Kiddushin 11

עד שתכנס לחופה משום דעולא

until she enters the wedding canopy, due to the reason of Ulla, lest she feed her non-priestly family members the teruma that her husband has given her.

ובן בג בג סימפון בעבדים לית ליה אי מומין שבגלוי הוא הא קא חזי ליה אי משום מומין שבסתר מאי נפקא ליה מיניה למלאכה קא בעי ליה לא איכפת ליה

The Gemara asks: And ben Bag Bag, what does he say about this a fortiori inference? The Gemara answers that he maintains that this a fortiori inference is invalid because he does not accept that there can be a claim of simfon with regard to the acquisition of slaves. The reason is that if it is an exposed blemish that the master found on the slave, he saw the blemish and purchased him regardless. Therefore, he cannot later claim that the transaction was unfair. If it is due to hidden blemishes on his slave, what difference does that make to him? Why should it matter if a slave has hidden blemishes? He needs him only for labor, and he does not care if he has hidden blemishes that do not impair his ability to perform labor.

נמצא גנב או קוביוסטוס הגיעו מאי אמרת לסטים מזויין או נכתב למלכות הנהו קלא אית להו

And even if this slave is discovered to be a thief or a gambler [kuvyustus], which are considered hidden blemishes that affect his work, it has come to him, i.e., the slave is acquired by the one who purchased him and the transaction is non-refundable. The reason is that the buyer should have suspected behavior of this kind, which is common among slaves, and therefore he suffers the loss. What do you say? Perhaps he discovered that the slave is an armed bandit and subject to be killed by the government for this, or sentenced to death by the government for another reason, and is sought by the authorities. This is not a valid claim, since these matters generate publicity, and therefore he is assumed to have taken the risk into consideration.

מכדי בין למר ובין למר לא אכלה מאי בינייהו

The Gemara asks: Now, both according to the one Master, Yoḥanan ben Bag Bag, and according to the other Master, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may not partake of teruma by rabbinic decree. What, then, is the difference between them?

איכא בינייהו קיבל מסר והלך:

The Gemara answers: The difference between them involves three cases. The Gemara elaborates: If the husband initially accepted her blemishes, there is no concern that an annulling factor might lead to the nullification of the betrothal, but there is still concern that she might feed teruma to the members of her family. If her father transferred her to the betrothed husband’s agents, or if the father’s agents walked with the husband’s messenger, and therefore she is no longer in her father’s house, there is no concern that she might feed her family members teruma, but it remains possible that the betrothal will be nullified.

בכסף בית שמאי אומרים בדינר וכו׳: מאי טעמייהו דבית שמאי אמר רבי זירא שכן אשה מקפדת על עצמה ואין מתקדשת בפחות מדינר

§ The Gemara returns to the halakhot of the mishna. The mishna teaches that if one betroths a woman with money, Beit Shammai say he must betroth her with at least one dinar, whereas according to the opinion of Beit Hillel even one peruta is sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Beit Shammai? Rabbi Zeira says: Their reasoning is that a woman is particular about herself and considers it beneath her dignity to be acquired with a paltry sum, and therefore she will not agree to be betrothed with less than one dinar.

אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה כגון בנתיה דרבי ינאי דקפדן אנפשייהו ולא מקדשי בפחות מתרקבא דדינרי הכי נמי דאי פשטה ידה וקבלה חד זוזא מאחר הכי נמי דלא הוו קדושין

Abaye said to him: If that is so, with regard to Rabbi Yannai’s daughters, for example, who are very particular about themselves and their honor, and they will not agree to be betrothed with less than three kav of dinars due to their status, so too will you say that if she reaches out her hand and accepts one dinar from another man, so too, this is not a betrothal?

אמר ליה פשטה ידה וקבלה לא קאמינא כי קאמינא דקדשה בליליא אי נמי דשויה שליח

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: I did not say that this halakha includes a case where she reached out her hand and accepted a betrothal. She has the right to willingly relinquish her dignity. When I said this halakha I was referring to a case where he betrothed her at night and she did not see what she was being given. Alternatively, where she appointed an agent to betroth her but did not explicitly tell him how much she wished to receive for her betrothal. In these cases it is assumed that she is particular about her honor and will not agree to be betrothed for less than one dinar.

רב יוסף אמר טעמיהו דבית שמאי כדרב יהודה אמר רב אסי דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי כל כסף האמור בתורה כסף צורי ושל דבריהם כסף מדינה:

Rav Yosef said a different explanation: The reasoning of Beit Shammai is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every sum of money mentioned in the Torah is in Tyrian coinage, i.e., dinars from Tyre, which have a high value. And any amount of money set by rabbinic law is measured by provincial coinage. Local currency, i.e., that which existed at the time of the Sages of the Mishna, was worth about one-eighth of the value of Tyrian coinage. Beit Shammai follow the standard sum of the Torah, and the smallest possible amount in Tyrian currency is the silver coin, which is worth one dinar.

גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי כל כסף האמור בתורה כסף צורי ושל דבריהם כסף מדינה: וכללא הוא

The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every sum of money mentioned in the Torah is Tyrian coinage, and any amount of money set by rabbinic law is measured by provincial coinage. The Gemara asks: And is it an established principle that any mention of money in the Torah is referring to a silver coin worth at least one dinar?

והרי טענה דכתיב כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף או כלים לשמר ותנן שבועת הדיינין הטענה שתי כסף וההודאה שוה פרוטה

But with regard to a claim that someone has not returned a deposit or loan, when the defendant admits that only part of the claim is true, it is written: “If a man deliver to his neighbor money or vessels to guard and it be stolen out of the man’s house” (Exodus 22:6). The following verses teach that if the thief is not found, the case is brought to a court, where the defendant must take an oath. And we learned in a mishna with regard to one who admits to part of a claim (Shevuot 38b): The oath administered by the judges to one who admits to part of a claim is administered only when the claim is for at least two silver ma’a, and the defendant’s admission is to at least the value of one peruta. If every sum of money mentioned in the Torah is referring to Tyrian coinage, how did the Sages arrive at the amount of two ma’a in this case?

התם דומיא דכלים מה כלים שנים אף כסף שנים ומה כסף דבר חשוב אף כלים דבר חשוב

The Gemara explains: There, the halakha is derived from a juxtaposition, as the “money” mentioned in the verse is similar to “vessels”: Just as the word “vessels” indicates at least two, so too “money” is referring to at least two coins. And just as money is a significant item, so too the vessels must be a significant item.

והרי מעשר דכתיב וצרת הכסף בידך ותנן הפורט סלע ממעות מעשר שני כסף הכסף ריבה

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of the redemption of second tithe, as it is written: “And bind up the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25). And yet we learned in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 2:8): With regard to one who exchanges copper coins of second-tithe money for a sela, Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver sela. This mishna indicates that second-tithe money, mentioned in the Torah, can be in the form of copper coins, and it is not required to be in the form of silver coins. The Gemara explains that the verse does not say money, but “the money.” The addition of the article serves as an amplification. In other words, this addition teaches that second-tithe money can be in any coinage, including copper coins.

והרי הקדש דכתיב ונתן הכסף וקם לו ואמר שמואל הקדש שוה מנה שחיללו על שוה פרוטה מחולל התם נמי כסף כסף יליף ממעשר

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of consecrated property, as it is written: “And he will give the money and it will be assured to him” (see Leviticus 27:19). And Shmuel says: With regard to consecrated property worth one hundred dinars, which was redeemed for an item worth one peruta, it is redeemed. Although the word “money” is stated in the Torah, a copper peruta may be used. The Gemara answers: There too, there is a reason for this unusual halakha, as he derives this ruling from a verbal analogy of the terms “money” mentioned here and “money” from tithes. Consequently, one may use any type of coin in this case as well.

והרי קידושי אשה דכתיב כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון ותנן בית הלל אומרים בפרוטה ובשוה פרוטה נימא רב אסי דאמר כבית שמאי

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of the betrothal of a woman, as it is written: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and one derives betrothal through money by a verbal analogy of the term “taking” used here and “taking” from the case of the field of Ephron. And yet we learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel say one can betroth a woman with one peruta or with any item that is worth one peruta. If so, shall we say that Rav Asi, who claims that all sums of money mentioned in the Torah are in Tyrian coinage, stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai?

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי כל כסף קצוב האמור בתורה כסף צורי ושל דבריהם כסף מדינה

Rather, the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: If this was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every set amount of money stated in the Torah, i.e., when a specific amount is mentioned, is referring to Tyrian coinage, and any amount of money set by rabbinic law is in provincial coinage.

מאי קא משמע לן תנינא חמש סלעים של בן שלשים של עבד חמשים של אונס ושל מפתה מאה של מוציא שם רע כולם בשקל הקודש במנה צורי

The Gemara asks: If so, what is Rav Asi teaching us? We have already learned all of these halakhot explicitly (Bekhorot 49b): The payment of five sela for the redemption of a firstborn son (Numbers 18:16);the payment of thirty sela for a slave, paid by the owner of the ox that killed the slave (Exodus 21:32); the fifty sela paid by a rapist and by a seducer (Deuteronomy 22:29); the one hundred sela paid by a defamer (Deuteronomy 22:19); all of these are paid in the sacred shekel, which is one hundred dinars in Tyrian coinage. All of the cases in which a defined amount is mentioned by the Torah have already been taught, and it is unclear what Rav Asi adds.

ושל דבריהם כסף מדינה איצטריכא ליה דלא תנן דתניא התוקע לחבירו נותן לו סלע ולא תימא מאי סלע ארבע זוזי אלא מאי סלע פלגא דזוזא דעבידי אינשי דקרו לפלגא דזוזא איסתירא

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rav Asi to teach: And any amount of money set by rabbinic law is in provincial coinage, as we did not learn that halakha in that mishna. As it is taught in a baraita: The Sages established that one who strikes another as an act of disrespect must give him one sela as a fine. And Rav Asi is teaching that one should not say: What is the meaning of one sela? It is a Tyrian sela worth four dinar. Rather, what is the meaning of one sela? This is the sela of provincial coinage, which is worth half a dinar, as people commonly call half a dinar by the name sela [isteira].

רבי שמעון בן לקיש אומר טעמייהו דבית שמאי כדחזקיה דאמר חזקיה אמר קרא והפדה מלמד שמגרעת מפדיונה ויוצאה

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says a different explanation: The reasoning of Beit Shammai, that the minimum amount with which a woman can be betrothed is one dinar, is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥizkiyya. As Ḥizkiyya says that the verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: “Then he shall let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8), which teaches that she can deduct an amount from the price of her redemption and leave before her time of slavery is complete. If she comes into possession of money, she can pay the master for her value, less the work she has performed. Beit Shammai derive the halakhot of regular betrothal from the case of a Hebrew maidservant, as explained below.

אי אמרת בשלמא דיהב לה דינר היינו דמגרעה ואזלה עד פרוטה אלא אי אמרת דיהב לה פרוטה מפרוטה מי מגרעה ודלמא הכי קאמר רחמנא היכא דיהב לה דינר תיגרע עד פרוטה היכא דיהב לה פרוטה לא תיגרע כלל

Granted, if you say that when she was acquired he gave her at least one dinar, this is the meaning of the statement that she may continually deduct from that amount up to one peruta. But if you say that he gave her one peruta when he purchased her as a maidservant, can she deduct from one peruta? One peruta is already the smallest possible sum of money. The Gemara rejects this argument: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying: In a case where he gave her one dinar, she deducts from that amount up to one peruta; in a case where he gave her one peruta she cannot deduct at all. If he paid one peruta for her, the option of redemption does not apply.