## Kiddushin Daf 47b

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

הֲרֵי הִיא כְּפִקָּדוֹן. עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: מִלְוָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וּמָר סָבַר: נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – אִין, וְאִי לָא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – לָא. אֲבָל דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**is like a deposit.** The Gemara analyzes this: **They disagree only with regard to** this: There is one **Sage who holds** that one can betroth a woman with **a loan, even though** the **value of one *peruta* does not remain of it. And** one **Sage holds** that if the **value of one *peruta* remains from it, yes,** he can betroth her with it, **but if** the **value of one *peruta* does not remain of it,** he **cannot. But everyone agrees** that if **one betroths** a woman **with a loan, she is betrothed.** This presents a difficulty for Rav, who stated that one cannot betroth a woman with a loan.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְתִסְבְּרַאּ הָא מְתָרַצְתָּא? הָא מְשַׁבַּשְׁתָּא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: And** how can **you understand** it that way? Is **this** *baraita* fully **explainable? It is corrupted** and cannot be cited as a proof.


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

הַאי פִּקָּדוֹן הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּקַבִּיל עֲלַיהּ אַחְרָיוּת, הַיְינוּ מִלְוָה. אִי דְּלָא קַבִּיל עֲלַיהּ אַחְרָיוּת – אִי הָכִי אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וּבְמִלְוָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, נִיפְלוֹג וְנִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁלֹּא קִבְּלָה עָלֶיהָ אַחְרָיוּת, אֲבָל קִבְּלָה עָלֶיהָ אַחְרָיוּת, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He explains why the *baraita* must be corrupted: **What are the circumstances of this deposit** discussed in the *baraita*? **If she assumed** financial **responsibility** to repay the owner **for it** if it is stolen or lost, it **is** the same as **a loan,** as even if it is entirely lost she must still repay its value. **If she did not assume** financial **responsibility for it,** then **if so, rather than teaching in the latter clause** of the *baraita*: **But** if he betroths her **with a loan** that he had given her, **she is betrothed despite** the fact **that** the **value of one *peruta* of it does not remain; let him distinguish and teach** the distinction **within the** case **itself,** as follows: **In what** case **is this statement said,** that she is not betrothed if less than the value of one *peruta* remains from the deposit? **If she did not assume** financial **responsibility upon herself** for it. **But** if **she assumed** financial **responsibility upon herself, even though** the **value of one *peruta* did not remain from it, she is betrothed.**


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

אֶלָּא, תָּרֵיץ הָכִי: וּבְמִלְוָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** since the wording of the *baraita* cannot remain as is, **answer this** way: **But** if he betroths her **with a loan** that he had given her, **she is not betrothed, despite** the fact **that** the **value of one *peruta* of it remains.**


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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מִלְוָה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּפִקָּדוֹן. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר רַבָּה: אַשְׁכַּחְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן בְּבֵי רַב דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: בְּמִלְוָה בִּרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים לַחֲזָרָה וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאוּנְסִין קָמִיפַּלְגִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* stated that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A loan is like a deposit.** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do they disagree? Rabba said: I found the scholars in the study hall of Rav who were sitting and saying: They disagree with regard to** the issue of whether **a loan** the debtor had not yet begun to spend is **in the possession of** the **owner with regard to** the possibility of **retraction** of the loan by the lender. **And the same is true,** i.e., they also disagree, **with regard to** who bears responsibility for **accidents.**


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

דְּמָר סָבַר: מִלְוָה בִּרְשׁוּת לֹוֶה קָיְימָא, וְהוּא הַדִּין לָאוֹנָסִים. וּמָר סָבַר: מִלְוָה בִּרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים קָיְימָא, וְהוּא הַדִּין לָאוֹנָסִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As** one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds: A loan stands in the possession of the debtor,** i.e., even if it has not been spent, the lender cannot demand the return of the money. **And the same is true with regard to** responsibility for **accidents,** i.e., if the money is lost, it is considered lost from the debtor’s possession and he bears responsibility for it. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, **holds: A loan** that the debtor has not yet begun to spend **stands in the possession of the owner, and the same is true with regard to** responsibility for **accidents.** He can therefore betroth a woman with the money he has already lent her, provided that she has not yet begun to spend it.


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

וְאָמֵינָא לְהוּ: לָאוֹנָסִים – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבִרְשׁוּת לֹוֶה קָיְימִי, מַאי טַעְמָא – לָא גָּרְעָא מִשְּׁאֵלָה, מָה שְׁאֵלָה דְּהָדְרָה בְּעֵינַהּ חַיָּיב בָּאוֹנָסִים, מִלְוָה לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן. אֶלָּא הָכָא מִלְוָה בִּרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים לַחֲזָרָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba continues: **And I said to them: With regard to accidents, everyone agrees** that it **stands in the possession of the debtor** and he is responsible for the money. **What is the reason?** A loan of money is **no worse than borrowing** an item. **Just as** in the case of **borrowing** an item, **whereby** the item is **returned** to its owner **intact** and yet the debtor **is liable for accidents,** as explicitly stated in the Torah, is it **not all the more so** that with regard to **a loan,** which the debtor spends and repays with other money, it should be considered in the debtor’s possession and he should bear responsibility for it? **Rather, here** the practical difference **between them** concerns the question of **a loan in the possession of the owner with regard to** the possibility of **retraction** of the loan. The first *tanna* is of the opinion that he cannot retract the loan, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that he can do so.


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

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַשּׁוֹאֵל קוּרְדּוֹם מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, בִּיקַּע בּוֹ – קְנָאוֹ. לֹא בִּיקַּע בּוֹ – לֹא קְנָאוֹ. לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But rather,** with regard to **that which Rav Huna says:** In the case of **one who borrows an ax from his friend** for a certain period of time, if **he chops** wood **with it he has acquired it** in the sense that the lender cannot demand its immediate return. If **he has not chopped** wood **with it he has not acquired it. Let us say** that **this *halakha*** that Rav Huna **stated** is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** According to the explanation of Rabba, it would be a dispute between the first *tanna* and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.


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

לָא, עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא בְּמִלְוָה, דְּלָא הָדְרָה בְּעֵינַהּ. אֲבָל בִּשְׁאֵלָה, דְּהָדְרָה בְּעֵינַהּ, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּיקַּע בּוֹ – אִין, לֹא בִּיקַּע בּוֹ – לֹא קְנָאוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No, they disagree only with regard to a loan, which is not returned intact.** Since there is no need for the debtor to return the same money to the lender, this means that the money has been transferred to the debtor’s domain, and the first *tanna* holds that the lender may not retract the loan. **But with regard to** the **borrowing** of an item, for example the ax, **which is returned intact, everyone agrees** that if **one chopped with it, yes,** he has acquired it and is responsible for it. If **he has not chopped with it, he has not acquired it.**


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

נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי? ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בִּשְׁטַר חוֹב״, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מִלְוָה בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים וְהִירְשָׁהּ עֲלֵיהֶם, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. הַאי שְׁטַר חוֹב הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא שְׁטַר חוֹב דַּאֲחֵרִים – הַיְינוּ מִלְוָה בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁטַר חוֹב דִּידַהּ, וּבִמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that Rav’s statement that one cannot betroth a woman with a loan **is subject to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** The *baraita* teaches: If one says to a woman: **Be betrothed to me with a promissory note, or if he had a loan in the possession of others and he authorized her to** collect the money for herself, **Rabbi Meir says she is betrothed and the Rabbis say she is not betrothed.** The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances** of **this promissory note? If we say** it is **a promissory note of others** who owe him money, **this is** the same as **a loan in the possession of others,** and why would the *baraita* state it twice? **Rather, is it not** referring to **her promissory note,** i.e., a loan she has taken from him, and **they disagree with regard to one who betroths** a woman **with a loan,** whether forgiving the debt by returning the promissory note counts as betrothal money?


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

לְעוֹלָם שְׁטַר חוֹב דַּאֲחֵרִים, וְהָכָא בְּמִלְוָה בִּשְׁטָר וּבְמִלְוָה עַל פֶּה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **Actually,** the *baraita* is referring to **a promissory note of others, and here** they **disagree** in two cases: **In** the case of **a loan with** a promissory **note and in** the case of **a loan by oral** agreement.


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

בְּמִלְוָה בִּשְׁטָר בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי – בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנוֹת בִּמְסִירָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין שֶׁכָּתַב וְלֹא מָסַר, בֵּין שֶׁמָּסַר וְלָא כָּתַב – לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב וְיִמְסוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **With regard to a loan with** a promissory **note, concerning what** matter **do they disagree? They disagree concerning the dispute between Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and the Rabbis, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Letters,** i.e., the content of a promissory note, **are acquired by** merely **transferring** the document. If the lender hands over a promissory note to a third party, the latter can collect the debt. This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **And the Rabbis say: Whether one wrote** a document of sale for the promissory note **but did not transfer** the promissory note itself, or **whether he transferred** the promissory note **but did not write** a document of sale for it, the recipient **has not acquired** the promissory note. The recipient acquires it only **once** the other **writes** a document of sale **and transfers** the promissory note.


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

מָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The suggestion is that one **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **is of** the opinion that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, and therefore one can betroth a woman by giving her a promissory note even without writing a document of sale for it. **And one Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis, **is not of** the opinion that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, and she is not betrothed because she has not received anything.


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לֵית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי, וְהָכָא בִּדְרַב פָּפָּא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי מַאן דְּזָבֵין שְׁטָרָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ, צָרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב לֵיהּ: ״קְנִי לָךְ הוּא וְכׇל שִׁעְבּוּדֵיהּ״. מָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead the following answer: **No one is of** the opinion that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and here** they **disagree with regard to** the statement **of Rav Pappa, as Rav Pappa says: This one who sells** a promissory **note to his friend must write** the following formula **for him: Let it be acquired by you, it and all its liens.** Otherwise, the debt discussed in the promissory note is not transferred. One **Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis, **is of** the opinion that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion **of Rav Pappa. And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **is not of** the opinion that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion **of Rav Pappa.** He holds that the debt is acquired even if one did not write this phrase, and a man can betroth a woman by giving a promissory note to her.


###### Kiddushin 47b:15
[Kiddushin 47b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/47b:15)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא וְהָכָא בְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **Everyone is of** the opinion that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion **of Rav Pappa,** and even Rabbi Meir agrees that she is betrothed only if he wrote in the document: Let it be acquired by you, it and all its liens. **And here** they **disagree with regard to** the statement **of Shmuel, as Shmuel says:**