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

Daf Yomi

August 21, 2023 | 讚壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Kiddushin 8

This week’s learning is dedicated by the Hochstadter-Dicker family to commemorate the yahrzeit of their Great-Saba, Saba, and Dad, Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla v’Baruch. “We miss you and love you.”聽

Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi’s brother, Dr. Dennis Lock, 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讬注拽讘, on his first yahrzeit. “He was a loving husband, father, brother, uncle and grandfather, a devoted physician; and had a love of learning Talmud. He is sorely missed.”

讗祝 砖讜讛 讻住祝 谞诪讬 讚拽讬讬抓


so too, an item worth money must be set, i.e., it must have a clearly defined value.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 讘讻住祝 讛讜讗 谞拽谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞拽谞讛 讘转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐


Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this opinion? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to redeeming a Hebrew slave: 鈥淗e shall give back the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51), which indicates: He is acquired specifically through money and he is not acquired through grain or vessels.


讛讗讬 转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 诪拽谞讜 讘讛讜 讻诇诇 讬砖讬讘 讙讗诇转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇专讘讜转 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讻讻住祝


Rav Yosef explains: What are the circumstances of these grains and vessels? If we say that a Hebrew slave cannot be acquired through them at all, as money alone may be used, the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e shall give back the price of his redemption,鈥 which serves to include all modes of repayment as valid equivalents of money, i.e., an item worth money is the same as money. There is no requirement to use money in particular; it is also possible to use items with monetary value.


讜讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讻住祝 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讬讬爪讬 诇讗


And if you say that they do not have the value of one peruta, why mention specifically grain and vessels? Even money that is not worth one peruta cannot be used for acquiring a slave. Rather, is it not speaking here about a case where the grain and vessels do have the value of one peruta, but since they lack a set value, no, a Hebrew slave cannot be redeemed with them? The comparison with money teaches that a Hebrew slave can be redeemed only with an item that has a clearly defined value, like money.


讜讗讬讚讱 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘转讜专转 讻住祝 讛讜讗 谞拽谞讛 讜讗讬谉 谞拽谞讛 讘转讜专转 转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉


And the other Sage, Rabba, who maintains that appraisal is not necessary, would respond: The tanna is referring to an item worth one peruta, but he is not teaching that one cannot redeem a slave with items whose value is not set. Rather, this is what he is saying: A Hebrew slave is acquired through the mode of money, and he is not acquired through the mode of grain or vessels. And what is this mode particular to the acquisition of grain and vessels? This is referring to symbolic exchange. A slave cannot be acquired through the mode of acquisition of symbolic exchange.


讜诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讚拽讗诪专转 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讻住祝 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专


The Gemara notes: This explanation is valid only according to those who say that grain can be acquired through the mode of exchange; but according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who said that produce cannot effect symbolic exchange, as this mode of acquisition applies only to vessels, what can be said? Why does the tanna mention grain if grain cannot be used in symbolic exchange? Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the following: Actually, this is referring to a case where the grain and utensils do not have the value of one peruta. And as for that which you said: Why mention specifically grain and vessels; even money that is not worth one peruta cannot acquire either, one could say that the tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary.


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讻住祝 讚讗讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讗讘诇 转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诪讚诪拽专讘讗 讛谞讗转讬讬讛讜 讙诪专 讜诪拽谞讬 谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara elaborates: It is not necessary to state with regard to money that if it has the value of one peruta, yes, one effects acquisition with it, and if not, then no, one cannot effect acquisition with it. But with regard to grain and vessels, one might say that as their benefit is readily available, i.e., one can enjoy them immediately in their current state, perhaps the slave decides and transfers ownership of himself to the master by even less than the worth of one peruta. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that an article less than the value of one peruta cannot effect acquisition notwithstanding the above reasoning.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 注讙诇 讝讛 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讘谞讬 讟诇讬转 讝讛 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讘谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 注讙诇 讝讛 讘讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讘谞讬 讟诇讬转 讝讜 讘讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讘谞讬 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬


Rav Yosef said: From where do I say that betrothal can be effected only with an item with a clearly defined value? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bekhorot 6:4), that if one says to a priest: This calf should be for the redemption of my firstborn son, or: This cloak should be for the redemption of my firstborn son, then he has said nothing. But if he said: This calf worth the value of five sela should be for the redemption of my firstborn son, or: This cloak worth the value of five sela should be for the redemption of my firstborn son, then his son is redeemed.


讛讗讬 驻讚讬讜谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 砖讜讬 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讜讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讬讬爪讬 诇讗


The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances with regard to this redemption with a calf or a cloak that has no clearly defined value? If we say that they are not worth five sela, is it in his power to give a priest less than the established amount? Why would it even be considered that perhaps the son is redeemed? Rather, is it not referring to a case where even though they are worth this amount, one may not redeem with them in the case of the first clause since their value is not set? This shows that there is a difference between an item that has a set value and one that does not.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 砖讜讬 讜讻讙讜谉 讚拽讘讬诇 讻讛谉 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 砖拽讬诇 住讜讚专讗 诪讘讬 驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; actually, this is referring to a case where the calf or cloak is not worth five sela, and the latter clause is referring to a case where the priest accepted upon himself to value the items as though they were worth this amount, which is why the son is redeemed. This is like this incident in which Rav Kahana, who was a priest, took a cloth [sudara] from the house of a man obligated to perform the redemption of his firstborn son. Rav Kahana said to the man: For me, I view this cloth as though it were worth five sela.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讜诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 住讜讚专讗 讗专讬砖讬讛 讗讘诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讝讘谉 住讜讚专讗 诪讗讬诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 诪拽讜讘讬 砖讜讬 注砖专讛 讘转诇讬住专:


Rav Ashi said: We said that it is possible to redeem one鈥檚 son in this manner only when the priest is an individual such as Rav Kahana, who is a great man and is required to wear a cloth on his head. It was common practice for important people to wear a scarf on their heads. But with regard to everyone else, i.e., those who do not wear these cloths and cannot say it is worth that amount to them, no, they may not perform the redemption of the firstborn son in this manner. The Gemara cites a proof that a distinguished individual who needs a cloth will pay a large amount for one. This is like this incident in which Mar bar Rav Ashi bought a cloth from Rabba鈥檚 mother from Kovei for thirteen dinars, despite the fact that it was worth ten, because he needed a cloth.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讜谞转谉 诇讛 讚讬谞专 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讬砖诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诪谞讛 讜讬讛讘 诇讛 讚讬谞专 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 讚诪讬


Rabbi Elazar says: If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and he gave her one dinar out of the one hundred, she is betrothed immediately and he must subsequently complete the payment of the remainder of the amount he promised her. What is the reason for this? Since he said to her: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and yet he gave her only one dinar, he is like one who said to her: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I will give you one hundred dinars. In other words, he betroths her now with one dinar on the condition he will pay the remaining ninety-nine in the future. The betrothal therefore takes effect immediately, and he owes her the rest of the one hundred dinars.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 注诇 诪谞转 讻讗讜诪专 诪注讻砖讬讜 讚诪讬


The Gemara adds: And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who states a provision employing the phrase: On the condition, it is tantamount to his stipulating that the agreement take effect retroactively from now. An agreement stipulated by means of the phrase: On the condition, takes effect immediately. This is not like an ordinary agreement, which takes effect only after the condition has been fulfilled.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讜讛讬讛 诪讜谞讛 讜讛讜诇讱 讜专爪讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讞讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞专 讛讗讞专讜谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta 2:10). If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and while he was counting the money, one of them wanted to retract the betrothal, it is in the power of either of them to do so even when only the last dinar remains to be given. This indicates that the betrothal does not take effect until the entire one hundred dinars has been paid.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 专讬砖讗 讘诪谞讛 住转诐


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where he says to the woman: Be betrothed to me with this one hundred dinars. In this case the entire one hundred dinars, not just the first dinar, constitutes the betrothal money. The Gemara raises a difficulty with this answer: From the fact that the latter clause of the baraita uses the expression: With this one hundred dinars, it can be inferred that the first clause is dealing with an unspecified one hundred dinars.


讚拽讗 转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 讜谞诪爪讗 诪谞讛 讞住专 讚讬谞专 讗讜 讚讬谞专 砖诇 谞讞砖转 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚讬谞专 专注 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讬讞诇讬祝


As it is taught in the latter clause of that baraita, if he said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with this one hundred dinars, and it was found to be one hundred dinars less a dinar, or if it included a dinar of copper instead of silver, she is not betrothed. If one of the dinars was found to be a flawed dinar, i.e., it was a silver dinar but it was so worn that it would not be universally accepted, she is betrothed, and he must exchange that dinar for a different one. Since the latter clause of the baraita emphasizes the term: This one hundred dinars, evidently the first clause of the baraita must be referring to an unspecified one hundred dinars.


诇讗 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讚讗诪专 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 讜驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 专爪讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讞讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞专 讛讗讞专讜谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜 讻讬爪讚 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讘诪谞讛 讝讜


The Gemara rejects this opinion: No; one can say that the first clause and the latter clause are both referring to a case where he said: With this one hundred dinars, and the latter clause is explaining the first clause, as follows: If one of them wishes to retract the betrothal, it is in the power of either of them to do so even when only the last dinar remains to be given. How so? This is referring to a case where he said to her: With this one hundred dinars.


讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讬砖讗 讘诪谞讛 住转诐 讛砖转讗 讘诪谞讛 住转诐 诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Gemara comments: And so too, it is reasonable to explain the baraita this way, as, if it enters your mind that the first clause is referring to an unspecified one hundred dinars, consider the following: Now if it is not a betrothal in a case involving an unspecified one hundred dinars, and she can retract her agreement to the betrothal, is it necessary to say that she can retract it when he says: With this one hundred dinars? If that were the correct interpretation of the first clause, the ruling in the last clause would be unnecessary.


讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讙诇讜讬 专讬砖讗 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 专讬砖讗 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讛 住转诐 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讘诪谞讛 住转诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉


The Gemara rejects this proof: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument, i.e., the proof of the argument is inconclusive. The reason is that one could say that the tanna taught the latter clause to reveal the meaning of the first clause. The function of the latter clause is not to teach a novel halakha, but to preempt a mistaken reading of the first clause. The latter clause was stated so that you should not mistakenly say that the first clause is referring only to a situation when he said: With this one hundred dinars, but in a case of an unspecified one hundred dinars, it would be a betrothal. Therefore, the tanna taught in the latter clause: With this one hundred dinars, which teaches by inference that the first clause is referring to an unspecified one hundred dinars, and even so it is not a betrothal. Although this proof is rejected, the Gemara remains with its explanation that the first clause is referring to a case where he said to her: With this one hundred dinars.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讜谞讛 讜讛讜诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讚讚注转讛 讗讻讜诇讬讛


Rav Ashi said: It is unnecessary to explain that the first clause of the baraita is referring to a case where he said: With this one hundred dinars, as a situation where he was counting the money is different. The reason is that she has the entirety of the one hundred dinars in mind, and therefore she will not be content with some of the money. His continuous action indicates that they both expect that he will give her the entire one hundred dinars, and consequently both parties can retract their agreement until he finishes counting.


讛讗讬 讚讬谞专 砖诇 谞讞砖转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讚注讛 讘讬讛 讛讗 住讘专讛 讜拽讘诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗砖转讻讞 诇讬讛 讘讬谞讬 讝讜讝讬


The Gemara further analyzes the baraita: What are the circumstances of this copper dinar mentioned here? If she knows that it is a copper dinar, she knew and accepted this coin as a dinar. If so, she cannot later retract her betrothal. The Gemara answers: No; it is necessary in a case where he gave her this dinar at night and at the time she did not see that it was copper. Alternatively, it was found among the other dinars, and she did not notice that one of them one was copper.


讛讗讬 讚讬谞专 专注 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬拽 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讬谞专 砖诇 谞讞砖转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚谞驻讬拽 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽:


The Gemara further asks: What are the circumstances of this flawed dinar, also mentioned in the baraita? If it cannot be spent, i.e., it cannot pass as a silver dinar, this is exactly like a copper dinar, as it too is not worth a full dinar. Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where the dinar can be spent with difficulty, i.e., it is difficult, but not impossible, to find someone who will accept it.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讜讛谞讬讞 诇讛 诪砖讻讜谉 注诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and instead of giving it to her he gave her collateral for the money, she is not betrothed.


诪谞讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诪砖讻讜谉 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽讬讚砖讛 讘诪砖讻讜谉 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛转诐 讘诪砖讻讜谉 讚讗讞专讬诐 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽


There is no one hundred dinars here, as he has not yet given her one hundred dinars, and there is no collateral here, since this collateral is not a gift but merely a security. He has therefore not given her anything. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the following baraita: If he betrothed her with collateral, she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to collateral belonging to other people, which was in the possession of the man who betrothed her, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖拽讜谞讛 诪砖讻讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讱 转讛讬讛 爪讚拽讛 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 爪讚拽讛 诪谞讬谉 诪讻讗谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖拽讜谞讛 诪砖讻讜谉


As Rabbi Yitz岣k says: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires collateral, i.e., that the individual in possession of the collateral has the actual rights to it? As it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall surely restore him the pledge when the sun goes down that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and it shall be righteousness to you鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:13). If the creditor does not acquire the pledge or collateral, from where does this considering his return of the collateral as righteousness stem? The creditor is not giving an item belonging to him; why is this considered a righteous act? Rather, from here it is derived that a creditor acquires collateral to a certain extent.


讘谞讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讝讘讜谉 讛讛讬讗 讗诪转讗 讘驻专讬讟讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讗讜转讬讘讬 谞住讻讗 注诇讬讛 诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽专 讗诪转讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻专讬讟讬 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 谞住讻讗 讗讬谉 讻讗谉


The Gemara relates: The sons of Rav Huna bar Avin bought a certain maidservant on the condition that they would pay with copper perutot. They did not have the money at the time, and therefore they gave a piece of silver [naskha] for her as collateral. Ultimately, the price of the maidservant increased and the sellers wanted to cancel the sale. They came before Rabbi Ami for his ruling and he said to them: There are no perutot here, and there is no piece of silver here either. There was no valid act of acquisition at all because they did not actually give the money, and the collateral does not transfer ownership.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 谞讟诇转讜 讜讝专拽转讜 诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗讜专 讗讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛讗讘讚 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讗 砖讚讬转讬谞讛讜 拽诪讬讛 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讛讗 拽讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗


The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:9): If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she took it from his hand and threw it into the sea, or into the fire, or into anything that destroys, she is not betrothed. The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: The baraita indicates that she is not betrothed only if the one hundred dinars are destroyed, but if she threw the coins before him but did not destroy them, that is a betrothal. Why should this be? By throwing the coins at him she is effectively saying to him: Take this; I do not want your betrothal.


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗 讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讚讬转讬谞讛讜 拽诪讬讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗讘诇 讝专拽转讜 诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗讜专 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讘讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬 拽讚讬砖 谞驻砖讛 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 注讘讚讗 讛讻讬 住讘专讗 讗讬讘讚拽讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 讗讬 专转讞谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: The tanna of the baraita is speaking using the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state in a case where she throws the money before him that it is not a betrothal, as her action indicates that she does not want to be betrothed. But when she throws it into the sea or into the fire, one might say that since she is obligated to pay for the money he gave her, perhaps she betrothed herself with the money she received. And as for the reason why she did this act of destroying the money, she thought: I will test this man to see if he is an individual of an angry temperament or not. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that even in that case it is not a betrothal.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 转谞诐 诇讗讘讗 讜诇讗讘讬讱 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬拽讘诇讜诐 诇讬 诪拽讜讚砖转


The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:9): If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she said to him: Give the money to my father, or: Give the money to your father, she is not betrothed. If she said: Give the money to my father, or Give the money to your father on the condition that he accepts them for me, she is betrothed.


转谞讗 讗讘讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞 讚专讬砖讗 转谞讗 讗讘讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞 讚住讬驻讗


The Gemara comments: The baraita taught the case where she said: Give the money to my father, to convey the far-reaching nature of the halakha of the first clause. If she simply said that he should give the money to anybody else, even her own father, whom it can be assumed she wants to benefit, she is still not betrothed. And the baraita taught the case where she said: Give the money to your father, to convey the far-reaching nature of the halakha of the latter clause. If she said that someone else should receive the money on her behalf, it is a valid betrothal even if she said the money should be given to his father.


讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 转谞诐 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬拽讘诇诐 诇讬 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜爪专讬讻讗


The Gemara cites a similar case. If he said to her: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she said to him: Give them to so-and-so, she is not betrothed. But if she said to him: On the condition that he accepts them for me, she is betrothed. The Gemara comments: It is necessary to issue this ruling, despite the fact that it is apparently identical to the previous halakha.


讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗讘讗 讜讗讘讬讱 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 讗诪专讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬拽讘诇讜诐 诇讬 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讚住诪讻讛 讚注转讛 注讬诇讬讬讛讜 住讘专讛 注讘讚讬谉 诇讬 砖诇讬讞讜转讗讬 讗讘诇 驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗


The Gemara elaborates: This is because if the tanna had taught us only the case where she said: Give the money to my father, or: Give the money to your father, one would say that it is in that case there, when she said: On the condition that one of these relatives accepts them for me, that it is a betrothal, as she relies on them and she thinks: They will do my bidding for me and will hold this money on my behalf. But if she says: Give it to so-and-so, someone who is not related to either of them, no, the betrothal is not valid.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 驻诇讜谞讬 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 讗诪专讛 转谞诐 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讚诇讗 诪拽专讘讗 讚注转讛 诇讙讘讬讛 诇诪讬转讘讛 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讗讘诇 讗讘讗 讜讗讘讬讱 讚诪拽专讘讗 讚注转讛 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讗 讘诪转谞讛 讬讛讘讬转讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讬讛讜 爪专讬讻讗


And conversely, if the tanna had taught us only the case of so-and-so, one might say: It is here, when she said: Give it to so-and-so, that it is not a betrothal, as she is not close to him and is not interested in giving him this money as a gift. But if she said: Give the money to my father, or: Give the money to your father, to whom she is close, one might say that she gave it to them as a gift, i.e., she accepted the sum as her betrothal money and decided to give it as a gift. If so, she should be betrothed. It was therefore necessary for the tanna to issue both rulings and clarify that she is not betrothed in either case.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 转谞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 住诇注 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 住诇注 砖诇讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘注讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 住诇注 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


The Sages taught: If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she said to him: Place them on a rock, she is not betrothed. And if the rock was hers, she is betrothed. Rav Beivai raises a dilemma: If the rock was the property of both of them, what is the halakha? No answer was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讻讻专 转谞讛讜 诇讻诇讘 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讻诇讘 砖诇讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘注讬 专讘 诪专讬 讻诇讘 专抓 讗讞专讬讛 诪讛讜


The Gemara discusses a similar case. If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with a loaf of bread, and she said to him: Give it to a dog, she is not betrothed. And if this dog was hers, she is betrothed. Rav Mari raises a dilemma: If a dog was chasing her to bite her, and she said to him: Give the loaf to the dog, what is the halakha?


讘讛讛讜讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 诪爪诇讛 谞驻砖讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讙诪专讛 讜诪拽谞讬讗 诇讬讛 谞驻砖讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘转 诇讗爪讜诇谉 转讬拽讜


The Gemara presents the two sides of the dilemma: Does one say that she commits herself to betrothal and transfers herself to him through this benefit that she receives by being rescued from the dog? Or perhaps she can say to him: By Torah law you are required to rescue me, due to the injunction: 鈥淣either shall you stand idly by the blood of your neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 19:16), and therefore she is not betrothed with the loaf because she does not owe him anything. This problem is also left unanswered, and the Gemara again states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讻讻专 转谞讛讜 诇注谞讬 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 讛住诪讜讱 注诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讞讬讬讘谞讗 讘讬讛 讗谞讗 讛讻讬 诪讞讬讬讘转 讘讬讛 讗转


If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with a loaf of bread, and she said: Give it to a poor person, she is not betrothed, even if it was a poor person who is dependent upon her, i.e., a poor person who regularly receives food from that woman. What is the reason for this? She could say to him: Just as I am required to give charity to him, so too you are required to give charity to him. Therefore, this donation is not an indication that she has agreed to the betrothal.


讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 诪讝讘讬谉


The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who was selling


  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddushin: 2- 9 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we start a new Masechet, we will introduce some key concepts of Kiddushin (betrothal). The Gemara teaches that there...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 8: The Value of 5 Selaim

Betrothal with money has to be with something that has a clearly defined value. With a parallel to pidyon haben...
introduction to gittin gitta

What is Kiddushin

Adapted from deracheha.org What is marriage for? Ideally, marriage establishes a strong emotional and sexual bond, and creates a framework...
ayelet eng KIDDUSHIN

Intro to Masechet Kiddushin

https://youtu.be/E0EYXkNdx9w Introduction to Masechet Kiddushin by podcast: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/hadran/IntroMasechetKiddushinEng.mp3

Kiddushin 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 8

讗祝 砖讜讛 讻住祝 谞诪讬 讚拽讬讬抓


so too, an item worth money must be set, i.e., it must have a clearly defined value.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 讘讻住祝 讛讜讗 谞拽谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞拽谞讛 讘转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐


Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this opinion? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to redeeming a Hebrew slave: 鈥淗e shall give back the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51), which indicates: He is acquired specifically through money and he is not acquired through grain or vessels.


讛讗讬 转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 诪拽谞讜 讘讛讜 讻诇诇 讬砖讬讘 讙讗诇转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇专讘讜转 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讻讻住祝


Rav Yosef explains: What are the circumstances of these grains and vessels? If we say that a Hebrew slave cannot be acquired through them at all, as money alone may be used, the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e shall give back the price of his redemption,鈥 which serves to include all modes of repayment as valid equivalents of money, i.e., an item worth money is the same as money. There is no requirement to use money in particular; it is also possible to use items with monetary value.


讜讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讻住祝 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讬讬爪讬 诇讗


And if you say that they do not have the value of one peruta, why mention specifically grain and vessels? Even money that is not worth one peruta cannot be used for acquiring a slave. Rather, is it not speaking here about a case where the grain and vessels do have the value of one peruta, but since they lack a set value, no, a Hebrew slave cannot be redeemed with them? The comparison with money teaches that a Hebrew slave can be redeemed only with an item that has a clearly defined value, like money.


讜讗讬讚讱 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘转讜专转 讻住祝 讛讜讗 谞拽谞讛 讜讗讬谉 谞拽谞讛 讘转讜专转 转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉


And the other Sage, Rabba, who maintains that appraisal is not necessary, would respond: The tanna is referring to an item worth one peruta, but he is not teaching that one cannot redeem a slave with items whose value is not set. Rather, this is what he is saying: A Hebrew slave is acquired through the mode of money, and he is not acquired through the mode of grain or vessels. And what is this mode particular to the acquisition of grain and vessels? This is referring to symbolic exchange. A slave cannot be acquired through the mode of acquisition of symbolic exchange.


讜诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讚拽讗诪专转 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讻住祝 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专


The Gemara notes: This explanation is valid only according to those who say that grain can be acquired through the mode of exchange; but according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who said that produce cannot effect symbolic exchange, as this mode of acquisition applies only to vessels, what can be said? Why does the tanna mention grain if grain cannot be used in symbolic exchange? Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the following: Actually, this is referring to a case where the grain and utensils do not have the value of one peruta. And as for that which you said: Why mention specifically grain and vessels; even money that is not worth one peruta cannot acquire either, one could say that the tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary.


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讻住祝 讚讗讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讗讘诇 转讘讜讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诪讚诪拽专讘讗 讛谞讗转讬讬讛讜 讙诪专 讜诪拽谞讬 谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara elaborates: It is not necessary to state with regard to money that if it has the value of one peruta, yes, one effects acquisition with it, and if not, then no, one cannot effect acquisition with it. But with regard to grain and vessels, one might say that as their benefit is readily available, i.e., one can enjoy them immediately in their current state, perhaps the slave decides and transfers ownership of himself to the master by even less than the worth of one peruta. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that an article less than the value of one peruta cannot effect acquisition notwithstanding the above reasoning.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 注讙诇 讝讛 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讘谞讬 讟诇讬转 讝讛 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讘谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 注讙诇 讝讛 讘讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讘谞讬 讟诇讬转 讝讜 讘讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讘谞讬 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬


Rav Yosef said: From where do I say that betrothal can be effected only with an item with a clearly defined value? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bekhorot 6:4), that if one says to a priest: This calf should be for the redemption of my firstborn son, or: This cloak should be for the redemption of my firstborn son, then he has said nothing. But if he said: This calf worth the value of five sela should be for the redemption of my firstborn son, or: This cloak worth the value of five sela should be for the redemption of my firstborn son, then his son is redeemed.


讛讗讬 驻讚讬讜谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 砖讜讬 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讜讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讬讬爪讬 诇讗


The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances with regard to this redemption with a calf or a cloak that has no clearly defined value? If we say that they are not worth five sela, is it in his power to give a priest less than the established amount? Why would it even be considered that perhaps the son is redeemed? Rather, is it not referring to a case where even though they are worth this amount, one may not redeem with them in the case of the first clause since their value is not set? This shows that there is a difference between an item that has a set value and one that does not.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 砖讜讬 讜讻讙讜谉 讚拽讘讬诇 讻讛谉 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 砖拽讬诇 住讜讚专讗 诪讘讬 驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; actually, this is referring to a case where the calf or cloak is not worth five sela, and the latter clause is referring to a case where the priest accepted upon himself to value the items as though they were worth this amount, which is why the son is redeemed. This is like this incident in which Rav Kahana, who was a priest, took a cloth [sudara] from the house of a man obligated to perform the redemption of his firstborn son. Rav Kahana said to the man: For me, I view this cloth as though it were worth five sela.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讜诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 住讜讚专讗 讗专讬砖讬讛 讗讘诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讝讘谉 住讜讚专讗 诪讗讬诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 诪拽讜讘讬 砖讜讬 注砖专讛 讘转诇讬住专:


Rav Ashi said: We said that it is possible to redeem one鈥檚 son in this manner only when the priest is an individual such as Rav Kahana, who is a great man and is required to wear a cloth on his head. It was common practice for important people to wear a scarf on their heads. But with regard to everyone else, i.e., those who do not wear these cloths and cannot say it is worth that amount to them, no, they may not perform the redemption of the firstborn son in this manner. The Gemara cites a proof that a distinguished individual who needs a cloth will pay a large amount for one. This is like this incident in which Mar bar Rav Ashi bought a cloth from Rabba鈥檚 mother from Kovei for thirteen dinars, despite the fact that it was worth ten, because he needed a cloth.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讜谞转谉 诇讛 讚讬谞专 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讬砖诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诪谞讛 讜讬讛讘 诇讛 讚讬谞专 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 讚诪讬


Rabbi Elazar says: If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and he gave her one dinar out of the one hundred, she is betrothed immediately and he must subsequently complete the payment of the remainder of the amount he promised her. What is the reason for this? Since he said to her: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and yet he gave her only one dinar, he is like one who said to her: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I will give you one hundred dinars. In other words, he betroths her now with one dinar on the condition he will pay the remaining ninety-nine in the future. The betrothal therefore takes effect immediately, and he owes her the rest of the one hundred dinars.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 注诇 诪谞转 讻讗讜诪专 诪注讻砖讬讜 讚诪讬


The Gemara adds: And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who states a provision employing the phrase: On the condition, it is tantamount to his stipulating that the agreement take effect retroactively from now. An agreement stipulated by means of the phrase: On the condition, takes effect immediately. This is not like an ordinary agreement, which takes effect only after the condition has been fulfilled.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讜讛讬讛 诪讜谞讛 讜讛讜诇讱 讜专爪讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讞讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞专 讛讗讞专讜谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta 2:10). If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and while he was counting the money, one of them wanted to retract the betrothal, it is in the power of either of them to do so even when only the last dinar remains to be given. This indicates that the betrothal does not take effect until the entire one hundred dinars has been paid.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 专讬砖讗 讘诪谞讛 住转诐


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where he says to the woman: Be betrothed to me with this one hundred dinars. In this case the entire one hundred dinars, not just the first dinar, constitutes the betrothal money. The Gemara raises a difficulty with this answer: From the fact that the latter clause of the baraita uses the expression: With this one hundred dinars, it can be inferred that the first clause is dealing with an unspecified one hundred dinars.


讚拽讗 转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 讜谞诪爪讗 诪谞讛 讞住专 讚讬谞专 讗讜 讚讬谞专 砖诇 谞讞砖转 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚讬谞专 专注 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讬讞诇讬祝


As it is taught in the latter clause of that baraita, if he said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with this one hundred dinars, and it was found to be one hundred dinars less a dinar, or if it included a dinar of copper instead of silver, she is not betrothed. If one of the dinars was found to be a flawed dinar, i.e., it was a silver dinar but it was so worn that it would not be universally accepted, she is betrothed, and he must exchange that dinar for a different one. Since the latter clause of the baraita emphasizes the term: This one hundred dinars, evidently the first clause of the baraita must be referring to an unspecified one hundred dinars.


诇讗 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讚讗诪专 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 讜驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 专爪讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讞讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞专 讛讗讞专讜谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜 讻讬爪讚 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讘诪谞讛 讝讜


The Gemara rejects this opinion: No; one can say that the first clause and the latter clause are both referring to a case where he said: With this one hundred dinars, and the latter clause is explaining the first clause, as follows: If one of them wishes to retract the betrothal, it is in the power of either of them to do so even when only the last dinar remains to be given. How so? This is referring to a case where he said to her: With this one hundred dinars.


讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讬砖讗 讘诪谞讛 住转诐 讛砖转讗 讘诪谞讛 住转诐 诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Gemara comments: And so too, it is reasonable to explain the baraita this way, as, if it enters your mind that the first clause is referring to an unspecified one hundred dinars, consider the following: Now if it is not a betrothal in a case involving an unspecified one hundred dinars, and she can retract her agreement to the betrothal, is it necessary to say that she can retract it when he says: With this one hundred dinars? If that were the correct interpretation of the first clause, the ruling in the last clause would be unnecessary.


讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讙诇讜讬 专讬砖讗 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 专讬砖讗 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讛 住转诐 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讘诪谞讛 讝讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讘诪谞讛 住转诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉


The Gemara rejects this proof: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument, i.e., the proof of the argument is inconclusive. The reason is that one could say that the tanna taught the latter clause to reveal the meaning of the first clause. The function of the latter clause is not to teach a novel halakha, but to preempt a mistaken reading of the first clause. The latter clause was stated so that you should not mistakenly say that the first clause is referring only to a situation when he said: With this one hundred dinars, but in a case of an unspecified one hundred dinars, it would be a betrothal. Therefore, the tanna taught in the latter clause: With this one hundred dinars, which teaches by inference that the first clause is referring to an unspecified one hundred dinars, and even so it is not a betrothal. Although this proof is rejected, the Gemara remains with its explanation that the first clause is referring to a case where he said to her: With this one hundred dinars.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讜谞讛 讜讛讜诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讚讚注转讛 讗讻讜诇讬讛


Rav Ashi said: It is unnecessary to explain that the first clause of the baraita is referring to a case where he said: With this one hundred dinars, as a situation where he was counting the money is different. The reason is that she has the entirety of the one hundred dinars in mind, and therefore she will not be content with some of the money. His continuous action indicates that they both expect that he will give her the entire one hundred dinars, and consequently both parties can retract their agreement until he finishes counting.


讛讗讬 讚讬谞专 砖诇 谞讞砖转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讚注讛 讘讬讛 讛讗 住讘专讛 讜拽讘诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗砖转讻讞 诇讬讛 讘讬谞讬 讝讜讝讬


The Gemara further analyzes the baraita: What are the circumstances of this copper dinar mentioned here? If she knows that it is a copper dinar, she knew and accepted this coin as a dinar. If so, she cannot later retract her betrothal. The Gemara answers: No; it is necessary in a case where he gave her this dinar at night and at the time she did not see that it was copper. Alternatively, it was found among the other dinars, and she did not notice that one of them one was copper.


讛讗讬 讚讬谞专 专注 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬拽 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讬谞专 砖诇 谞讞砖转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚谞驻讬拽 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽:


The Gemara further asks: What are the circumstances of this flawed dinar, also mentioned in the baraita? If it cannot be spent, i.e., it cannot pass as a silver dinar, this is exactly like a copper dinar, as it too is not worth a full dinar. Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where the dinar can be spent with difficulty, i.e., it is difficult, but not impossible, to find someone who will accept it.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 讜讛谞讬讞 诇讛 诪砖讻讜谉 注诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转


Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and instead of giving it to her he gave her collateral for the money, she is not betrothed.


诪谞讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诪砖讻讜谉 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽讬讚砖讛 讘诪砖讻讜谉 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛转诐 讘诪砖讻讜谉 讚讗讞专讬诐 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽


There is no one hundred dinars here, as he has not yet given her one hundred dinars, and there is no collateral here, since this collateral is not a gift but merely a security. He has therefore not given her anything. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the following baraita: If he betrothed her with collateral, she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to collateral belonging to other people, which was in the possession of the man who betrothed her, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖拽讜谞讛 诪砖讻讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讱 转讛讬讛 爪讚拽讛 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 爪讚拽讛 诪谞讬谉 诪讻讗谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖拽讜谞讛 诪砖讻讜谉


As Rabbi Yitz岣k says: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires collateral, i.e., that the individual in possession of the collateral has the actual rights to it? As it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall surely restore him the pledge when the sun goes down that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and it shall be righteousness to you鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:13). If the creditor does not acquire the pledge or collateral, from where does this considering his return of the collateral as righteousness stem? The creditor is not giving an item belonging to him; why is this considered a righteous act? Rather, from here it is derived that a creditor acquires collateral to a certain extent.


讘谞讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讝讘讜谉 讛讛讬讗 讗诪转讗 讘驻专讬讟讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讗讜转讬讘讬 谞住讻讗 注诇讬讛 诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽专 讗诪转讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻专讬讟讬 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 谞住讻讗 讗讬谉 讻讗谉


The Gemara relates: The sons of Rav Huna bar Avin bought a certain maidservant on the condition that they would pay with copper perutot. They did not have the money at the time, and therefore they gave a piece of silver [naskha] for her as collateral. Ultimately, the price of the maidservant increased and the sellers wanted to cancel the sale. They came before Rabbi Ami for his ruling and he said to them: There are no perutot here, and there is no piece of silver here either. There was no valid act of acquisition at all because they did not actually give the money, and the collateral does not transfer ownership.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 谞讟诇转讜 讜讝专拽转讜 诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗讜专 讗讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛讗讘讚 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讗 砖讚讬转讬谞讛讜 拽诪讬讛 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讛讗 拽讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗


The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:9): If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she took it from his hand and threw it into the sea, or into the fire, or into anything that destroys, she is not betrothed. The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: The baraita indicates that she is not betrothed only if the one hundred dinars are destroyed, but if she threw the coins before him but did not destroy them, that is a betrothal. Why should this be? By throwing the coins at him she is effectively saying to him: Take this; I do not want your betrothal.


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗 讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讚讬转讬谞讛讜 拽诪讬讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗讘诇 讝专拽转讜 诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗讜专 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讘讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬 拽讚讬砖 谞驻砖讛 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 注讘讚讗 讛讻讬 住讘专讗 讗讬讘讚拽讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 讗讬 专转讞谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: The tanna of the baraita is speaking using the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state in a case where she throws the money before him that it is not a betrothal, as her action indicates that she does not want to be betrothed. But when she throws it into the sea or into the fire, one might say that since she is obligated to pay for the money he gave her, perhaps she betrothed herself with the money she received. And as for the reason why she did this act of destroying the money, she thought: I will test this man to see if he is an individual of an angry temperament or not. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that even in that case it is not a betrothal.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 转谞诐 诇讗讘讗 讜诇讗讘讬讱 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬拽讘诇讜诐 诇讬 诪拽讜讚砖转


The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:9): If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she said to him: Give the money to my father, or: Give the money to your father, she is not betrothed. If she said: Give the money to my father, or Give the money to your father on the condition that he accepts them for me, she is betrothed.


转谞讗 讗讘讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞 讚专讬砖讗 转谞讗 讗讘讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞 讚住讬驻讗


The Gemara comments: The baraita taught the case where she said: Give the money to my father, to convey the far-reaching nature of the halakha of the first clause. If she simply said that he should give the money to anybody else, even her own father, whom it can be assumed she wants to benefit, she is still not betrothed. And the baraita taught the case where she said: Give the money to your father, to convey the far-reaching nature of the halakha of the latter clause. If she said that someone else should receive the money on her behalf, it is a valid betrothal even if she said the money should be given to his father.


讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 转谞诐 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬拽讘诇诐 诇讬 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜爪专讬讻讗


The Gemara cites a similar case. If he said to her: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she said to him: Give them to so-and-so, she is not betrothed. But if she said to him: On the condition that he accepts them for me, she is betrothed. The Gemara comments: It is necessary to issue this ruling, despite the fact that it is apparently identical to the previous halakha.


讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗讘讗 讜讗讘讬讱 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 讗诪专讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬拽讘诇讜诐 诇讬 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讚住诪讻讛 讚注转讛 注讬诇讬讬讛讜 住讘专讛 注讘讚讬谉 诇讬 砖诇讬讞讜转讗讬 讗讘诇 驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗


The Gemara elaborates: This is because if the tanna had taught us only the case where she said: Give the money to my father, or: Give the money to your father, one would say that it is in that case there, when she said: On the condition that one of these relatives accepts them for me, that it is a betrothal, as she relies on them and she thinks: They will do my bidding for me and will hold this money on my behalf. But if she says: Give it to so-and-so, someone who is not related to either of them, no, the betrothal is not valid.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 驻诇讜谞讬 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 讗诪专讛 转谞诐 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讚诇讗 诪拽专讘讗 讚注转讛 诇讙讘讬讛 诇诪讬转讘讛 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讗讘诇 讗讘讗 讜讗讘讬讱 讚诪拽专讘讗 讚注转讛 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讗 讘诪转谞讛 讬讛讘讬转讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讬讛讜 爪专讬讻讗


And conversely, if the tanna had taught us only the case of so-and-so, one might say: It is here, when she said: Give it to so-and-so, that it is not a betrothal, as she is not close to him and is not interested in giving him this money as a gift. But if she said: Give the money to my father, or: Give the money to your father, to whom she is close, one might say that she gave it to them as a gift, i.e., she accepted the sum as her betrothal money and decided to give it as a gift. If so, she should be betrothed. It was therefore necessary for the tanna to issue both rulings and clarify that she is not betrothed in either case.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪谞讛 转谞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 住诇注 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 住诇注 砖诇讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘注讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 住诇注 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


The Sages taught: If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she said to him: Place them on a rock, she is not betrothed. And if the rock was hers, she is betrothed. Rav Beivai raises a dilemma: If the rock was the property of both of them, what is the halakha? No answer was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讻讻专 转谞讛讜 诇讻诇讘 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讻诇讘 砖诇讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘注讬 专讘 诪专讬 讻诇讘 专抓 讗讞专讬讛 诪讛讜


The Gemara discusses a similar case. If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with a loaf of bread, and she said to him: Give it to a dog, she is not betrothed. And if this dog was hers, she is betrothed. Rav Mari raises a dilemma: If a dog was chasing her to bite her, and she said to him: Give the loaf to the dog, what is the halakha?


讘讛讛讜讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 诪爪诇讛 谞驻砖讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讙诪专讛 讜诪拽谞讬讗 诇讬讛 谞驻砖讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘转 诇讗爪讜诇谉 转讬拽讜


The Gemara presents the two sides of the dilemma: Does one say that she commits herself to betrothal and transfers herself to him through this benefit that she receives by being rescued from the dog? Or perhaps she can say to him: By Torah law you are required to rescue me, due to the injunction: 鈥淣either shall you stand idly by the blood of your neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 19:16), and therefore she is not betrothed with the loaf because she does not owe him anything. This problem is also left unanswered, and the Gemara again states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讻讻专 转谞讛讜 诇注谞讬 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 讛住诪讜讱 注诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讞讬讬讘谞讗 讘讬讛 讗谞讗 讛讻讬 诪讞讬讬讘转 讘讬讛 讗转


If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with a loaf of bread, and she said: Give it to a poor person, she is not betrothed, even if it was a poor person who is dependent upon her, i.e., a poor person who regularly receives food from that woman. What is the reason for this? She could say to him: Just as I am required to give charity to him, so too you are required to give charity to him. Therefore, this donation is not an indication that she has agreed to the betrothal.


讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 诪讝讘讬谉


The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who was selling


Scroll To Top