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 Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
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 Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
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.
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
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
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
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
