New Source Sheet

Learn the תוס הרי״ד
What ia the case of ארווח לה זימנא ?
רש״י -
תוס׳ -
ר״ח-
ראב״ד -

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוֶה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. בַּהֲנָאַת מִלְוֶה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית. הַאי הֲנָאַת מִלְוֶה, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאַזְקְפַהּ, דַּאֲמַר לַהּ אַרְבַּע בְּחַמְשָׁה – הָא רִבִּית מְעַלַּיְיתָא הוּא. וְעוֹד, הַיְינוּ מִלְוֶה! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאַרְוַוח לַהּ זִימְנָא.

Kiddushin 6b:7-9

§ Abaye says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, i.e., he previously lent this woman money and he now says that she is betrothed to him by means of that loan, she is not betrothed. The reason is that a woman can be betrothed only through her acceptance of money, or an item that has monetary value, at the time of the betrothal. Although this woman owes the man money, at the time the man states that she is betrothed to him, the loan is not in fact money but an obligation. Therefore, he does not actually give her anything at the time of the betrothal. By contrast, if he betroths her by means of the benefit of the loan, she is betrothed. But it is prohibited to do so, due to the fact that betrothing a woman via the benefit of a loan is an artifice used to circumvent the prohibition of receiving interest, as this enables the husband to gain an additional benefit from the loan. The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by this term: The benefit of the loan? If we say that it means that he established interest upon it when she took the loan, e.g., he said to her that he is lending her four coins in exchange for the repayment of five, and he betroths her by releasing her from the obligation to pay this additional coin, this is a case of full-fledged interest, not merely an artifice used to circumvent the prohibition of receiving interest. He is receiving full payment of the loan and an additional benefit. And furthermore, when he releases her from the obligation to pay this additional coin, he is simply forgoing another obligation she has toward him; he is not giving her anything. This is like a regular case of a betrothal with a loan, and therefore she should not be betrothed. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he extended the time of the loan for her. When the time for her to repay the loan arrived he extended the deadline and betrothed her with the financial benefit she receives from the extra time he is giving her to use the money. In this case he does betroth her with the value he is giving her at that time, but it is similar to interest, as it is included in the prohibition of interest to pay the creditor for an extension of the time of a loan.

משנה תורה, הלכות אישות ה׳:ט״ו

(טו) הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בַּהֲנָאַת מִלְוֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִלְוָה אוֹתָהּ עַתָּה מָאתַיִם זוּז וְאָמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לִי בַּהֲנָאַת זְמַן שֶׁאַרְוִיחַ לָךְ בְּמִלְוֶה זוֹ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בְּיָדֵךְ כָּךְ וְכָךְ יוֹם וְאֵינִי תּוֹבְעָהּ מִמֵּךְ עַד זְמַן פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לָהּ הֲנָאָה מֵעַתָּה לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוֶה זוֹ עַד סוֹף זְמַן שֶׁקָּבַע. וְאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּרִבִּית. וּפֵרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתַי בַּהֲנָאַת מִלְוֶה דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לְשָׁמְעָן:

Mishneh Torah, Marriage 5:15

(15) When [a man] consecrates [a woman] with the benefit [derived from] a loan, the consecration is valid.
What is implied? The consecration is binding if he lends her 200 zuz [at the time of the kiddushin] and tells her: "Behold, you are consecrated to me through the benefit [you receive] by my extending the length of this loan for you. It may be in your possession for so many days, and I will not demand payment until this date." For she is receiving benefit now [from the opportunity] to use the loan until the end of the time period fixed.
It is forbidden to make [such a condition], because it is like taking interest.20Since in addition to the eventual repayment of the debt, the person also receives the benefit of consecrating the woman, it is regarded like interest. The Rabbis (Meiri, Ma'aseh Rokeach) explain that the Rambam's wording is precise. The expression "like interest" implies that it is not actually considered to be taking interest, as forbidden by Scriptural law. My teachers interpreted the expression "the benefit [derived from] a loan," in a way that is not worthy of mention.21The Rambam is referring to Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, who interprets the passage from Kiddushin 6b as referring to a person who extends the length of a loan at the time that payment is due. The Rambam does not accept that interpretation, because it is not logical that extending the length of the loan would be more effective than forfeiting the debt entirely (Maggid Mishneh).
Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view is also followed by Rashi and the Ra'avad. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 28:9) quotes the Rambam's interpretation (for even the opinions that differ agree that such kiddushin are binding). In the law that follows, it also quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. Although the opinion of the Rambam is mentioned, the other view is favored. The Ramah, however, considers the status of the kiddushin to be doubtful because of the Rambam's view.