More opinions are brought about why Beit Shammai require a dinar for marriage. Beit Hillel’s holds that a woman can be betrothed with a pruta. What is the value of that pruta? What if the item is something that fluctuates in value? What if it was worth less but somewhere else could be worth a pruta? What if after the fact there is a question about the marriage and the current value is a pruta but it may have been worth more earlier when the marriage took place? Several actual cases are brought. Rav instituted lashes for people who did various things including getting betrothed without prearranging, or in the marketplace, or by betrothal through intercourse. The latter, while permitted by the Torah, was frowned upon by the rabbis.
Kiddushin
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Kiddushin
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Kiddushin 12
לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ – דּוּמְיָא דְּיִיעוּד, מַה יִיעוּד, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִי בָּעֵי מְיַיעֵד וְאִי בָּעֵי לָא מְיַיעֵד, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא מָצֵי מְיַיעֵד – לָא הָווּ זְבִינָא זְבִינֵי, הָכִי נָמֵי כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא מָצְיָ[א] מְיגָרְעָא – לָא הָווּ זְבִינָא זְבִינֵי.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This cannot enter your mind, as the halakha of deduction must be similar to the halakha of designation, i.e., the process by which a master designates his Hebrew maidservant as a wife for him or his son (Exodus 21:8–9). Just as with designation, although the halakha is that if he desires, he may designate her and if he does not desire, he is not required to designate her, nevertheless anywhere that he cannot designate her, e.g., in a case where they are related and she is therefore forbidden to him, her sale is not a valid sale, so too here, with regard to her redemption, anywhere that she cannot deduct an amount from her purchase price, her sale is not a valid sale.
וְקִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי נָפְקָא לְהוּ מֵאָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה: מָה אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה בִּפְרוּטָה לָא מִקַּנְיָא, אַף אִשָּׁה בִּפְרוּטָה לָא מִיקַּדְּשָׁא.
The Gemara notes: And according to the opinion of Beit Shammai the mode of betrothal of a woman by money is derived from the case of a Hebrew maidservant, as follows: Just as a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired with one peruta, so too a woman cannot be betrothed with one peruta.
וְאֵימָא פַּלְגָא דְּדִינָר, וְאֵימָא שְׁתֵּי פְּרוּטוֹת! כֵּיוָן דְּאַפִּיקְתֵּיהּ מִפְּרוּטָה – אוֹקְמַהּ אַדִּינָר.
The Gemara asks: Even if Beit Shammai derive their opinion from here, how does this prove that a woman can be betrothed only with a minimum of one dinar? But why not say she can be betrothed with half a dinar, or say that she can be betrothed with two perutot, as it is possible to fulfill the redemption of a Hebrew maidservant if her sale was for either of these amounts? The Gemara answers: Since this comparison excludes betrothal with one peruta, as it indicates that a woman can be betrothed only with money of significant value, the Sages established the minimum amount at one dinar, which is a coin of substantial value.
רָבָא אָמַר: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי: שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּהֶפְקֵר.
Rava said a different explanation: This is the reasoning of Beit Shammai, who hold that a woman can be betrothed only with a minimum of one dinar: The daughters of Israel should not be treated like ownerless property. Allowing women to be betrothed with such a small amount as one peruta is disrespectful to them.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים בִּפְרוּטָה. סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר: פְּרוּטָה כָּל דְּהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא עֲלַהּ קָתָנֵי: כַּמָּה הִיא פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי.
§ The mishna teaches: And Beit Hillel say that a woman can be betrothed with one peruta, or with any item that is worth one peruta. Rav Yosef thought to say: One peruta means any amount. There is no defined value, as a woman may be betrothed with one peruta regardless of its value at the time. Abaye said to him: But isn’t it taught with regard to this in the mishna itself: How much is one peruta? It is one-eighth of the Italian issar. This shows there is a defined value for one peruta.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּדוֹרוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, אֲבָל הָכָא כְּדַחֲשִׁבָה לְהוּ לְאִינָשֵׁי – וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: שִׁיעֵר רַבִּי סִימַאי בְּדוֹרוֹ כַּמָּה הִיא פְּרוּטָה: אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי, וְכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא שִׁיעֲרוּ כַּמָּה הָוֵי פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשִּׁשָּׁה בְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי!
And if you would say: This statement applies only to the generation of Moses, i.e., this was the value of one peruta in the time of the Torah, but now, at any later time, its value is determined by that which people consider one peruta, that claim cannot be correct. As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Simai estimated in his generation: How much is one peruta? It is one-eighth of the Italian issar. And when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Dostai and Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Oshaya estimated: How much is one peruta? It is one-sixth of the Italian issar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּתָנֵינָא: ״צֵא וַחֲשׁוֹב כַּמָּה פְּרוּטוֹת בִּשְׁנֵי סְלָעִים – יוֹתֵר מֵאַלְפַּיִם״ – הַשְׁתָּא אַלְפַּיִם לָא הָוְיָין, יָתֵר מֵאַלְפַּיִם קָרֵי לְהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ הַהוּא סָבָא: אֲנָא תְּנֵינָא לַהּ: ״קָרוֹב לְאַלְפַּיִם״. סוֹף סוֹף אַלְפָּא וַחֲמֵשׁ מְאָה וּתְלָתִין וְשִׁיתָּא הוּא דְּהָוְיָין! כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקָא לְהוּ מִפַּלְגָא – קָרוֹב לְאַלְפַּיִם קָרֵי לֵיהּ.
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: If so, then this is in conflict with that which we learned in a baraita: Go and calculate how many perutot there are in two sela: More than two thousand. Now there are not even two thousand, and you call them: More than two thousand? Rather, the peruta is certainly worth less than one-eighth of the Italian issar. A certain old man said to them: I teach this baraita as saying: Close to two thousand. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, according to the calculation of one-eighth of an issar, the number of perutot in two sela is 1,536, which is nowhere near two thousand. The Gemara answers: Since it passes half of the second thousand it is called: Close to two thousand.
גּוּפָא, כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: שִׁיעֵר רַבִּי סִימַאי בְּדוֹרוֹ כַּמָּה הִיא פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי, וְכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: שִׁיעֲרוּ רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא כַּמָּה הִיא פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשִּׁשָּׁה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי: נֵימָא, אַתְּ וְרָבִין בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי קָא מִיפַּלְגִיתוּ,
The Gemara discusses the matter itself. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Simai estimated in his generation: How much is one peruta? It is one-eighth of the Italian issar. And when Ravin came he said that Rabbi Dostai and Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Oshaya estimated: How much is one peruta? It is one-sixth of the Italian issar. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: Shall we say that you and Ravin disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im.
דְּתַנְיָא: פְּרוּטָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים – אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי, שֵׁשׁ מָעָה כֶּסֶף – דִּינָר, מָעָה – שְׁנֵי פּוּנְדְּיוֹנִין, פּוּנְדְּיוֹן – שְׁנֵי אִיסָּרִין, אִיסָּר – שְׁנֵי מִסְמֵיסִים, מִסְמֵס – שְׁנֵי קוּנְטְרוֹנְקִין, קוּנְטְרֹנְק – שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת. נִמְצָא, פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי.
As it is taught in a baraita: The peruta mentioned by the Sages is one-eighth of the Italian issar. Six silver ma’a are one dinar, and one ma’a is worth two pundeyon. In a pundeyon there are two issar, and an issar is two masmas. A masmas is worth two konterank, and a konterank is two perutot. By this calculation, one finds that one peruta is one-eighth of the Italian issar.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה הַדְרֵסִין לְמָעָה, שְׁנֵי הַנְצִין לְהַדְרֵיס, שְׁנֵי שְׁמֵנִין לַהֲנֵץ, שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת לְשָׁמֵין, נִמְצָא, פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשִּׁשָּׁה בְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. לֵימָא דְּמָר אָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא וְרָבִין דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל?
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: This is not the case; rather, there are three hadreis to a ma’a, two henetz to a hadreis, two shamin to a henetz, and two perutot to a shamin. Consequently, one finds that one peruta is one-sixth of the Italian issar. Shall we say that one Master agrees with the first tanna, and Ravin, who said his ruling in the name of Rabbi Dostai and Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Oshaya, agrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּין דִּידִי וּבֵין רָבִין אַלִּיבָּא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא – דְּאִיַּקּוּר אִיסּוּרֵי, הָא – דְּזוּל אִיסּוּרֵי. הָא דְּאִיַּקּוּר אִיסּוּרֵי – קוּם עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בְּזוּזָא, הָא דְּזוּל – קוּם תְּלָתִין וּתְרֵין בְּזוּזָא.
Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Both my statement and that of Ravin are in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, and it is not difficult. This statement of mine is referring to when the issar increased in value in relation to silver coins, and this statement of Ravin is referring to when the issar decreased in value. The Gemara elaborates: When the issar increased in value, twenty-four issar stood at one dinar; when they decreased in value, thirty-two issar stood at one dinar. If so, there is a set ratio between the value of a peruta and the value of silver, and there are 192 perutot in one dinar. By contrast, the ratio between the value of a copper issar and silver dinars fluctuates, so that sometimes an issar will be worth eight perutot while at other times it is worth only six.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קִידְּשָׁהּ בִּתְמָרָה, אֲפִילּוּ עוֹמֵד כּוֹר תְּמָרִים בְּדִינָר – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת; חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה בְּמָדַי.
§ Shmuel says: If man betrothed a woman with a date, she is betrothed even if a kor of dates is worth one dinar, which would mean that one date is worth much less than one peruta. The reason is that although a date has little value here, we are concerned that perhaps it is worth one peruta in Media or in some other distant place where dates are expensive. Therefore, she is betrothed in this location as well.
וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי וַדַּאי, הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי סָפֵק.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that Beit Hillel say: With one peruta or with an item worth one peruta, but not less? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult. This statement in the mishna is referring to betrothal whose status is certain. Betrothal with one peruta or an item worth one peruta is certainly valid. Conversely, this case stated by Shmuel is referring to betrothal whose status is uncertain. Although the item is not worth one peruta here, there is a concern that the betrothal might nevertheless be valid.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאקַדֵּישׁ בִּזְווֹדָא דְּאוּדְרֵי, יָתֵיב רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב וְקָא מְעַיֵּין בַּהּ, אִי אִית בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא. וְאִי לֵית בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה לָא? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָיְישִׁינַן! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי וַדַּאי, הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי סָפֵק.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with a bundle of rags [zavda de’urdei]. Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya sat before Rav and examined the bundle to see if it had the value of one peruta. If it was worth one peruta, yes, she was betrothed, and if not, no, she was not betrothed. The Gemara asks: And if it does not have the value of one peruta, is she not betrothed? But didn’t Shmuel say that we are concerned that the item might be worth one peruta in Media? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult. This ruling of Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya is referring to betrothal whose status is certain, whereas this statement of Shmuel is referring to betrothal whose status is uncertain.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאקַדֵּישׁ בְּאַבְנָא דְכוּחְלָא, יָתֵיב רַב חִסְדָּא וְקָא מְשַׁעֵר לַיהּ, אִי אִית בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא. וְאִי לֵית בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה לָא? וְהָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָיְישִׁינַן! רַב חִסְדָּא לָא סָבַר לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
The Gemara further relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with a blue marble stone. Rav Ḥisda sat and estimated whether it was worth one peruta. If it was worth one peruta, yes, she was betrothed, and if not, no, she was not betrothed. The Gemara asks: And if it does not have the value of one peruta, is she not betrothed? But didn’t Shmuel say that we are concerned that the item might be worth one peruta in Media? The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥisda does not hold in accordance with that opinion of Shmuel, as he holds that if the item is not worth one peruta in the place where the betrothal occurred, the betrothal is invalid.
אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ אִימֵּיהּ: וְהָא הָהוּא יוֹמָא דְּקַדְּשַׁהּ הֲוָה בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! אֲמַר לַהּ: לָאו כָּל כְּמִינָּךְ דְּאָסְרַתְּ לַהּ אַבָּתְרָא.
The mother of the man who offered the betrothal said to Rav Ḥisda: But on that day that he betrothed her it was worth one peruta. He said to the mother: It is not in your power to render her forbidden to a later man. If another comes and betroths her, his betrothal is not dismissed due to this earlier act. Since the marble stone is not worth one peruta now, the betrothal of the second man may be valid.
לָאו הַיְינוּ דִּיהוּדִית דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, (דַּהֲוֵית) [דַּהֲוָה] לַהּ צַעַר לֵידָה, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אֲמַרָה לִי אֵם: קַבֵּיל בִּיךְ אֲבוּךְ קִידּוּשֵׁי כִּי זוּטְרַתְּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: לָאו כָּל כְּמִינַּהּ דְּאִימָּךְ דְּאָסְרָה לִיךְ עִילָּוַאי.
Rav Ḥisda explained: Is this not similar to the case of Yehudit, wife of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who would have painful childbirths and therefore wished to leave Rabbi Ḥiyya? She said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: My mother told me: When you were young your father accepted betrothal on your behalf from another man, which would render Yehudit forbidden to Rabbi Ḥiyya. He said to her: It is not in your mother’s power to render you forbidden to me, as this testimony is insufficient.
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב חִסְדָּא: אַמַּאי? הָא אִיכָּא סָהֲדִי בְּאִידִית, דְּיָדְעִי דִּבְהָהוּא יוֹמָא הֲוָה בַּיהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא לָא לֵיתַנְהוּ קַמַּן.
Returning to the incident with the blue marble stone, the Gemara relates that the Sages said to Rav Ḥisda: Why do you say that she is not betrothed because the item is not worth one peruta in the place where the betrothal occurred? After all, there are witnesses in Idit who know that on that day it had the value of one peruta. Rav Ḥisda said to them: Now, in any event, they are not here, and therefore their potential testimony is disregarded.
לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: עֵידֶיהָ בְּצַד אַסְתָּן, וְתֵיאָסֵר?!
Rav Ḥisda cites a proof for his statement: Isn’t this the same as the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina? In the case of a woman who appeared before the court and said that she was taken captive but remained undefiled, if there are no witnesses that she was captured, her entire claim must be accepted, and therefore she is permitted to her husband. Although there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify that she was taken captive, and consequently, the court need not rely on her statement alone, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: When her witnesses are far away in the north [istan], will she be forbidden?
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא לָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ לְהָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. אִם הֵקֵילּוּ בִּשְׁבוּיָה, דִּמְנַוְּולָה נַפְשַׁהּ גַּבֵּי שַׁבַּאי, נָיקֵיל בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ?!
The Gemara comments: Abaye and Rava do not hold in accordance with this statement of Rav Ḥisda with regard to betrothal. In their opinion one cannot learn the halakha here from Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement, as there is a difference between the cases: If in the case of Rabbi Ḥanina the Sages were lenient with regard to a captive woman, who makes herself appear repulsive before her captor so that he will not rape her, and it is therefore believable that she was not violated, shall we be lenient with regard to the serious prohibition of a married woman?
אִישְׁתְּאַר מֵהַהִיא מִשְׁפָּחָה בְּסוּרָא, וּפְרַשׁוּ רַבָּנַן מִינַּהּ. וְלָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּסְבִירָא לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּסְבִירָא לְהוּ כְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא.
The Gemara reports: Descendants of the family of the woman who had been betrothed with a blue marble stone remained in Sura, as after Rav Ḥisda ruled that that woman’s first betrothal was invalid, she married another man and had children. But the Sages avoided the family and refused to marry into it due to the concern that it was founded on a possibly adulterous relationship, which would render the descendants of the family mamzerim. The Gemara comments: And it was not because they maintained, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, that there is a concern that any item might be worth one peruta somewhere else. Rather, it was because they held in accordance with the opinion of Abaye and Rava, who said: Since there are witnesses in a different place, one must take them into account.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאקַדֵּישׁ בְּשׁוּטִיתָא דְאָסָא בְּשׁוּקָא, שַׁלְחַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא מַאי? שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: נַגְּדֵיהּ כְּרַב, וְאַצְרֵיךְ גִּיטָּא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with a myrtle branch in the marketplace. Rav Aḥa bar Huna sent this dilemma before Rav Yosef: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef sent a response to him: Flog him, in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and require her to receive a bill of divorce, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, in case the myrtle branch is worth one peruta somewhere else.
דְּרַב מְנַגֵּיד עַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּשׁוּקָא, וְעַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה, וְעַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּלָא שִׁידּוּכֵי.
The Gemara explains that Rav would flog a man for betrothing a woman in the marketplace, because this is disrespectful and crude, and for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse, as it is unsavory to invite witnesses to observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse. And he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman without an arrangement [shiddukhei], i.e., if he did not discuss betrothal with the woman before betrothing her. Each of these acts is considered indecent behavior.
וְעַל דִּמְבַטֵּיל גִּיטָּא, וְעַל דְּמָסַר מוֹדָעָא אַגִּיטָּא, וְעַל דִּמְצַעַר שְׁלוּחָא דְרַבָּנַן, וְעַל דְּחָלָה שַׁמְתָּא עִילָּוֵיהּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין,
And likewise, Rav would flog a man for nullifying a bill of divorce he has already sent to his wife, and for issuing a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce. The latter case is referring to one who announces before giving a bill of divorce that he is divorcing his wife against his will, thereby rendering the document ineffective. This behavior might lead to a grave sin if the wife marries another man under the mistaken impression that she is divorced. And similarly, Rav would flog anyone for tormenting a messenger of the Sages, as this indicates a lack of regard for the Sages. And Rav would flog one who had an excommunication take effect on him for thirty days and yet does not repent or appeal to the Sages to annul his censure.
וְעַל חַתְנָא דְּדָיַיר בֵּי חֲמוּהּ. דְּדָיַיר – אִין, חָלֵיף – לָא?! וְהָא הָהוּא חַתְנָא דַּחֲלֵיף אַבָּבָא דְּבֵי חֲמוּהּ וְנַגְּדֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת! הָהוּא מֵידָם הֲוָת דָּיְימָא חֲמָתֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.
And Rav would flog a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house, as there is a concern that he might sin with his mother-in-law. The Gemara comments: This indicates that with regard to one who lives in his father-in-law’s house permanently, yes, he is flogged, whereas with regard to one who only passes by his father-in-law’s house, no, he is not flogged. But there was a certain son-in-law who passed by the entrance of his father-in-law’s house and Rav Sheshet flogged him due to licentiousness. The Gemara explains: In that case, there were suspicions [dayma] about him and his mother-in-law, i.e., about rumors of intimacy between them. In walking by the house he contributed to these rumors, which is why he was flogged.
נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: בְּכוּלְּהוּ, לָא מְנַגֵּיד רַב אֶלָּא עַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה בְּלָא שִׁידּוּכֵי. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשִׁידּוּכֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּתָא.
The Sages of Neharde’a say: Rav would not flog a violator in all of the cases listed, but he would in fact flog a man for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse without a prior arrangement. And there are those who say: Even if there was an arrangement beforehand, he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman with intercourse, due to licentiousness, as it is indecent to have witnesses observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקַדֵּישׁ בְּצִיפְּתָא דְאָסָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וְהָא לֵית בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ: תִּיקְדּוֹשׁ בְּאַרְבַּע זוּזֵי דְּאִית בַּהּ. שְׁקַלְתַּהּ וְאִישְׁתִּיקָא. אָמַר רָבָא: הָוֵה שְׁתִיקוּתָא דִּלְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת, וְכֹל שְׁתִיקוּתָא דִּלְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת, לָאו כְּלוּם הִיא.
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with a mat of myrtle branches. People who were present said to him: But it is not worth one peruta. He said to them: If so, let her be betrothed with the four dinars that are wrapped in the mat. The woman took the mat and was silent. Rava said: This is silence after the money is given, and any silence after the money is given is nothing. Since it was assumed at the time that he gave her an item worth less than one peruta, there is no proof that she acted in accordance with his subsequent statement. It is possible that she ignored him and did not intend to become betrothed with the four dinars.
אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר לָהּ: כִּנְסִי סֶלַע זוֹ בְּפִקָּדוֹן, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ: הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בּוֹ. בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, לְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת, רָצְתָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, לֹא רָצְתָה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.
Rava said: From where do I state this opinion? As it is taught in a baraita that in a case where a man said to a woman: Take this sela as a deposit, and he subsequently went back and said to her: Be betrothed to me with it, if he said this at the time the money was given, she is betrothed. In a case where he said this after the money was given, then if she wanted to be betrothed in this manner, she is betrothed. If she did not want it, she is not betrothed.
מַאי ״רָצְתָה״ וּמַאי ״לֹא רָצְתָה״? אִילֵימָא ״רָצְתָה״ – דְּאָמְרָה: ״אִין״, לֹא רָצְתָה דְּאָמְרָה: ״לָא״, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא,
The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of: She wanted, and what is the meaning of: She did not want? If we say that: She wanted, means that she said yes, she wishes to be betrothed, and: She did not want, means that she explicitly said no, one can learn by inference that in the first clause of the baraita, when he spoke as he gave her the money and no difference is suggested between her wanting or not wanting,
Follow
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Kiddushin 12
לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ – דּוּמְיָא דְּיִיעוּד, מַה יִיעוּד, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִי בָּעֵי מְיַיעֵד וְאִי בָּעֵי לָא מְיַיעֵד, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא מָצֵי מְיַיעֵד – לָא הָווּ זְבִינָא זְבִינֵי, הָכִי נָמֵי כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא מָצְיָ[א] מְיגָרְעָא – לָא הָווּ זְבִינָא זְבִינֵי.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This cannot enter your mind, as the halakha of deduction must be similar to the halakha of designation, i.e., the process by which a master designates his Hebrew maidservant as a wife for him or his son (Exodus 21:8–9). Just as with designation, although the halakha is that if he desires, he may designate her and if he does not desire, he is not required to designate her, nevertheless anywhere that he cannot designate her, e.g., in a case where they are related and she is therefore forbidden to him, her sale is not a valid sale, so too here, with regard to her redemption, anywhere that she cannot deduct an amount from her purchase price, her sale is not a valid sale.
וְקִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי נָפְקָא לְהוּ מֵאָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה: מָה אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה בִּפְרוּטָה לָא מִקַּנְיָא, אַף אִשָּׁה בִּפְרוּטָה לָא מִיקַּדְּשָׁא.
The Gemara notes: And according to the opinion of Beit Shammai the mode of betrothal of a woman by money is derived from the case of a Hebrew maidservant, as follows: Just as a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired with one peruta, so too a woman cannot be betrothed with one peruta.
וְאֵימָא פַּלְגָא דְּדִינָר, וְאֵימָא שְׁתֵּי פְּרוּטוֹת! כֵּיוָן דְּאַפִּיקְתֵּיהּ מִפְּרוּטָה – אוֹקְמַהּ אַדִּינָר.
The Gemara asks: Even if Beit Shammai derive their opinion from here, how does this prove that a woman can be betrothed only with a minimum of one dinar? But why not say she can be betrothed with half a dinar, or say that she can be betrothed with two perutot, as it is possible to fulfill the redemption of a Hebrew maidservant if her sale was for either of these amounts? The Gemara answers: Since this comparison excludes betrothal with one peruta, as it indicates that a woman can be betrothed only with money of significant value, the Sages established the minimum amount at one dinar, which is a coin of substantial value.
רָבָא אָמַר: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי: שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּהֶפְקֵר.
Rava said a different explanation: This is the reasoning of Beit Shammai, who hold that a woman can be betrothed only with a minimum of one dinar: The daughters of Israel should not be treated like ownerless property. Allowing women to be betrothed with such a small amount as one peruta is disrespectful to them.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים בִּפְרוּטָה. סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר: פְּרוּטָה כָּל דְּהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא עֲלַהּ קָתָנֵי: כַּמָּה הִיא פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי.
§ The mishna teaches: And Beit Hillel say that a woman can be betrothed with one peruta, or with any item that is worth one peruta. Rav Yosef thought to say: One peruta means any amount. There is no defined value, as a woman may be betrothed with one peruta regardless of its value at the time. Abaye said to him: But isn’t it taught with regard to this in the mishna itself: How much is one peruta? It is one-eighth of the Italian issar. This shows there is a defined value for one peruta.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּדוֹרוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, אֲבָל הָכָא כְּדַחֲשִׁבָה לְהוּ לְאִינָשֵׁי – וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: שִׁיעֵר רַבִּי סִימַאי בְּדוֹרוֹ כַּמָּה הִיא פְּרוּטָה: אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי, וְכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא שִׁיעֲרוּ כַּמָּה הָוֵי פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשִּׁשָּׁה בְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי!
And if you would say: This statement applies only to the generation of Moses, i.e., this was the value of one peruta in the time of the Torah, but now, at any later time, its value is determined by that which people consider one peruta, that claim cannot be correct. As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Simai estimated in his generation: How much is one peruta? It is one-eighth of the Italian issar. And when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Dostai and Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Oshaya estimated: How much is one peruta? It is one-sixth of the Italian issar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּתָנֵינָא: ״צֵא וַחֲשׁוֹב כַּמָּה פְּרוּטוֹת בִּשְׁנֵי סְלָעִים – יוֹתֵר מֵאַלְפַּיִם״ – הַשְׁתָּא אַלְפַּיִם לָא הָוְיָין, יָתֵר מֵאַלְפַּיִם קָרֵי לְהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ הַהוּא סָבָא: אֲנָא תְּנֵינָא לַהּ: ״קָרוֹב לְאַלְפַּיִם״. סוֹף סוֹף אַלְפָּא וַחֲמֵשׁ מְאָה וּתְלָתִין וְשִׁיתָּא הוּא דְּהָוְיָין! כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקָא לְהוּ מִפַּלְגָא – קָרוֹב לְאַלְפַּיִם קָרֵי לֵיהּ.
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: If so, then this is in conflict with that which we learned in a baraita: Go and calculate how many perutot there are in two sela: More than two thousand. Now there are not even two thousand, and you call them: More than two thousand? Rather, the peruta is certainly worth less than one-eighth of the Italian issar. A certain old man said to them: I teach this baraita as saying: Close to two thousand. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, according to the calculation of one-eighth of an issar, the number of perutot in two sela is 1,536, which is nowhere near two thousand. The Gemara answers: Since it passes half of the second thousand it is called: Close to two thousand.
גּוּפָא, כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: שִׁיעֵר רַבִּי סִימַאי בְּדוֹרוֹ כַּמָּה הִיא פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי, וְכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: שִׁיעֲרוּ רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא כַּמָּה הִיא פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשִּׁשָּׁה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי: נֵימָא, אַתְּ וְרָבִין בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי קָא מִיפַּלְגִיתוּ,
The Gemara discusses the matter itself. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Simai estimated in his generation: How much is one peruta? It is one-eighth of the Italian issar. And when Ravin came he said that Rabbi Dostai and Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Oshaya estimated: How much is one peruta? It is one-sixth of the Italian issar. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: Shall we say that you and Ravin disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im.
דְּתַנְיָא: פְּרוּטָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים – אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי, שֵׁשׁ מָעָה כֶּסֶף – דִּינָר, מָעָה – שְׁנֵי פּוּנְדְּיוֹנִין, פּוּנְדְּיוֹן – שְׁנֵי אִיסָּרִין, אִיסָּר – שְׁנֵי מִסְמֵיסִים, מִסְמֵס – שְׁנֵי קוּנְטְרוֹנְקִין, קוּנְטְרֹנְק – שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת. נִמְצָא, פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי.
As it is taught in a baraita: The peruta mentioned by the Sages is one-eighth of the Italian issar. Six silver ma’a are one dinar, and one ma’a is worth two pundeyon. In a pundeyon there are two issar, and an issar is two masmas. A masmas is worth two konterank, and a konterank is two perutot. By this calculation, one finds that one peruta is one-eighth of the Italian issar.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה הַדְרֵסִין לְמָעָה, שְׁנֵי הַנְצִין לְהַדְרֵיס, שְׁנֵי שְׁמֵנִין לַהֲנֵץ, שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת לְשָׁמֵין, נִמְצָא, פְּרוּטָה – אֶחָד מִשִּׁשָּׁה בְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. לֵימָא דְּמָר אָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא וְרָבִין דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל?
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: This is not the case; rather, there are three hadreis to a ma’a, two henetz to a hadreis, two shamin to a henetz, and two perutot to a shamin. Consequently, one finds that one peruta is one-sixth of the Italian issar. Shall we say that one Master agrees with the first tanna, and Ravin, who said his ruling in the name of Rabbi Dostai and Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Oshaya, agrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּין דִּידִי וּבֵין רָבִין אַלִּיבָּא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא – דְּאִיַּקּוּר אִיסּוּרֵי, הָא – דְּזוּל אִיסּוּרֵי. הָא דְּאִיַּקּוּר אִיסּוּרֵי – קוּם עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בְּזוּזָא, הָא דְּזוּל – קוּם תְּלָתִין וּתְרֵין בְּזוּזָא.
Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Both my statement and that of Ravin are in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, and it is not difficult. This statement of mine is referring to when the issar increased in value in relation to silver coins, and this statement of Ravin is referring to when the issar decreased in value. The Gemara elaborates: When the issar increased in value, twenty-four issar stood at one dinar; when they decreased in value, thirty-two issar stood at one dinar. If so, there is a set ratio between the value of a peruta and the value of silver, and there are 192 perutot in one dinar. By contrast, the ratio between the value of a copper issar and silver dinars fluctuates, so that sometimes an issar will be worth eight perutot while at other times it is worth only six.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קִידְּשָׁהּ בִּתְמָרָה, אֲפִילּוּ עוֹמֵד כּוֹר תְּמָרִים בְּדִינָר – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת; חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה בְּמָדַי.
§ Shmuel says: If man betrothed a woman with a date, she is betrothed even if a kor of dates is worth one dinar, which would mean that one date is worth much less than one peruta. The reason is that although a date has little value here, we are concerned that perhaps it is worth one peruta in Media or in some other distant place where dates are expensive. Therefore, she is betrothed in this location as well.
וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי וַדַּאי, הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי סָפֵק.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that Beit Hillel say: With one peruta or with an item worth one peruta, but not less? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult. This statement in the mishna is referring to betrothal whose status is certain. Betrothal with one peruta or an item worth one peruta is certainly valid. Conversely, this case stated by Shmuel is referring to betrothal whose status is uncertain. Although the item is not worth one peruta here, there is a concern that the betrothal might nevertheless be valid.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאקַדֵּישׁ בִּזְווֹדָא דְּאוּדְרֵי, יָתֵיב רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב וְקָא מְעַיֵּין בַּהּ, אִי אִית בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא. וְאִי לֵית בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה לָא? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָיְישִׁינַן! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי וַדַּאי, הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי סָפֵק.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with a bundle of rags [zavda de’urdei]. Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya sat before Rav and examined the bundle to see if it had the value of one peruta. If it was worth one peruta, yes, she was betrothed, and if not, no, she was not betrothed. The Gemara asks: And if it does not have the value of one peruta, is she not betrothed? But didn’t Shmuel say that we are concerned that the item might be worth one peruta in Media? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult. This ruling of Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya is referring to betrothal whose status is certain, whereas this statement of Shmuel is referring to betrothal whose status is uncertain.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאקַדֵּישׁ בְּאַבְנָא דְכוּחְלָא, יָתֵיב רַב חִסְדָּא וְקָא מְשַׁעֵר לַיהּ, אִי אִית בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא. וְאִי לֵית בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה לָא? וְהָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָיְישִׁינַן! רַב חִסְדָּא לָא סָבַר לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
The Gemara further relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with a blue marble stone. Rav Ḥisda sat and estimated whether it was worth one peruta. If it was worth one peruta, yes, she was betrothed, and if not, no, she was not betrothed. The Gemara asks: And if it does not have the value of one peruta, is she not betrothed? But didn’t Shmuel say that we are concerned that the item might be worth one peruta in Media? The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥisda does not hold in accordance with that opinion of Shmuel, as he holds that if the item is not worth one peruta in the place where the betrothal occurred, the betrothal is invalid.
אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ אִימֵּיהּ: וְהָא הָהוּא יוֹמָא דְּקַדְּשַׁהּ הֲוָה בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! אֲמַר לַהּ: לָאו כָּל כְּמִינָּךְ דְּאָסְרַתְּ לַהּ אַבָּתְרָא.
The mother of the man who offered the betrothal said to Rav Ḥisda: But on that day that he betrothed her it was worth one peruta. He said to the mother: It is not in your power to render her forbidden to a later man. If another comes and betroths her, his betrothal is not dismissed due to this earlier act. Since the marble stone is not worth one peruta now, the betrothal of the second man may be valid.
לָאו הַיְינוּ דִּיהוּדִית דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, (דַּהֲוֵית) [דַּהֲוָה] לַהּ צַעַר לֵידָה, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אֲמַרָה לִי אֵם: קַבֵּיל בִּיךְ אֲבוּךְ קִידּוּשֵׁי כִּי זוּטְרַתְּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: לָאו כָּל כְּמִינַּהּ דְּאִימָּךְ דְּאָסְרָה לִיךְ עִילָּוַאי.
Rav Ḥisda explained: Is this not similar to the case of Yehudit, wife of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who would have painful childbirths and therefore wished to leave Rabbi Ḥiyya? She said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: My mother told me: When you were young your father accepted betrothal on your behalf from another man, which would render Yehudit forbidden to Rabbi Ḥiyya. He said to her: It is not in your mother’s power to render you forbidden to me, as this testimony is insufficient.
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב חִסְדָּא: אַמַּאי? הָא אִיכָּא סָהֲדִי בְּאִידִית, דְּיָדְעִי דִּבְהָהוּא יוֹמָא הֲוָה בַּיהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא לָא לֵיתַנְהוּ קַמַּן.
Returning to the incident with the blue marble stone, the Gemara relates that the Sages said to Rav Ḥisda: Why do you say that she is not betrothed because the item is not worth one peruta in the place where the betrothal occurred? After all, there are witnesses in Idit who know that on that day it had the value of one peruta. Rav Ḥisda said to them: Now, in any event, they are not here, and therefore their potential testimony is disregarded.
לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: עֵידֶיהָ בְּצַד אַסְתָּן, וְתֵיאָסֵר?!
Rav Ḥisda cites a proof for his statement: Isn’t this the same as the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina? In the case of a woman who appeared before the court and said that she was taken captive but remained undefiled, if there are no witnesses that she was captured, her entire claim must be accepted, and therefore she is permitted to her husband. Although there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify that she was taken captive, and consequently, the court need not rely on her statement alone, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: When her witnesses are far away in the north [istan], will she be forbidden?
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא לָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ לְהָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. אִם הֵקֵילּוּ בִּשְׁבוּיָה, דִּמְנַוְּולָה נַפְשַׁהּ גַּבֵּי שַׁבַּאי, נָיקֵיל בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ?!
The Gemara comments: Abaye and Rava do not hold in accordance with this statement of Rav Ḥisda with regard to betrothal. In their opinion one cannot learn the halakha here from Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement, as there is a difference between the cases: If in the case of Rabbi Ḥanina the Sages were lenient with regard to a captive woman, who makes herself appear repulsive before her captor so that he will not rape her, and it is therefore believable that she was not violated, shall we be lenient with regard to the serious prohibition of a married woman?
אִישְׁתְּאַר מֵהַהִיא מִשְׁפָּחָה בְּסוּרָא, וּפְרַשׁוּ רַבָּנַן מִינַּהּ. וְלָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּסְבִירָא לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּסְבִירָא לְהוּ כְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא.
The Gemara reports: Descendants of the family of the woman who had been betrothed with a blue marble stone remained in Sura, as after Rav Ḥisda ruled that that woman’s first betrothal was invalid, she married another man and had children. But the Sages avoided the family and refused to marry into it due to the concern that it was founded on a possibly adulterous relationship, which would render the descendants of the family mamzerim. The Gemara comments: And it was not because they maintained, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, that there is a concern that any item might be worth one peruta somewhere else. Rather, it was because they held in accordance with the opinion of Abaye and Rava, who said: Since there are witnesses in a different place, one must take them into account.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאקַדֵּישׁ בְּשׁוּטִיתָא דְאָסָא בְּשׁוּקָא, שַׁלְחַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא מַאי? שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: נַגְּדֵיהּ כְּרַב, וְאַצְרֵיךְ גִּיטָּא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with a myrtle branch in the marketplace. Rav Aḥa bar Huna sent this dilemma before Rav Yosef: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef sent a response to him: Flog him, in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and require her to receive a bill of divorce, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, in case the myrtle branch is worth one peruta somewhere else.
דְּרַב מְנַגֵּיד עַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּשׁוּקָא, וְעַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה, וְעַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּלָא שִׁידּוּכֵי.
The Gemara explains that Rav would flog a man for betrothing a woman in the marketplace, because this is disrespectful and crude, and for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse, as it is unsavory to invite witnesses to observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse. And he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman without an arrangement [shiddukhei], i.e., if he did not discuss betrothal with the woman before betrothing her. Each of these acts is considered indecent behavior.
וְעַל דִּמְבַטֵּיל גִּיטָּא, וְעַל דְּמָסַר מוֹדָעָא אַגִּיטָּא, וְעַל דִּמְצַעַר שְׁלוּחָא דְרַבָּנַן, וְעַל דְּחָלָה שַׁמְתָּא עִילָּוֵיהּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין,
And likewise, Rav would flog a man for nullifying a bill of divorce he has already sent to his wife, and for issuing a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce. The latter case is referring to one who announces before giving a bill of divorce that he is divorcing his wife against his will, thereby rendering the document ineffective. This behavior might lead to a grave sin if the wife marries another man under the mistaken impression that she is divorced. And similarly, Rav would flog anyone for tormenting a messenger of the Sages, as this indicates a lack of regard for the Sages. And Rav would flog one who had an excommunication take effect on him for thirty days and yet does not repent or appeal to the Sages to annul his censure.
וְעַל חַתְנָא דְּדָיַיר בֵּי חֲמוּהּ. דְּדָיַיר – אִין, חָלֵיף – לָא?! וְהָא הָהוּא חַתְנָא דַּחֲלֵיף אַבָּבָא דְּבֵי חֲמוּהּ וְנַגְּדֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת! הָהוּא מֵידָם הֲוָת דָּיְימָא חֲמָתֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.
And Rav would flog a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house, as there is a concern that he might sin with his mother-in-law. The Gemara comments: This indicates that with regard to one who lives in his father-in-law’s house permanently, yes, he is flogged, whereas with regard to one who only passes by his father-in-law’s house, no, he is not flogged. But there was a certain son-in-law who passed by the entrance of his father-in-law’s house and Rav Sheshet flogged him due to licentiousness. The Gemara explains: In that case, there were suspicions [dayma] about him and his mother-in-law, i.e., about rumors of intimacy between them. In walking by the house he contributed to these rumors, which is why he was flogged.
נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: בְּכוּלְּהוּ, לָא מְנַגֵּיד רַב אֶלָּא עַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה בְּלָא שִׁידּוּכֵי. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשִׁידּוּכֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּתָא.
The Sages of Neharde’a say: Rav would not flog a violator in all of the cases listed, but he would in fact flog a man for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse without a prior arrangement. And there are those who say: Even if there was an arrangement beforehand, he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman with intercourse, due to licentiousness, as it is indecent to have witnesses observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקַדֵּישׁ בְּצִיפְּתָא דְאָסָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וְהָא לֵית בַּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ: תִּיקְדּוֹשׁ בְּאַרְבַּע זוּזֵי דְּאִית בַּהּ. שְׁקַלְתַּהּ וְאִישְׁתִּיקָא. אָמַר רָבָא: הָוֵה שְׁתִיקוּתָא דִּלְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת, וְכֹל שְׁתִיקוּתָא דִּלְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת, לָאו כְּלוּם הִיא.
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with a mat of myrtle branches. People who were present said to him: But it is not worth one peruta. He said to them: If so, let her be betrothed with the four dinars that are wrapped in the mat. The woman took the mat and was silent. Rava said: This is silence after the money is given, and any silence after the money is given is nothing. Since it was assumed at the time that he gave her an item worth less than one peruta, there is no proof that she acted in accordance with his subsequent statement. It is possible that she ignored him and did not intend to become betrothed with the four dinars.
אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר לָהּ: כִּנְסִי סֶלַע זוֹ בְּפִקָּדוֹן, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ: הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בּוֹ. בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, לְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת, רָצְתָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, לֹא רָצְתָה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.
Rava said: From where do I state this opinion? As it is taught in a baraita that in a case where a man said to a woman: Take this sela as a deposit, and he subsequently went back and said to her: Be betrothed to me with it, if he said this at the time the money was given, she is betrothed. In a case where he said this after the money was given, then if she wanted to be betrothed in this manner, she is betrothed. If she did not want it, she is not betrothed.
מַאי ״רָצְתָה״ וּמַאי ״לֹא רָצְתָה״? אִילֵימָא ״רָצְתָה״ – דְּאָמְרָה: ״אִין״, לֹא רָצְתָה דְּאָמְרָה: ״לָא״, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא,
The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of: She wanted, and what is the meaning of: She did not want? If we say that: She wanted, means that she said yes, she wishes to be betrothed, and: She did not want, means that she explicitly said no, one can learn by inference that in the first clause of the baraita, when he spoke as he gave her the money and no difference is suggested between her wanting or not wanting,
Follow
