## Kiddushin Daf 8b

###### Kiddushin 8b:1
[Kiddushin 8b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:1)

מָנֶה אֵין כָּאן – מַשְׁכּוֹן אֵין כָּאן. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: קִידְּשָׁה בְּמַשְׁכּוֹן מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת! הָתָם בְּמַשְׁכּוֹן דַּאֲחֵרִים וְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There is no one hundred dinars here,** as he has not yet given her one hundred dinars, and **there is no collateral here,** since this collateral is not a gift but merely a security. He has therefore not given her anything. **Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman** from the following *baraita*: If **he betrothed her with collateral, she is betrothed.** The Gemara answers: **There,** it is referring **to collateral** belonging **to other** people, which was in the possession of the man who betrothed her, **and** this is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yitzḥak.**


###### Kiddushin 8b:2
[Kiddushin 8b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:2)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקּוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה״ – אִם אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה, צְדָקָה מִנַּיִן? מִכָּאן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקּוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where** is it derived **that a creditor acquires collateral,** i.e., that the individual in possession of the collateral has the actual rights to it? **As it is stated:** “You shall surely restore him the pledge when the sun goes down that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; **and it shall be righteousness to you”** (Deuteronomy 24:13). **If** the creditor **does not acquire** the pledge or collateral, **from where** does this considering his return of the collateral as **righteousness** stem? The creditor is not giving an item belonging to him; why is this considered a righteous act? Rather, **from here** it is derived **that a creditor acquires collateral** to a certain extent.


###### Kiddushin 8b:3
[Kiddushin 8b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:3)

בְּנֵי רַב הוּנָא בַּר אָבִין זְבוּן הָהִיא אַמְתָּא בִּפְרִיטֵי, לָא הֲווֹ בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, אוֹתִיבוּ נְסָכָא עֲלֵיהּ. לְסוֹף אִיַּיקַּר אַמְתָּא. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: פְּרִיטֵי אֵין כָּאן, נְסָכָא אֵין כָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **The sons of Rav Huna bar Avin bought a certain maidservant** on the condition that they would pay **with** copper ***perutot*. They did not have** the money at the time, and therefore **they gave a piece of silver [*naskha*] for her** as collateral. **Ultimately,** the price of the **maidservant increased** and the sellers wanted to cancel the sale. **They came before Rabbi Ami** for his ruling and **he said to them: There are no *perutot* here,** and **there is no piece of silver here** either. There was no valid act of acquisition at all because they did not actually give the money, and the collateral does not transfer ownership.


###### Kiddushin 8b:4
[Kiddushin 8b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּמָנֶה״, נְטָלַתּוּ וּזְרָקַתּוּ לַיָּם אוֹ לָאוּר אוֹ לְכׇל דָּבָר הָאָבֵד – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. הָא שְׁדֵיתִינְהוּ קַמֵּיהּ – הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין? הָא קָאָמְרָה לֵיהּ: שְׁקֵיל, לָא בָּעֵינָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 2:9): If a man said to a woman: **Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars,** and **she took it** from his hand **and threw it into the sea, or into the fire, or into anything that destroys, she is not betrothed.** The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: The *baraita* indicates that she is not betrothed only if the one hundred dinars are destroyed, **but** if she **threw the coins before him** but did not destroy them, **that is a betrothal.** Why should this be? By throwing the coins at him **she is** effectively **saying to him: Take** this; **I do not want** your betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 8b:5
[Kiddushin 8b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:5)

לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָא אָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא שְׁדֵיתִינְהוּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּלָא הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין, אֲבָל זְרָקַתּוּ לַיָּם אוֹ לָאוּר אֵימָא כֵּיוָן דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא בְּהוּ, קַדּוֹשֵׁי קַדִּישׁ נַפְשָׁהּ, וְהָא דְּקָא עָבְדָא הָכִי, סָבְרָא: אֶיבְדְּקֵיהּ לְהַאי גַּבְרָא אִי רַתְחָנָא הוּא אוֹ לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *tanna* of the *baraita* **is speaking** using the style of: **It is not necessary,** as follows: **It is not necessary** to state in a case where **she throws** the money **before him that it is not a betrothal,** as her action indicates that she does not want to be betrothed. **But** when **she throws it into the sea or into the fire,** one might **say** that **since she is obligated** to pay **for** the money he gave her, perhaps **she betrothed herself** with the money she received. **And as** for the reason why **she did this** act of destroying the money, **she thought: I will test this man** to see **if he is** an individual of **an angry** temperament **or not.** Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us** that even in that case it is not a betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 8b:6
[Kiddushin 8b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:6)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּמָנֶה״ – ״תְּנֵם, לְאַבָּא וּלְאָבִיךָ״ – אֵינָהּ ״מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּקַבְּלוּם לִי״ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 2:9): If a man said to a woman: **Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars,** and she said to him: **Give** the money **to** my **father,** or: Give the money **to your father, she is not betrothed.** If she said: Give the money to my father, or Give the money to your father **on the condition that he accepts them for me, she is betrothed.**


###### Kiddushin 8b:7
[Kiddushin 8b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:7)

תְּנָא אַבָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחַ דְּרֵישָׁא, תְּנָא אָבִיךָ לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחַ דְּסֵיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: The *baraita* **taught** the case where she said: Give the money to my **father, to convey the far-reaching nature of** the *halakha* of **the first clause.** If she simply said that he should give the money to anybody else, even her own father, whom it can be assumed she wants to benefit, she is still not betrothed. And the *baraita* **taught** the case where she said: Give the money to **your father, to convey the far-reaching nature of** the *halakha* of **the latter clause.** If she said that someone else should receive the money on her behalf, it is a valid betrothal even if she said the money should be given to his father.


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

״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּמָנֶה״ – ״תְּנֵם לִפְלוֹנִי״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּקַבְּלֵם לִי״ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וּצְרִיכָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a similar case. If he said to her: **Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars,** and she said to him: **Give them to so-and-so, she is not betrothed.** But if she said to him: **On the condition that he accepts them for me, she is betrothed.** The Gemara comments: **It is necessary** to issue this ruling, despite the fact that it is apparently identical to the previous *halakha*.


###### Kiddushin 8b:9
[Kiddushin 8b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:9)

דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן ״אַבָּא וְאָבִיךְ״, הָתָם הוּא דְּכִי אָמְרָה ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּקַבְּלוּם לִי״ – הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין, דְּסָמְכָה דַּעְתַּהּ עִילָּ[וַ]יְהוּ, סָבְרָה: עָבְדִין לִי שְׁלִיחוּתַאי. אֲבָל פְּלוֹנִי – לָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: This is **because if** the *tanna* had **taught us** only the case where she said: **Give** the money **to** my **father,** or: Give the money **to your father,** one would say that **it is** in that case **there, when she said: On the condition that** one of these relatives **accepts them for me,** that **it is a betrothal, as she relies on them** and she **thinks: They will do my bidding for me** and will hold this money on my behalf. **But** if she says: Give it to **so-and-so,** someone who is not related to either of them, **no,** the betrothal is not valid.


###### Kiddushin 8b:10
[Kiddushin 8b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:10)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן פְּלוֹנִי, הָכָא הוּא דְּכִי אַמְרַהּ ״תְּנֵם לִפְלוֹנִי״ – לָא הָווּ קִידּוּשֵׁי, דְּלָא מְקָרְבָא דַּעְתַּהּ לְגַבֵּיהּ לְמִיתְּבֵהּ לֵיהּ בְּמַתָּנָה, אֲבָל ״אַבָּא וְאָבִיךְ״, דִּמְקָרְבָא דַּעְתַּהּ לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, אֵימָא בְּמַתָּנָה יַהֲבִיתֵיהּ נִיהֲלַיְיהוּ, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if** the *tanna* had **taught us** only the case of **so-and-so,** one might say: **It is here, when she said: Give it to so-and-so,** that **it is not a betrothal,** as **she is not close to him** and is not interested in **giving him** this money **as a gift. But** if she said: **Give** the money **to** my **father,** or: Give the money **to your father, to whom she is close,** one might **say** that **she gave it to them as a gift,** i.e., she accepted the sum as her betrothal money and decided to give it as a gift. If so, she should be betrothed. **It was** therefore **necessary** for the *tanna* to issue both rulings and clarify that she is not betrothed in either case.


###### Kiddushin 8b:11
[Kiddushin 8b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּמָנֶה״ – ״תְּנֵם עַל גַּבֵּי סֶלַע״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְאִם הָיָה סֶלַע שֶׁלָּהּ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. בָּעֵי רַב בִּיבִי: סֶלַע שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** If a man said to a woman: **Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars,** and she said to him: **Place them on a rock, she is not betrothed. And if** the **rock was hers, she is betrothed. Rav Beivai raises a dilemma:** If the **rock was** the property **of both of them, what is** the *halakha*? No answer was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Kiddushin 8b:12
[Kiddushin 8b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:12)

״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּכִכָּר״ – ״תְּנֵהוּ לְכֶלֶב״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְאִם הָיָה כֶּלֶב שֶׁלָּהּ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. בָּעֵי רַב מָרִי: כֶּלֶב רָץ אַחֲרֶיהָ, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses a similar case. If a man said to a woman: **Be betrothed to me with a loaf** of bread, and she said to him: **Give it to a dog, she is not betrothed. And if** this **dog was hers, she is betrothed. Rav Mari raises a dilemma:** If **a dog** was **chasing her** to bite her, and she said to him: Give the loaf to the dog, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Kiddushin 8b:13
[Kiddushin 8b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:13)

בְּהָהוּא הֲנָאָה דְּקָא מַצְּלָה נַפְשָׁהּ מִינֵּיהּ גָּמְרָה וּמַקְנְיָא לֵיהּ נַפְשָׁהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא מָצֵי אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: ״מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא חַיּוֹבֵי מְחַיְּיבַתְּ לַאֲצוּלַן״? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents the two sides of the dilemma: Does one say that **she commits herself** to betrothal **and transfers herself** to him **through this benefit that** she receives **by being rescued** from the dog? **Or perhaps she can say to him: By Torah law you are required to rescue me,** due to the injunction: “Neither shall you stand idly by the blood of your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:16), and therefore she is not betrothed with the loaf because she does not owe him anything. This problem is also left unanswered, and the Gemara again states that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Kiddushin 8b:14
[Kiddushin 8b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:14)

״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּכִכָּר״ – ״תְּנֵהוּ לְעָנִי״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, אֲפִילּוּ עָנִי הַסָּמוּךְ עָלֶיהָ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: כִּי הֵיכִי דִּמְחַיַּיבְנָא בֵּיהּ אֲנָא, הָכִי מְחַיְּיבַתְּ בֵּיהּ אַתְּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If a man said to a woman: **Be betrothed to me with a loaf** of bread, and she said: **Give it to a poor person, she is not betrothed, even** if it was **a poor person who is dependent upon her,** i.e., a poor person who regularly receives food from that woman. **What is the reason** for this? She could **say to him: Just as I am required** to give charity to **him, so too you are required** to give charity to **him.** Therefore, this donation is not an indication that she has agreed to the betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 8b:15
[Kiddushin 8b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/8b:15)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָא מְזַבֵּין

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain man who was selling**