Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 22, 2016 | 讬状讘 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Kiddushin 11

Why does Beit Shammai hold that the money required for betrothal is significantly higher than the amount Beit Hillel says?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讜诇讗

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.

讜讘谉 讘讙 讘讙 住讬诪驻讜谉 讘注讘讚讬诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘住转专 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇诪诇讗讻讛 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛

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.

谞诪爪讗 讙谞讘 讗讜 拽讜讘讬讜住讟讜住 讛讙讬注讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讗讜 谞讻转讘 诇诪诇讻讜转 讛谞讛讜 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜

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.

诪讻讚讬 讘讬谉 诇诪专 讜讘讬谉 诇诪专 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Now, both according to the one Master, Yo岣nan 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?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讬讘诇 诪住专 讜讛诇讱

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鈥檚 agents, or if the father鈥檚 agents walked with the husband鈥檚 messenger, and therefore she is no longer in her father鈥檚 house, there is no concern that she might feed her family members teruma, but it remains possible that the betrothal will be nullified.

讘讻住祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讻谉 讗砖讛 诪拽驻讚转 注诇 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪转拽讚砖转 讘驻讞讜转 诪讚讬谞专

搂 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻讙讜谉 讘谞转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚拽驻讚谉 讗谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬 讘驻讞讜转 诪转专拽讘讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬 驻砖讟讛 讬讚讛 讜拽讘诇讛 讞讚 讝讜讝讗 诪讗讞专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

Abaye said to him: If that is so, with regard to Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讟讛 讬讚讛 讜拽讘诇讛 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讚拽讚砖讛 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚砖讜讬讛 砖诇讬讞

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.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讟注诪讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻诇 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛

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.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻诇 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗

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?

讜讛专讬 讟注谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 诇砖诪专 讜转谞谉 砖讘讜注转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

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: 鈥淚f a man deliver to his neighbor money or vessels to guard and it be stolen out of the man鈥檚 house鈥 (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鈥檃, and the defendant鈥檚 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鈥檃 in this case?

讛转诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讻诇讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 讻住祝 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讛 讻住祝 讚讘专 讞砖讜讘 讗祝 讻诇讬诐 讚讘专 讞砖讜讘

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

讜讛专讬 诪注砖专 讚讻转讬讘 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讜转谞谉 讛驻讜专讟 住诇注 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讻住祝 讛讻住祝 专讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of the redemption of second tithe, as it is written: 鈥淎nd bind up the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25). And yet we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser 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 鈥渢he money.鈥 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.

讜讛专讬 讛拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讚砖 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讞讜诇诇 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻住祝 讻住祝 讬诇讬祝 诪诪注砖专

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of consecrated property, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he will give the money and it will be assured to him鈥 (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 鈥渕oney鈥 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 鈥渕oney鈥 mentioned here and 鈥渕oney鈥 from tithes. Consequently, one may use any type of coin in this case as well.

讜讛专讬 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讗砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇讛 讜讙诪专 拽讬讞讛 拽讬讞讛 诪砖讚讛 注驻专讜谉 讜转谞谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 谞讬诪讗 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of the betrothal of a woman, as it is written: 鈥淲hen a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and one derives betrothal through money by a verbal analogy of the term 鈥渢aking鈥 used here and 鈥渢aking鈥 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?

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻诇 讻住祝 拽爪讜讘 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 砖诇 讘谉 砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 讞诪砖讬诐 砖诇 讗讜谞住 讜砖诇 诪驻转讛 诪讗讛 砖诇 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讻讜诇诐 讘砖拽诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讘诪谞讛 爪讜专讬

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.

讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 转谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛转讜拽注 诇讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 住诇注 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 住诇注 讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 住诇注 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚拽专讜 诇驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 讗讬住转讬专讗

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].

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讚讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛驻讚讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讙专注转 诪驻讚讬讜谞讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛

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 岣zkiyya. As 岣zkiyya says that the verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: 鈥淭hen he shall let her be redeemed鈥 (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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 讚讬谞专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讙专注讛 讜讗讝诇讛 注讚 驻专讜讟讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪驻专讜讟讛 诪讬 诪讙专注讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 讚讬谞专 转讬讙专注 注讚 驻专讜讟讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讗 转讬讙专注 讻诇诇

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 11

注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讜诇讗

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.

讜讘谉 讘讙 讘讙 住讬诪驻讜谉 讘注讘讚讬诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘住转专 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇诪诇讗讻讛 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛

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.

谞诪爪讗 讙谞讘 讗讜 拽讜讘讬讜住讟讜住 讛讙讬注讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讗讜 谞讻转讘 诇诪诇讻讜转 讛谞讛讜 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜

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.

诪讻讚讬 讘讬谉 诇诪专 讜讘讬谉 诇诪专 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Now, both according to the one Master, Yo岣nan 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?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讬讘诇 诪住专 讜讛诇讱

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鈥檚 agents, or if the father鈥檚 agents walked with the husband鈥檚 messenger, and therefore she is no longer in her father鈥檚 house, there is no concern that she might feed her family members teruma, but it remains possible that the betrothal will be nullified.

讘讻住祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讻谉 讗砖讛 诪拽驻讚转 注诇 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪转拽讚砖转 讘驻讞讜转 诪讚讬谞专

搂 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻讙讜谉 讘谞转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚拽驻讚谉 讗谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬 讘驻讞讜转 诪转专拽讘讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬 驻砖讟讛 讬讚讛 讜拽讘诇讛 讞讚 讝讜讝讗 诪讗讞专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

Abaye said to him: If that is so, with regard to Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讟讛 讬讚讛 讜拽讘诇讛 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讚拽讚砖讛 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚砖讜讬讛 砖诇讬讞

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.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讟注诪讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻诇 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛

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.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻诇 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗

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?

讜讛专讬 讟注谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 诇砖诪专 讜转谞谉 砖讘讜注转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

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: 鈥淚f a man deliver to his neighbor money or vessels to guard and it be stolen out of the man鈥檚 house鈥 (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鈥檃, and the defendant鈥檚 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鈥檃 in this case?

讛转诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讻诇讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 讻住祝 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讛 讻住祝 讚讘专 讞砖讜讘 讗祝 讻诇讬诐 讚讘专 讞砖讜讘

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

讜讛专讬 诪注砖专 讚讻转讬讘 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讜转谞谉 讛驻讜专讟 住诇注 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讻住祝 讛讻住祝 专讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of the redemption of second tithe, as it is written: 鈥淎nd bind up the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25). And yet we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser 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 鈥渢he money.鈥 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.

讜讛专讬 讛拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讚砖 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讞讜诇诇 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻住祝 讻住祝 讬诇讬祝 诪诪注砖专

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of consecrated property, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he will give the money and it will be assured to him鈥 (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 鈥渕oney鈥 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 鈥渕oney鈥 mentioned here and 鈥渕oney鈥 from tithes. Consequently, one may use any type of coin in this case as well.

讜讛专讬 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讗砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇讛 讜讙诪专 拽讬讞讛 拽讬讞讛 诪砖讚讛 注驻专讜谉 讜转谞谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 谞讬诪讗 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of the betrothal of a woman, as it is written: 鈥淲hen a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and one derives betrothal through money by a verbal analogy of the term 鈥渢aking鈥 used here and 鈥渢aking鈥 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?

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻诇 讻住祝 拽爪讜讘 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 砖诇 讘谉 砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 讞诪砖讬诐 砖诇 讗讜谞住 讜砖诇 诪驻转讛 诪讗讛 砖诇 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讻讜诇诐 讘砖拽诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讘诪谞讛 爪讜专讬

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.

讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 转谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛转讜拽注 诇讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 住诇注 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 住诇注 讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 住诇注 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚拽专讜 诇驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 讗讬住转讬专讗

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].

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讚讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛驻讚讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讙专注转 诪驻讚讬讜谞讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛

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 岣zkiyya. As 岣zkiyya says that the verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: 鈥淭hen he shall let her be redeemed鈥 (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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 讚讬谞专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讙专注讛 讜讗讝诇讛 注讚 驻专讜讟讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪驻专讜讟讛 诪讬 诪讙专注讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 讚讬谞专 转讬讙专注 注讚 驻专讜讟讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讗 转讬讙专注 讻诇诇

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.

Scroll To Top