישָׁא, לָא קָא מְפַלֵּיג בֵּין אוֹכֶלֶת לְמַנַּחַת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כֹּל הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר לַהּ ״בְּאֵלּוּ״ כִּי קָא אָכְלָה – מִנַּפְשַׁהּ קָא אָכְלָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**While** in contrast to this, **in the first clause** of the *baraita* the *tanna* **does not distinguish between** a woman who **is eating** the items **and one who is placing** them in her possession. In either case, she is betrothed. You can **conclude from** the *baraita* that **any** case **where he said to her: With these,** if they were worth one *peruta* combined, then **when she is eating** them **she is eating of her own** food. It is not considered a loan. The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from** the *baraita* that Rava’s statement is correct.


###### Kiddushin 47a:7
[Kiddushin 47a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:7)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי, וּמַאי ״עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, הָכִי נָמֵי: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one,** i.e., Rabbi Ami, **who says** that the case of the woman eating the dates one by one **is referring to the latter clause** of the mishna, where he said: Be betrothed to me with this and with that, **and** who explained: **What** is the meaning of: She is not betrothed **unless one of them is worth one *peruta*? Unless the last one is worth one *peruta*. So too,** the *baraita* can be explained: **Unless the last one is worth one *peruta*.**


###### Kiddushin 47a:8
[Kiddushin 47a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:8)

אֶלָּא לְרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי, וְאוֹכֶלֶת אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ – הָכָא כְּלָלֵי קָחָשֵׁיב, פְּרָטֵי לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to Rav and Shmuel, who both say** that the case of the woman eating the dates one by one **is referring to the first clause** of the mishna, how would they explain the statement of the *baraita*? In the first clause of the mishna, one said: Be betrothed to me with this, be betrothed to me with that, and if one of them is worth one *peruta* she is betrothed. **And** Rav and Shmuel explained that **it was necessary for** the *tanna* to mention the case of a woman who **is eating** to teach that despite her immediate benefit, one of the dates must be worth one *peruta* for her to be betrothed. The phrase: Unless one of them is worth one *peruta*, indicates that one alone must be worth one *peruta*. But **here** the *baraita* **lists** only **groupings;** it **does not list individual** items. The *baraita* states a case where he said to her: Be betrothed to me, only once, followed by a statement that the three items should serve as the betrothal money. Why, then, does one of them need to be worth one *peruta*?


###### Kiddushin 47a:9
[Kiddushin 47a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:9)

הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא, דַּאֲמַר: לָא שְׁנָא ״כְּזַיִת כְּזַיִת״, וְלָא שְׁנָא ״כְּזַיִת וּכְזַיִת״, פְּרָטָא הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *halakha* of the *baraita* taught? **It is** that of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **who says** with regard to the laws of *piggul*, which is an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume an olive-bulk of it after its appointed time or outside the boundaries of where it must be consumed: There is **no difference** whether he says that he intends to consume: **An olive-bulk** after its time, **an olive-bulk** outside its boundaries, i.e., without employing the word: And; **or** whether he said that he intends to consume **an olive-bulk** after its time **and an olive-bulk** outside its boundaries, i.e., employing the word: And. Both expressions **are** considered **individual** statements, since he is treating each statement separately, and in neither case does he intend to combine the two amounts. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, when one says: With this and with this, each statement is distinct. Consequently, although she derives immediate benefit by eating the dates she receives, she is betrothed only if one of them is worth one *peruta* on its own.


###### Kiddushin 47a:10
[Kiddushin 47a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:10)

אָמַר רַב: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוֶה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, מִלְוָה לְהוֹצָאָה נִיתְּנָה. נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוֶה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר מִלְוָה לְהוֹצָאָה נִיתְּנָה, וּמָר סָבַר מִלְוָה לָאו לְהוֹצָאָה נִיתְּנָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says:** With regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with a loan, she is not betrothed,** since **a loan is given to be spent.** Consequently, from the moment the money is lent it no longer belongs to the lender, and he cannot betroth a woman with it. The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this is **subject to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it was taught in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with a loan, she is not betrothed, and some say she is betrothed. What, is it not** that they **disagree with regard to this:** One **Sage holds** that **a loan is given to be spent, and** one **Sage holds** that **a loan is not given to be spent?**


###### Kiddushin 47a:11
[Kiddushin 47a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:11)

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְשָׁוִים בְּמֶכֶר שֶׁזֶּה קָנָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִלְוָה לְהוֹצָאָה נִיתְּנָה, בְּמַאי קָנֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this suggestion: **And** how can **you understand** it that way? **Say the latter clause** of that same *baraita*: **And they agree with regard to** the case of **a sale that he acquires** it. Although they disagree as to whether one can betroth a woman with a loan he has given her, they agree that a lender can purchase an item from the debtor in exchange for forgiving the money he has lent him. **If you say** that **a loan is given to be spent, with what has he acquired** it? There is no money with which to effect an acquisition. No proof can be derived from this *baraita*, which cannot be understood as stated.


###### Kiddushin 47a:12
[Kiddushin 47a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:12)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הוּנָא חַבְרִין מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּמִילֵּי אוּחְרֵי, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר לַהּ: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּמָנֶה״ וְנִמְצָא מָנֶה חָסֵר דִּינָר. מָר סָבַר: כְּסִיפָא לַהּ מִילְּתָא לְמִיתְבְּעֵיהּ. וּמָר סָבַר: לָא כְּסִיפָא לַהּ מִילְּתָא לְמִיתְבְּעֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says: Our colleague** Rav **Huna interprets** the *baraita* as referring **to other matters** and not as referring to a straightforward case of a loan. **And with what are we dealing here?** A case **where he said to her: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and it was found** to be **one hundred dinars less** one **dinar,** the missing dinar is considered to be a loan that he has taken from her. One **Sage,** who said the woman is not betrothed, **holds** that **the matter is embarrassing for her,** preventing her **from claiming** the final dinar from him, and since he has failed to fulfill his statement she is not betrothed. **And** one **Sage,** who said that she is betrothed, **holds** that **the matter is not embarrassing for her** and is not preventing her **from claiming** the final dinar. He is therefore considered to have fulfilled his statement and borrowed one dinar from her, which he will repay in due course, but she is nevertheless betrothed.


###### Kiddushin 47a:13
[Kiddushin 47a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:13)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּמָנֶה״ וְנָתַן לָהּ דִּינָר – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת וְיַשְׁלִים, לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? אָמְרִי: מָנֶה חָסֵר דִּינָר כְּסִיפָא לַהּ מִילְּתָא לְמִיתְבְּעֵיהּ, מָנֶה חָסֵר תִּשְׁעִים וָתֵשַׁע לָא כְּסִיפָא לַהּ מִילְּתָא לְמִיתְבְּעֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But rather,** with regard to **that which Rabbi Elazar says:** If one said to a woman: **Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and he gave her** one **dinar, she is betrothed and he must** later **finish** giving the full sum; **let us say** that **his statement** is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** The Sages **say** to distinguish between the cases: Where he gave her **one hundred dinars less a dinar, the matter is embarrassing for her,** preventing her **from claiming** the final dinar from him, since he has given her almost the entire sum. But if he gave her **one hundred dinars less ninety-nine, the matter is not embarrassing for her** and is not preventing her **from claiming** the rest of the dinars. Therefore, all would agree that she is betrothed in the latter case.


###### Kiddushin 47a:14
[Kiddushin 47a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47a:14)

מֵיתִיבִי: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּפִקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדֵךְ״ וְהָלְכָה וּמְצָאַתּוּ שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד, אִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנּוּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וּבְמִלְוָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנּוּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מִלְוָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the statement of Rav from a *baraita*: In the case of **one who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with the deposit that I have in your possession, and she went and found that** the deposit had been **stolen or that** it had been **lost, if** the **value of one *peruta* of it remains** she is **betrothed** with that amount. **And if not, she is not betrothed,** since there is nothing to effect the betrothal. **But** if he said to her that he is betrothing her **with a loan** that he had given her, **she is betrothed, even though** the **value of one *peruta* of it does not remain. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A loan**