We said in Daf 6 that one reason a woman cannot be mekadesh a woman with something that "looks like Chalifin." Our concern is having a loan with interest or something that looks like it. This might be a silly question - but why is that we do not have that concern later on in Daf 7 concerning the issue of mortgagable and non-mortgagable property? It would seem that we would disallow this also because it may have looked like an improper kiddushin?
Herschel Hartz, Jerusalem, Israel
Not a silly question at all!I would suggest to answer as follows.
There is more room for confusion on Daf 6, where it appears that the man was Mekadesh the lady with a Kinyan which is recognized elsewhere as a valid Kinyan. People may infer that Chalipin is a valid way to make a Kidushin. However on Daf 7, where the problem is that it seems that the Kidushin was through the lady giving the man money, there is less room for confusion since we assume that everyone is aware that Kidushin involves the man giving the lady something.
Best wishes,
Dov Freedman