Si l'on dit à une femme: "Tu m'es fiancée [avec cette p'rutah] à condition que je te donne deux cents zuz, elle est fiancée, et il le donne. [Et quand il le donne, elle est fiancée rétroactivement. Car si l'on dit: «à condition», c'est comme s'il disait: «à partir de maintenant».] (S'il disait :) «d'ici à trente jours» —s'il le lui a donné dans les trente jours, elle est fiancée; sinon, elle n'est pas fiancée. «À condition que j'aie deux cents zuz», elle est fiancée s'il les a [c'est-à-dire s'il y a des témoins qu'il les a. Et si on ne sait pas s'il l'a, elle est fiancée sur la possibilité (qu'il l'ait), étant possible qu'il l'ait et qu'il veuille lui faire du mal.] "A condition que je vous montre deux cent zuz », elle est fiancée, et il le lui montre. Et s'il lui montrait sur la table, [S'il était un changeur d'argent, et qu'il lui montrait sur la table de l'argent qui n'était pas le sien,] elle n'est pas fiancée.
Bartenura on Mishnah Kiddushin
הרי את מקודשת לי – with this Perutah/penny on the condition that I will give you two hundred Zuz.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
Introduction
This mishnah deals with a man who attempts to betroth a woman on condition that he either give her two hundred zuz, has two hundred zuz or owns two hundred zuz.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Kiddushin
ויתן – and when he gives it [to her], she is betrothed retroactively, but all who say, on condition is treated like one who says, “from now.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
If one says to a woman. “Behold, you are betrothed to me on condition that I give you two hundred zuz,” she is betrothed, and he must give it. In such a case the woman is immediately betrothed and the man must thereafter give her two hundred zuz. If he does not give her two hundred zuz, the betrothal becomes invalid. The problem is that since he didn’t set a time limit he has an unlimited time to give her the two hundred zuz. Potentially, the only way for the betrothal to become invalid would be for him to die before he gives her the money. In such a case she would not be considered his widow and she would not be liable for yibbum. Therefore, this is not a particularly good way of performing betrothal, especially for the woman.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Kiddushin
הרי זו מקודשת ויש לו – if there witnesses that he has it (i.e., the money), and if it is not known that he has it, she is doubtfully betrothed, lest he has it, but that he intends to upset her.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
“On condition that I give you [two hundred zuz] within thirty days from now”: if he gives her within thirty days, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. In this case he did set a time limit for the fulfillment of his condition. Therefore, if he doesn’t give her the betrothal within thirty days, she is not betrothed. In fact, this may have been a common form of betrothal. The man would have thirty days (or a longer period of time) to come up with the money necessary to betroth the woman and if he did not, the betrothal was invalidated with no need for a get. This prevented the woman from being left hanging.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Kiddushin
ןאם הראה על השלחן – for he was a money-changer and he showed her money on the table that was not his, and she is not betrothed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
“On condition that I have two hundred zuz,” she is betrothed, providing he has [two hundred zuz]. In this case, all the man has to do is demonstrate that he owns two hundred zuz. Again, she is betrothed immediately and he must prove that he has two hundred zuz. However, we should note that in order to be certain that the betrothal is invalid she would have to prove that he doesn’t own two hundred zuz. This will not be easy and again the woman is in a disadvantageous situation.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
“On condition that I show you two hundred zuz,” she is betrothed, and he must show her. But if he shows her [money lying] on the table, she is not betrothed. Here he must not only own two hundred zuz, but show her the cash (or its equivalent). He may not show her two hundred zuz lying on a table unless he actually owns them. Just as in section two, this too seems to be better for the woman. Here she can actually see that he owns the two hundred zuz and need not worry about proving (or disproving) it.
