Why is lengthening the time of the loan able to effect a Kidushin more than
letting her keep the money of the loan entirely?
If Abaye means to differentiate between being Mekadesh with the actual
*money* that the woman owes him, and being Mekadesh with the *Hana'ah* that
she gets when he lengthens the time of the loan, then why does Abaye say
that Kidushin can be made with the Hana'ah that she receives from him when
he *lengthens* the loan? He should have said that Kidushin can be made with
the Hana'ah that he gives her by lending money to her, or by forgiving the
loan. Why does he discuss instead *lengthening* the loan?
(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ishus 5:15) indeed learns that when Abaye says that
a man can be Mekadesh a woman with "Hana'as Milveh," he means that he can be
Mekadesh her with the Hana'ah that she receives when she receives the
initial loan. This is what the Gemara means when it says that he lengthened
the time of the loan for her; it means that he specified a length of time
during which she is permitted to use the money.
(b) RABEINU CHANANEL, cited by the RASHBA and other Rishonim, explains that
"Hana'as Milveh" means that the woman returned the money that she owed the
husband, and he gave it back to her l'Shem (for the sake of) Kidushin. He
explains that the Gemara does not mean to differentiate between Kidushin
done with money and Kidushin done with the Hana'ah of receiving money.
Perhaps any time the woman receives a quantifiable monetary benefit, the
Kidushin must be accomplished by the money itself and not by the pleasure
that she experiences from receiving the money. Rather, in the case of
"Hana'as Milveh" as well, the Kidushin is being created by the *money* that
the man loaned to the woman. The husband takes back the loan and says "from
now on I will give the money to you as Kidushin and you will no longer owe
it to me as a loan."
According to Rabeinu Chananel, what is the Chidush of Abaye, who says that
one can make Kidushin in such a manner? If the man receives payment for the
loan and then gives the money to the woman, it is obvious that it is no
longer a loan and that it is the normal Kesef of Kidushin!
Rabeinu Chananel apparently learns that the husband did not actually take
back the money as repayment for the loan. Rather, he specified that instead
of taking it for himself as payment, he was returning it to the woman as
Kidushin. The money can be designated as the money of the loan, even though
the money of a Milveh is normally "l'Hotza'ah Nitnah" (given to be spent and
used) and no coin can be specified as the specific money of the loan. The
money can be designated as the money of the loan because once the woman sets
aside money to use as payment for the loan, those coins become the coins "of
the loan" that the man gave to her, and when the man is Mochel those coins
to her, they can be used as Kesef for Kidushin. (Rabeinu Chananel apparently
learns that "Milvah l'Hotza'ah Nitnah" applies only when the money is
actually spent, but not when the specific coins that were loaned are still
(c) The RA'AVAD cited by the Rashba explains that "Hana'as Milveh" means
that the time arrived for the loan to be repaid. Therefore, it is as if the
money was already returned to the man and now he can be Mekadesh the woman
with that money. This is similar to the way Rabeinu Chananel explains the
Gemara; the Kidushin is made with the money itself, and not with the Hana'ah
of being able to use it.
However, the Ra'avad's words as they appear in our texts (in Perush
ha'Ra'avad, and in Hilchos Ishus 5:15) does not write that it is as if the
loan has been repaid. Rather, since the time has come to repay the loan, the
woman benefits immediately from being given extra time to hold on to the
money. The man is Mekadesh her with this Hana'ah that she receives of being
able to use the money.
This is also the explanation of RABEINU TAM (cited by Tosfos, DH d'Arvach),
and this is the intention of the RIF, according to the way he is quoted by
the TOSFOS RI HA'ZAKEN. Apparently, if the woman would not be benefiting
immediately from being given extra time to keep the loan (for example, if
the time has not yet arrived to repay the loan), then the Kidushin would not
According to this explanation, why does the Beraisa suggest a case of being
Mochel the loan when it is due, rather than being Mekadesh her with the
giving of the loan in the first place? (According to Rabeinu Tam, even if he
is Mekadesh her at the time the loan is given, it would not be Ribis; see
following Insight.) Perhaps the Beraisa wants to give a case in which
Kidushin does work to parallel the case of Reisha (Mekadesh with a Milveh)
in which Kidushin does not work. The Reisha discusses a case of a loan that
was due and which the man forgave, and therefore the Seifa discusses a case
where the loan is due, where the man is able to be Mekadesh her by giving
her the loan, since he mentions the Hana'ah and not the loan itself. Why,
though, does the Beraisa not mention a case where the man *forgives* the
loan at the time that it is due, rather than giving her more time to pay it?
The RITVA explains that the Beraisa wants to teach us a Halachah of
"Ha'aramas Ribis;" if he forgave the loan, there would be no "Ha'aramas
Ribis" at all.
(d) RASHI (DH Tzericha) and the RITVA explain that "Hana'as Milveh" refers
to the Hana'ah that she experiences when the man gives her extra time to pay
the loan (like Rabeinu Tam explains). However, they do not specify that the
man gives her extra time when the loan is due. They seem to learn that even
before the loan becomes due, the man can be Mekadesh her with the Hana'ah
that she experiences knowing that she will have more time to pay back the
According to Rashi, the case of the Seifa is not discussing the time when
the loan is due (like the Reisha is discussing). Why, then, does the Beraisa
not mention in the Seifa a case in which the man is Mekadesh the woman with
the Hana'ah of *giving* her a loan, rather than the Hana'ah of letting her
keep a loan? Rashi cannot answer that the Beraisa wants to give a case
similar to the Reisha, where the loan has become due, because according to
Rashi the Seifa is not discussing a case where the loan has become due.
The answer is that Rashi is following his own reasoning that when the loan
is being given, it is prohibited to be Mekadesh her with the loan because of
the problem of Ribis. The Beraisa does not want to teach a case in which the
Kidushin was made through an Isur d'Oraisa of Ribis. The Beraisa does not
teach a case where he was Mekadesh her with the Hana'ah of being Mochel a
loan, because it wants to teach the Isur d'Rabanan of "Ha'aramas Ribis,"
like the Ritva explains.