Thank you very much for hearing my question:
On the case shown at the top of Kiddushin 7a (where the woman says to Reuven that if he gives money to Shimon, she'll marry Reuven), the Pnei Yehoshua says that, ultimately, she is a true guarantor in the way that if she doesn't go through with the kiddushin she promised, she is obligated to pay Reuven. The pleasure that effects the kiddushin is that she is absolved of her obligation to pay Reuven as she went through with the Kiddushin.
My question is the following: I can see this logic by a guarantor of a loan. Reuven lends money to Shimon under Moshe as the guarantor. Moshe is obligated to pay Reuven if Shimon doesn't pay; thus, if Shimon pays, Moshe will be relieved that he is absolved of having to pay. This is to say, that Moshe has absolutely no control over whether or not he has to pay (other than the fact that he chose to be a guarantor in the first place). I feel that the case in the gemora is different in a very fundamental way. It is similar in the fact that the only reason that Reuven gave money to Shimon is that the woman promised kiddushin to Reuven for doing so (just like the only reason Reuven lent Shimon money is because the guarantor guaranteed the loan); however, in the case of the gemora, the woman (i.e. the guarantor) is the arbiter of whether or not she needs to pay! It isn't out of her control whether or not she needs to pay like the guarantor of a loan.
If she decides to go through with the kiddushin, she doesn't pay. If she doesn't go through with it, she does pay. She is in complete control over whether or not she needs to pay. With this in mind, how is it that she gets pleasure out of the fact that she was absolved of paying? She was the one who decided to take the route that didn't involve paying; it was her choice! Hopefully I've worded my question well enough. I apologize for being wordy. Have a wonderful day, and I look forward to your response.
Steven Kaplan, Jerusalem, Israel
It does not make a difference whether she receives pleasure because of her own choice or not. Even though she has the option of whether or not to marry him, nevertheless if she does decide to marry him, and thereby save herself the need to return the money to Reuven, this is considered as receiving benefit. Once she started off the process whereby she would ultimately have to decide whether to marry Reuven or instead return the money to him, it automatically follows that if she avoids the need to pay this money, then she is considered as having had pleasure. Just as the guarantor did not have to agree originally to pledge for the loan but nevertheless once he hid it is considered pleasure for whatever reason he avoids paying back, so too when the woman absolves herself of the necessity to paying Reuven this is considered pleasure even though she did have another alternative.
KOL TUV
D. Bloom