1.If a man told a woman 'You will be Mekudeshes to me after 30 days', the Kidushin takes effect, even if the money is consumed in the meantime.

2.Kidushin 58b (Mishnah): If Reuven told Leah 'you are Mekudeshes to me after 30 days', and Moshe was Mekadesh her during the 30 days, she is Mekudeshes to Moshe;

3.If Moshe is a Kohen and Leah is a Bas Yisrael, she may eat Terumah.

4.Question: What is the law if no one was Mekadesh her in the interim?

5.Answer (Rav and Shmuel): She is Mekudeshes, even if the Kidushin money has been consumed.

i.This is because the Kidushin money is not a loan, and not a deposit.

ii.It is not a deposit. A deposit belongs to the giver, whereas this money belonged to her.

iii.It is not like (pardoning a) loan (that she owes to him). A loan was given to be spent (from the beginning), and when he is Mekadesh her later, he does not give her anything (new). Here, he gave the money for Kidushin!

6.(Version #1 - Question: If no one was Mekadesh her in the interim, can she cancel the Kidushin?

7.Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): She can. Her latter words annul her initial words.

8.Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): She cannot. Words cannot annul words.

9.Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If Reuven made Shimon a Shali'ach to take Terumah, and cancelled the appointment, if he cancelled before Shimon took Terumah, the Terumah is invalid.

i.This shows that words (the cancellation) can annul words (the appointment)!

10.Answer: Giving Kidushin money to a woman is not mere words. It is like an action. Words cannot annul an action.

11.Question (Mishnah): Reuven made a Shali'ach (Shimon) to give a Get to Reuven's wife. Reuven caught up with Shimon, or sent Levi to tell him that the Get is invalid - it is invalid.

i.Giving a Get to a Shali'ach is like giving Kidushin money to a woman, and words can annul it!

12.Answer: No. As long as the Get did not reach his wife, it is only like words. Words can annul words.


1.Rif and Rosh (Kidushin 24a and 3:3): The Halachah follows R. Yochanan.

i.Ran (DH Rav): It seems that if he retracts, she need not return the money. If not, with what does he Mekadesh her? The money is not hers until 30 days, and by then it was consumed!

ii.Beis Shmuel (EH 40:2): The Rosh and Maharit connote that even if he retracts, she must return the money. It is as if he stipulated that she will be Mekudeshes if he does not retract. If neither retracted, even if the money was consumed before 30 days she is Mekudeshes, for the money was given for Kidushin.

2.Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 7:10): If a man told a woman 'You will be Mekudeshes to me with these coins after 30 days', even if the money is consumed in the 30 days, she is Mekudeshes after 30 days. If he or she retracted, she is not Mekudeshes.

3.Rosh (Kidushin 3:3): The money was given for Kidushin. If she will retract, she must return it. Therefore, it is as if the money is intact. The Mishnah said that if Moshe was Mekadesh her during the 30 days, she is Mekudeshes to Moshe. It did not say 'she is not Mekudeshes to Reuven.' Some infer that Reuven's Kidushin was not totally uprooted; if Moshe died or divorced her during the 30 days, Reuven's Kidushin takes effect. The Yerushalmi says so. This is astounding. Accepting Moshe's Kidushin is retraction from Reuven's Kidushin! Even Reish Lakish said only that words cannot annul words, but he agrees that acceptance of Kidushin, which is an action, can annul words! The inference from the Mishnah is invalid. It taught that she is Mekudeshes to Moshe, and we understand that she is not Mekudeshes to Reuven. Had it said 'she is Mekudeshes to Moshe', we would not know whether or not she is Mekudeshes to Reuven! There is a mistake in the Yerushalmi.


1.Shulchan Aruch (EH 40:1): If a man told a woman 'you will be Mekudeshes to me with this Perutah after 30 days', even if the money was consumed within 30 days, she is Mekudeshes after 30 days. If he or she retracted, she is not Mekudeshes.

2.Rema: Some say that if he was Mekadesh her with a document and it is not intact after 30 days, rather it was torn or lost, she is not Mekudeshes.

i.Source (Ran DH Rav): If he was Mekadesh her with a document and it was torn or lost within 30 days, surely she is not Mekudeshes. It must be intact when Kidushin takes effect. If a Get was given to take effect later, it is valid only if it is intact then, and is in her hand or Reshus, but not if it is in Reshus ha'Rabim. However, the Rashba says that if a Shtar Kidushin was worth at least a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes even if it was burned, for she intends also for Kidushei Kesef. Kidushin 48a supports him. Chachamim say that if a man was Mekadesh with a (Pasul) Shtar Kidushin, if the paper is worth a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes. I think that this is why the Rif (1b) brought the Yerushalmi, which says 'if a Shtar Kidushin is worth a Perutah, it is Kesef.'

ii.Ha'Makneh (Kuntres Acharon, 40:1 DH Af): 'Burned' connotes Ones. She should be exempt for Ones (and therefore, not Mekudeshes; the Ran holds like the Rosh)! She does not get all the Hana'ah. He is Mekadesh a woman through the money! We must say that since she keeps the money even if he retracts (Kidushin l'Tiba'un Nitna - Kesuvos 76b), it is (totally) in her Reshus. Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah argue about whether Kidushin 'Al Menas' takes effect now or later. Tosfos (Kidushin 60b DH Ika) did not say that a practical difference is when the money was lost b'Ones. He agrees that either way, she is Mekudeshes.

iii.Rebuttal (R. Akiva Eiger 1:204 DH uvha'Hi): Tosfos did not say so, because Rav Huna holds that the right to use something makes one a borrower, so she is liable for Ones, so in any case she is Mekudeshes. We hold that this does not make one a borrower. Perhaps for us, this is a difference!

3.Rema (CM 191:4): If one sold land for after 30 days with a document or money and the document was torn or the money was lost in the interim, the sale is void.

i.SMA (9): The Darchei Moshe (3) says that the Beis Yosef invalidates the sale if the money was lost in the interim. The Beis Yosef did not say so here, and elsewhere he cites Tosfos, who says the opposite! Perhaps the Rema discusses when the money was lost and the seller cannot get it back. The Kinyan is valid only when the buyer would need to return the money if the Kinyan were cancelled. Alternatively, the text of the Rema should say 'uv'Ma'os' (and with money). He discusses a place where money and a document are needed to acquire. It depends only on the document being intact. (He discusses the money being lost Agav another case.)

ii.Rebuttal (Taz): The SMA could have asked from Kidushin 59a, which validates Kidushin even if the money was lost in the interim. His first answer holds that the money is a loan. Rashi says that it is not like a loan; it is in her Reshus when she consumes it. This is why the Kidushin works. Tosfos (Yevamos 93a DH Kenuyah) agrees. We rely on the SMA's second answer. He shows that he wants the money to acquire only when the document does. Therefore, if the money was lost in the interim, it does not acquire.

iii.Question (against SMA - Ketzos ha'Choshen 3): It does not matter whether or not she can repay! Perhaps the SMA means that the Rema discusses when the money was lost b'Ones and she need not return it. However, it seems that even then, she must return the money if she retracts. If money was given for Kidushin or a sale, and she or the buyer retracts, (s)he is a thief, and is liable even for Ones. The Rosh (Sukah 3:30) says similarly about a gift on condition to return it.

iv.Yad ha'Melech (Ishus 7:10 DH ha'Maharit and DH v'Kivan and Gerushin 8:1): Tosfos (ibid.) and the Ran validate the Kidushin even if she consumed the money, for if not she would need to pay. The Maharit (Kidushin 59a) says that if the money was lost or stolen, even through negligence, she is exempt, so she is not Mekudeshes. Perhaps the Rema holds like the Maharit. I prefer the opinion of Tosfos Kidushin (60b DH Ika), who says that in either case she is Mekudeshes. Since she gets Hana'ah (benefit) from Kesef, she can be Makneh herself to take effect at any future time. Other Kinyanim are Gezeras ha'Kasuv, so they must be like the Torah specified; the Kinyan must endure.