Masechet Kiddushin has been sponsored by our good friend, Mr. Haimie Dana, Hashem yishmerehu veyichayehu (May Hashem guard and give him life), in honor of his wife, Dinah bat Rivkah, that she should have many years of shalom bayit (domestic peace), Masechet Kiddushin, hatzlachah (success), parnasah (livelihood), and all good things: health, happiness, nachat from the children, and all the berachot (blessings). Amen.
Daf yud-alef (page eleven): today’s daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat (for the elevation of the soul) mori zekeni (my teacher, my grandfather) Yosef ben Sarah u-marat zekenati (my grandmother) Afa bat Sarah, Avraham ben Esther, and Ashkat. Tehei nishmatam be-Gan Eden (May their souls be in Eden). Amen. Today’s daf is being studied li-refuah shelemah (for a complete recovery) Moshe ben Dinah, Sarah Ruchama bat Rachel, and Sarah bat Rachel. El na refa na lahem (Please, God, heal them), El na refa na lahem, refuat ha-nefesh u-refuat ha-guf (healing of soul and body) ve-et kol bnei ha-makom (and all the people of the place). Ve-khen yehi ratzon (May it be so), ve-nomar amen.
We begin today’s daf on yud amud bet (10b), 13 lines from the bottom, starting from the words Ravina amar (Ravina said). Let us review exactly where we are holding in this piece. The last word on the line is Ravina. The Gemara is attempting to analyze or clarify for us the extent of what biah does. Does biah just make a kiddushin, or does biah even make a nisuin? We weren’t able to find an answer as of yet.
The Gemara on yesterday’s daf brought a conversation that Yochanan ben Bag-Bag sent to Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira from Netzivin. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira of Netzivin held that an arusah who is married to a kohen (priest)—an arusah bat Yisrael who is married to a kohen—can eat terumah. He made a kal vachomer to learn that they could eat terumah, and then he rejected the kal vachomer. The kal vachomer made sense, but he said, “What am I going to do? My friends argue with me, and they say that an arusah cannot eat terumah because of Ulla.” Ulla’s law is that if you allow her to eat terumah when she is an arusah, she might go home and feed it to her brothers, and obviously they cannot eat terumah.
In the course of that discussion, the Gemara tried to bring a re'ayah (proof) that biah must go all the way, meaning it makes a nisuin as well, and then the Gemara rejected it. Now Ravina is going to give another version of that conversation between Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag and Rabbi Yehudah of Netzivin.
So the Gemara says: Ravina amar, mi-de'oraita mifsat peshita leh de-achlah, which means that, according to this version, everybody held that mi-de'oraita an arusah eats terumah. The whole question that Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag sent to Rabbi Yehudah was only on the rabbinic level. U-mi-drabbanan hu de-shalach leh, which means that even Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag is modeh in this version that mi-de'oraita an arusah eats. Everybody agrees mi-de'oraita. So what is the question here? Mi-drabbanan: do they eat or not?
So he sent him this: ve-hachi shalach leh, shamati alecha she-attah omer arusah bat Yisrael okhelet bi-terumah, “I heard that you hold that an arusah, even mi-drabbanan, is able to eat terumah, ve-lo chayishat le-simfon, and you’re not concerned about simfon.” What is simfon? Simfon is anything that nullifies a deal. That is called simfon. Simfon can be used in many different contexts. In this case, the chashash of simfon would be this: let’s say the kohen married this woman, or made eirusin with her. You want to tell me that mi-de'oraita she can eat? Okay, no problem. But mi-drabbanan we should be choshesh for simfon. What is the simfon in this case? Maybe when he consummates the marriage, he will find out that she has a mum, a physical blemish. Therefore, the kiddushin le-mafrea is going to be a ta'ut (mistake), and they were never really going to be mekudeshet. She will have eaten terumah le-mafrea as a bat Yisrael.
So Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag was telling him, “You’re not choshesh for simfon?” In other words, why aren’t you choshesh that if you allow them to eat, maybe she’ll have a mum? At the kiddushin stage, you don’t know whether she has a mum or not. He gave kiddushei chesef (betrothal by money), let’s say, and you don’t know whether she has any mumim. So now, at the time of the nisuin, all of a sudden you’ll see that she has a physical blemish. He’ll say, “Oh, I didn’t know she had this...” If the kiddushin is not going to be chal lemafrea, then you should be choshesh that she will be eating terumah unlawfully.
Shelach leih: Rabbi Yehudah sent back, ve'atta, i attah omer ken? “Why don’t you agree with me that she can eat?” Ka muchzekani becha, I have a chazakah on you, she'atta baki bechadrei Torah lidrosh bekal vachomer. “Don’t you know the kal vachomer?” He said, “What is the kal vachomer?” Umah shifchah Kena'anit she'ein bi'atah ma'achilatah bi-terumah, which means that if a kohen has a bi'ah with a shifchah, that doesn’t let her eat terumah, because we know there’s no bi'ah by a shifchah, amah domeh la-chamor (her status is like that of a donkey). However, kaspah ma'achilatah bi-terumah: if he buys her with kesef, she becomes kinyan kaspo, this shifchah, and she can eat terumah.
So where bi'ah doesn’t work, kesef works, ve-lo chayishinan le-simfon. And by a shifchah, we’re not choshesh for simfon. That means that when he buys her with kesef, we’re not worried that maybe the shifchah will be found to have a certain blemish, and therefore you’ll say that the sale was nullified, so she ate the terumah le-mafrea illegally. We don’t worry about simfon when it comes to a shifchah.
Zu she-bi'atah ma'achilatah bi-terumah: here, by a regular lady, the bi'ah allows her to eat. That means that min haTorah a regular bi'ah allows her to eat terumah, according to everybody in this version. Eino din she-kaspah ma'achilatah bi-terumah? All the more so, we should say that if she has a kinyan of kesef kiddushin, that should also allow her to eat terumah, ve-lo nichush le-simfon, and we should not be choshesh for simfon.
Now look at Rashi. Zu she-bi'atah ma'achilatah is towards the bottom: de-beniseit. Everybody agrees that if they get married, modeh de-lo chayishinan le-simfon. Why, once they get married, are they not worried about simfon? De-ein adam shoteh be-chos ella im ken bodko, ve-yada ve-kibel alav (and knew and accepted it). That means that when there is a nisuin, we say one of two things: either he checked her out beforehand, because a guy’s not going to get married until he knows exactly what the situation is, or, if she has a mum and he still married her, he must not care.
So the Gemara wants to say here, similarly, that if a person made a kiddushin with a bi'ah, then already, by the bi'ah, he knows about the mumim. The Gemara wants to make a kal vachomer: umah shifchah, where bi'ah doesn’t work, kesef kinyan kaspo works, and we’re not choshesh to mevatel the kinyan because of simfon. By a lady, where bi'ah works—because with bi'ah, even if it is only kiddushin, you already know the mumim situation—all the more so kesef can work and should work.
Now, even though lech'orah this kal vachomer is really not 100%—because I could tell you that the reason bi'ah works and I’m not choshesh for simfon is that at bi'ah you know the mumim, but with kesef you really don’t know the mumim—he brings down that they really asked that question. He says here from the Rashba, Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira dan kal vachomer mi-shifchah ve-lamad mimenu she-gam be-kiddushei kesef ein ra'uy la-chush le-simfon af al pi she-ein bahem ha-ta'am ha-nal. That means that even though the reason really doesn’t apply, okay, that’s how his kal vachomer works nonetheless.
Aval mah e'eseh? So what does Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag say? What does Rabbi Yehudah say? “What am I going to do?” She-harei amru chachamim: the rabbis came against me and told me, arusah bat Yisrael einah ochelet bi-terumah, that an arusah, mi-drabbanan, cannot eat terumah ad she-tikaneis le-chuppah, until they actually consummate, mishum de-Ulla. Good, because of Ulla’s reason that we already explained: we’re worried about feeding terumah to the brothers.
So the Gemara says, u-ven Bag-Bag simfon be-avadim leit leih, which means that ben Bag-Bag holds that simfon be-avadim will not be mevatel the kinyan. Here is how Ravina understood it. What happened? Rabbi Yehudah made a kal vachomer, right? Rabbi Yehudah’s kal vachomer was: if by a shifchah we’re not worried about simfon, all the more so we shouldn’t be worried about simfon by a regular lady.
Let’s review the kal vachomer: by a shifchah, where bi'ah doesn’t work to allow her to eat terumah, kesef does work, and you’re not worried about simfon. Certainly, by a regular girl marrying a kohen, where bi'ah does work to allow her to eat terumah, kesef should allow her to eat terumah.
Now, obviously Rabbi Yochanan did not agree with this kal vachomer, because he sent back to Rabbi Yehudah, “Hey, what are you talking about?” He said, “Oh, I have a kal vachomer.” Obviously, Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag didn’t hold by this kal vachomer. Why? Because he holds that simfon is not a factor by a shifchah. Why? He says, i mumim she-be-galuy hu, ha ka-chazei leih: if it’s a mum on her face or something like that, you’ll see it, and therefore you’ll never have a case where you mevatel a kinyan because of simfon. They’ll never buy her in the first place, because they can see it.
I mishum mumim she-be-sater, and if it’s mumim that are under her garments, whatever it is, mai nafka leih minah? Limlachah ka ba'ei lah! Lo ichpat leih! What does he care? He’s buying her for work, not to marry her. Therefore, he holds that you can’t make a kal vachomer from a shifchah to a regular girl, saying that if here we’re not worried about simfon, all the more so we shouldn’t be worried about simfon there. You’re not worried about simfon by a shifchah because it’s not shayach. What are you worried about, the mum on her face? He saw it. What about the mum under her garments? What does he care if she has a mum? According to Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag, you’ll never have a case where a guy can mevatel the mekach of a shifchah because of this mumim issue.
Now the Gemara continues: nimtza ganav o kubiostos. Or maybe you’ll say that they found out the shifchah or the eved was a renowned thief, or he was a kubiostos, which Rashi says means a kidnapper, gonev nefashot. Maybe that’s a type of mum you should be worried about? The Gemara says it doesn’t matter: higi'u. The sale is still a sale. Why? Mai amart? What are you going to tell me—listim mezuyan? Maybe he’s an armed robber, which means that’s already a big mum. You don’t want to bring an armed robber into your house. O nichtav le-malchut: or maybe there’s a death sentence on him from the government. You bought this guy, little knowing that the government is after him to kill him. Maybe you should be worried about that?
The Gemara says we’re not worried about that either. Why? Haneihu kala it lehu. These items, everybody knows about them. Therefore, it’s not shayach to say mekach ta'ut because “he didn’t know.” If a guy has a death warrant on him from the government, or the guy is an armed bandit, he would have known that as well. Therefore, Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag says, “Do not make an analogy between a shifchah and a regular girl. There’s no inyan of mumim by a shifchah that will mevatel.”
The Gemara then analyzes: Mechdi, bein le-mar u-vein le-mar, lo achlah. Mai beiniyahu? Whether you go like Rabbi Yehudah or like Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag, according to this version they all hold that min haTorah an arusah can eat terumah. Only on the rabbinic level did they make a gezeirah.
Now let’s talk it out. According to Rabbi Yehudah, he said, “My friends don’t let me make my kal vachomer.” They’re concerned about Ulla. What is Ulla’s concern? They’re going to feed terumah to the brothers because she’s still going home. Since she is going to bring terumah home when she is an arusah, you’re going to have a problem. Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag’s concern was simfon, because that’s what he asked Rabbi Yehudah: “Ve'atta choshesh le-simfon?” He holds she can’t eat. Why? Because I’m worried that by the time they consummate, he’ll find that she has a mum. Therefore, the kiddushin le-mafrea is going to be batel, undone, and she will have eaten the terumah le-mafrea illegally.
So the Gemara says: Bein le-mar u-vein le-mar—no matter how you look at it, everybody agrees that an arusah cannot eat. But what is the nafka minah? Give me a nafka minah if you hold by Ulla’s reason or by the simfon reason. The Gemara gives three nafka minot. Ika beiniyahu: kibel, masar, ve-halach. Three cases. Let’s read them all in Rashi now. Kibel. You see Rashi? Kibel, masar, ve-halach, simanhon. That is a siman to remember the three cases.
Number one, kibel: kibel alav et ha-mumim. Let’s say the guy saw the mumim. He saw that she has blemishes and didn’t care. He gave her the kiddushin. He knows that she has a mum on her face, which is obvious, and he still gives her the kiddushin. If you go according to the simfon reason, no problem: he’s not going to regret it; he married her even though he saw the mum. But if you go according to Ulla’s reason, it’s still no good, because as long as she’s an arusah, he could still bring the food home to her brothers. So there is a nafka minah when she had a mum and he accepted it. According to Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag, she can eat terumah. According to Rabbi Yehudah, she cannot, because you still have the issue of Ulla.
The second case: masrah ha'av li-shluchei ha-ba'al. The father is marrying off his daughter; let’s say he gave his daughter over to the messengers of the ba'al. O she-halchu shluchei ha'av im shluchei ha-ba'al ve-odah ba-derech: or, let’s say, the messengers of the father—he’s marrying her off through a shaliach, the father made a shaliach—and the messengers are taking the girl to the messengers of the husband, and they’re going to meet. Mishum simfon ika: there is simfon, because he hasn’t seen her yet, and therefore I’m concerned that they made the kiddushin and there will be simfon le-mafrea.
However, ve-odah ba-derech ika mishum shema tashkeh leika. Why? Leitnehu le-acheha ve-li-achyoteha gabah: she’s already out of her house, which means we’re talking about a case where she is already on the road, and therefore, even if she eats the terumah, she’s not going back home. In a case of masar—the father gave his daughter over to the shlichim of the husband—she is out of her father’s house. So I don’t have to worry that she’s going back home. We’re talking about a case where she is already on the road, so I’m not worried about Ulla’s concern.
The last case, which is similar, is ve-halach. What is halach? She also went. What does it say there? Ve'afilu halchu shluchei ha'av ve-nit'alu li-shluchei ha-ba'al be-darkha. Let’s do both cases. Either the shluchei ha'av, the messengers of the father, are escorting the girl with the messengers of the husband—that’s one case, halach, where the girl left with the messengers of the father and is meeting the messengers of the husband on the way, so she is not home anymore. Or the first case was masar: the father handed her over, and she is not home anymore.
These are not opposites. It is either that the father gave her over to the shlichim of the husband, or that the shlichim of the father are walking with the girl to the shlichim of the husband. Simfon is still a concern, and Ulla is not a concern. In the last two cases, the point is that she is out and already on the road; she is not coming back home. Therefore, I’m not worried about Ulla. Ulla is not in effect, but simfon is in effect, because, bottom line, does he know she has mumim? Those are basically the three nafka minot. Bechesef.
Okay, now we go back to our Mishnah. Also, bottom line, incidentally, we did not prove our point. The Gemara leaves this question in abeyance. We don’t know the extent of what biah does. Does biah just make it kiddushin, or does it make it nisuin? We brought proofs back and forth. Lema'aseh, we were unable to prove this point.
Now we go to the next part of the Mishnah: bechesef Beit Shammai omrim be-dinar. What did we learn in the first Mishnah? What is the minimum amount of money, according to Beit Shammai, that you can mekadesh a lady? A dinar. Beit Hillel said a perutah. Perutah, perutah shel nechoshet—that’s a cheap, cheap amount. Beit Shammai says, “No, it has to be a dinar.” A dinar is about eight times that amount.
So the question is mai ta'ama de-Beit Shammai? What is the reason for Beit Shammai? Why is he so makpid that he needs such a strong, large amount of money? According to Beit Hillel, we understand, because the Torah says kesef. What is the minimum amount of kesef that is still considered kesef? A perutah. So we understand why Beit Hillel picked the smallest denomination: it has to be kesef. Pachot mi-shaveh perutah is not considered kesef. But according to Beit Shammai, why are you jumping up to a dinar? Why do you have to go up to a dinar?
The Gemara says, amar Rabbi Zeira, she-ken ishah makpedet al atzmah ve-ein mitkadeshet be-fachot mi-dinar. Listen: a lady is makpedet on herself, which means that even if Beit Shammai agrees that a perutah is kesef, this has to do with the kpeida of the lady. A lady’s not going to give herself over for a perutah. She’s makpedet; it has to have value. It has to be at least a dinar.
So the Gemara says, “Oh, yeah?” Amar leih Abaye, ela me'atah. According to what you’re saying, it sounds like it’s subjective. If the lady is willing to accept less, it sounds like it should be okay. You’re just saying that, generally speaking, a lady doesn’t want to give herself over for less than a significant amount of money.
The Gemara says, according to what you’re telling me, take, for example, benotav de-Rabbi Yannai, the daughters of Rabbi Yannai, de-kafdan anafshayhu. They were makpidot; de-lo velo mekadshan be-fachot mi-tarkava de-dinarei: they wouldn’t get married unless you gave them sheloshah kabin, a whole pile of money. Hachi nami? Are you going to tell me, again, that it’s subjective, because to them their price is sheloshah kabin? Are you going to tell me de-i pashatah yadah ve-kiblah chad zuza me-acher, hachi nami de-lo havei kiddushin? If they stuck out their hand and accepted kiddushin for much less, taking a zuz, are you going to tell me it isn’t kiddushin?
In other words, are you going to hold that once you tell me it’s subjective, then, lech'orah, the law should be that if the lady is willing to take less, she should be able to? The whole thing would depend on her kpeida. Beit Shammai would mean that a regular lady doesn’t want to take less than a dinar. He says, “Oh, yeah? According to what you’re telling me, if you have a lady like the daughters of Rabbi Yannai, who weren’t willing to take less than a whole pile of money, then if they stuck out their hand and took less, you’d tell me it wasn’t good? That doesn’t make sense. Lech'orah, it should be good. Similarly, it should be good if a lady wants to stick out her hand and accept less than a dinar, as long as it’s a shaveh perutah.”
Amar leih, pashtah yadah ve-kiblah lo ka'amina. Beit Shammai will say, “I have no problem. I agree that if she accepted less than a dinar, of course she’ll be mekudeshet. I’m not talking about that.” Ki ka'amina de-kidshah be-leilya. “I’m talking about a case where you made kiddushin at night, which means she didn’t know how much you were giving her. You gave her stam; you dropped money in her hand, so she doesn’t know how much it is. Stam, a lady is not going to be mekadesh herself unless she gets a shaveh dinar.
“I nami de-shaveyah shaliach: or let’s say she sent a shaliach to mekadesh, to accept the kiddushin. She’s assuming, ‘Okay, bring me back a dinar.’ The guy brings back a perutah. That’s not good. But if she herself knowingly sticks out her hand during the day and sees that the guy gives her a perutah, of course even Beit Shammai will say that a shaveh perutah is the minimum amount. You’re just saying that stam, a lady, when she’s blindsided, makes sure you have a dinar in your pocket, because she’s going to be makpedet.”
Look at Rashi: de-shaveyah shaliach lekabel kiddusheha ve-lo nimlechah bah be-kamah. She didn’t ask the shaliach—the shaliach didn’t ask the lady how much she wants, even though she could have told him, “Hey, I’ll take a perutah.” You didn’t ask? Now you have to bring back a dinar. U-venotei de-Rabbi Yannai nami: the daughters of Rabbi Yannai as well. I shavu shaliach al ha-kiddushin a-tarkava de-dinarei: meaning, you’re right, if the daughters of Rabbi Yannai are doing it blindly and just send the shaliach to accept the kiddushin, their price was a tarkava de-dinarei. But if the daughters of Rabbi Yannai are willing to settle for a shaveh perutah, i hachi nami, there’s no problem.
We originally thought that when you said a dinar under all circumstances, there was no negotiating: even if she stuck her hand out, it wasn’t a kinyan. No. A dinar is not the minimum of kesef; a perutah is the minimum of kesef. Rather, when she doesn’t know—meaning, at night, when you put the money in her hand—you have to assume she wants a dinar, because normally a lady is makpedet on such a thing, unless she waives it. In such a case, okay.
We just have to speak out the question here. According to the way Rashi is learning, at least, it’s a little strange, because he’s learning that the price for kesef kiddushin for benateih de-Rabbi Yannai was a tarkava de-dinarei. Rashi wants to say that if they sent a shaliach and the shaliach came back with less than a tarkava de-dinarei, they wouldn’t be mekudeshet. So Tosafot asks the obvious question: im ken natata devarecha le-shiurin. Now every lady sets her minimum price for kiddushin, so ein la-davar sof. The aniyot have one price; the ashirot have another price. That’s a very hard understanding: that kiddushin would be so subjective.
Tosafot wants to understand the Gemara differently. He wants to say, “No, no, the minimum amount, according to Beit Shammai, is a dinar, whether you’re the richest lady, like the daughters of Rabbi Yannai, or a regular lady, when they accept it stam. That means even the daughters of Rabbi Yannai, if they sent a shaliach, are already like everybody else. A regular lady is makpedet up to a minimum of a dinar, and that’s all. But you’re right: the daughters of Rabbi Yannai, if they pashtah yadah, if they stuck out their hand, then their price is higher. I hachi nami: giving them a dinar is not going to be enough. You have to give them what they’ll be satisfied with. But stam, anybody who accepts shelichut or is given it at night, the minimum amount according to them is a dinar.”
So the Gemara continues. Rav Yosef amar. Rav Yosef says a different reason: ta'ameihem de-Beit Shammai ke-de-Rav Asi, the reason Beit Shammai says a dinar. De-amar Rav Asi, amar Rav Yehudah amar Rav Asi: kol kesef ha-amur baTorah—any time it says kesef in the Torah—kesef Tzuri. It refers to the money of Tzur, their currency. Ve-shel divreihem: any time we talk about money in the rabbinical sense, it is kesef medinah, the local currency.
What is kesef Tzuri? Rashi says, kol kesef ha-amur baTorah kesef Tzuri. Im perash shekalim: for example, let’s say shekalim by pidyon haben. It says chamesh sela'im; you have to give five sela'im to the kohen. That’s talking about the currency of Tzuri, a shekel Tzuri. Ve-im stam, havei matbea perutah she-bi-Tzuri. When you say stam, sela in Torah law, it refers to the minimum coin of Tzuri, which is a higher-value coin than a stam medinah. Put it this way: in Tzur, they did not have perutot. They didn’t deal with perutah, which is a coin of nechoshet. In Tzur, the smallest coin was a dinar.
Therefore, Rashi says, ve-shel divreihem kesef medinah. Le-kaman mefaresh lah: kesef medinah is sheminit she-bi-kesef Tzuri, which means that the kesef of the medinah is one eighth of kesef Tzur. Therefore, Beit Shammai’s dinar is eight times the amount of Beit Hillel’s perutah. Im sela hu sheminit she-be-sela Tzuri: a sela in the medinah is one eighth of the sela of Tzur. Ve-im dinar, hu sheminit she-be-dinar Tzuri: the dinar in Tzur is eight times the amount of the dinar in the medinah. Hilkach perutah lo matzi le-meimar. Why? Lefi she-hu shel nechoshet: a perutah is made out of copper, u-ve-Tzuri matbea shel nechoshet leita. They didn’t use copper in Tzur.
U-ve-kiddushin kesef ketiv. It doesn’t say kesef explicitly; it says ki yikkach ish ishah, and we have a gezerah shavah: kichah kichah bi-sedeh Efron. We know that by sedeh Efron they used kesef. Therefore, any time it says kesef in the Torah, you have to go to the Tzur denomination. In the Tzur denomination, the minimum amount is a dinar, and that’s it. Ve-kheivan de-afkateih mi-perutah, alma midi de-chashivut ba'ei, okmah a-dinar. We’ll see why they picked a dinar. Maybe it’s not even the minimum denomination, but they picked a dinar.
According to Rav Asi, Beit Shammai’s logic is that denominations in the Torah follow the Tzur matbea, not the medinah matbea. Therefore, it cannot be a perutah, so they picked a dinar, which is kesef.
Now the Gemara starts to analyze. Amar Rav Yehudah amar Rav Asi, kol kesef ha-amur baTorah kesef Tzuri: anytime it says kesef in the Torah, it refers to the Tzur denomination. Ve-shel divreihem kesef medinah: rabbinical kesef refers to kesef of the medinah. Ve-kelala hu? Are you telling me this is a rule? Look at Rashi at the bottom: she-kol kesef she-katav baTorah davka kesef ketiv. That means it’s the silver, or shavya. Ve-nafka minah de-havei kesef Tzuri ve-lo perutot: the practical difference is that you can’t use perutot. Is that so?
We start with a whole list of questions. Ve-harei ta'anah: when it comes to a person who has a monetary claim against his friend, de-chtiv, ki yiten ish el re'ehu kesef o kelim lishmor (If a man gives his fellow money or vessels to guard). He’s a shomer pikadon. Then what happens? He is modeh be-miktzat, which means the guy comes along and says, “I gave you a hundred.” He comes back and says, “No, no, no, no, no, you only gave me fifty.” Now we have a claim: he’s claiming a hundred, and the other guy is saying, “I only have to give you back fifty.” That’s called modeh be-miktzat ha-ta'anah. The law is that a modeh be-miktzat has to make a shevuah.
U-tnan, and we learned: shevuat ha-dayanim, which means the oath that the dayanim make the guy swear when he’s modeh be-miktzat. What’s the case? Ha-ta'anah shtei kesef: the case is where the guy claimed, let’s say, “You owe me two kesef,” ve-ha-hoda'ah shaveh perutah. He came along and was modeh that, “I only owe you a perutah.” So you see, this is a de'oraita law, and we’re dealing in perutot. There’s a minimum claim the guy has to make, and then a minimum amount he has to admit for the law of modeh be-miktzat to apply. The minimum is that he has to claim two kesef, and he has to come along and say, “I only owe you a perutah.” That’s considered kesef. What do you mean? I thought you said kesef always has to be Tzuri, and in Tzur they don’t use perutot.
Look at Rashi: ve-harei ta'anah, top line, she-adam to'en et chaveiro u-mashbi'in oto im hodah be-miktzat de-chtiv ki yiten ish ve-go' u-chtiv asher yomar ki hu zeh. That is the modeh be-miktzat pasuk. De-yalfinan mineih she-ha-modeh be-miktzat yishava. Ve-nikrav ba'al ha-bayit: it says they bring him to the Elohim, to the courts. Hatam ketiv shevuat Hashem: he has to make an oath.
U-tnan shevuat ha-dayanim einah be-fachot mi-ta'anat shetei ma'ot kesef. That means there’s a minimum claim that the beit din will even deal with by means of a shevuah. The minimum is that this guy has to come along and say, “You owe me two kesef.” U-fligi bah Rav u-Shemuel: Rav says kefirah shetei kesef, and Shemuel says ta'anah atzmah shetei kesef. There is a machloket about what the shtei kesef means. Even if he only denied a perutah and admitted to a perutah, he is obligated. But מכל מקום, מכל מקום, since it teaches shtei kesef, shema mina kra lav davka kesef ka'amar. The Torah says kesef, right? So you’re saying the minimum claim the guy has to make is shtei kesef. Ela mamona be-alma kapid: the Torah is concerned that it be a significant monetary claim. What is a significant monetary claim? The Gemara says two kesef.
Ve-kheivan she-lo perash kamah, since it doesn’t say how much, lo masro ha-katuv ela la-chachamim. Ve-lo kiblu le-rabbanan de-ashvu'ah: the rabbis said, “Listen, it’s not right to make a guy swear on less than what must be like this.” De-i kra davka kesef ketiv: if the pasuk meant kesef davka, nehi de-ma'ah hi matbea pe'utah she-be-Tzuri, mi'ut shtayim mina lehu. That means that if kesef always goes with the maneh in Tzuri, with the matbea of Tzur, the smallest amount in Tzur is called a ma'ah. If your rule is that any time it says kesef it has to go with the Tzur matbea, then logic would tell me that if a person comes with a kesef claim against his friend, the minimum kesef is what? Go with Tzur. And what is the minimum in Tzur? A ma'ah.
Where did you get shtei kesef here? You see that when it says kesef, you don’t necessarily go with the shi'ur of the Tzur matbea. Rather, you see that you go with an arbitrary value. If you were telling me that whenever it says kesef you pick the matbea of Tzur, and the smallest matbea of Tzur is a ma'ah, then the rule should have been that if a guy has a claim of a ma'ah against his friend, he has the din of a modeh be-miktzat. But we didn’t say that. The minimum claim is two kesef. So you see that every time you see the word kesef, the amount is arbitrary, based on the way the chachamim decide what the case is. How can you tell me that any time it says kesef you go with the matbea of Tzur? It’s not so, because if you were going with the matbea of Tzur, in this case it should be a ma'ah. But he didn’t even say a ma'ah. The rabbis decided this case is going to be two kesef. So it’s not a cut-and-dry rule that you always pick the shi'ur of Tzur. It’s based on the way the rabbis understand how the kesef works.
So the Gemara says, yes, that’s how they’re learning the question. Again, by modeh be-miktzat ha-ta'anah, what does the Torah say? The guy has a claim of kesef. What is the minimum kesef? A ma'ah of Tzur. You didn’t say that, though. So you see why you don’t go with a ma'ah of Tzur; rather, you go with the way the rabbis interpret what kesef is.
The Gemara says, “Ah, it’s different.” De-hatam dumya de-kelim. Over there it says kesef o kelim. He lent his friend money or vessels. Mah kelim shenayim, af kesef shenayim. Kelim is plural, right? So too, when it says kesef, you’re right: kesef normally would be one ma'ah, but here, since we’re comparing it to kelim, that’s why they picked shtei kesef. They picked shtei kesef; it doesn’t say dinar. It’s shtei kesef. U-mah kesef davar chashuv: just as kesef has to be a significant item, af kelim davar chashuv. As opposed to giving your friend needles and insignificant items like that, that’s not going to be considered a case of modeh be-miktzat. So we make a gezerah shavah both ways: kelim is shenayim, so kesef is shenayim. Really, you’re right that if it just said kesef alone, you would pick the smallest shi'ur of Tzur, which would be a ma'ah. But why do you say shtei kesef? We pick shtei kesef because we have a gezerah shavah from kesef to kelim. Mah kelim shenayim, af kesef, kede'ita bi-ketu—continue. U-mah kesef chashuv: kelim also have to be chashuv. When you give a guy something to watch and he comes along and says, “No, I gave you back half,” it has to be a significant keli. That’s the Gemara’s answer. Good? Good.
The Gemara says, “What are you talking about?” Ve-harei ma'aser, de-chtiv ve-tzarta ha-kesef be-yadecha (bind the money in your hand). This is the law of ma'aser sheni. What does a person do when he wants to make pidyon of ma'aser sheni? He takes money, redeems the ma'aser sheni onto the money, and takes the money up to Yerushalayim.
U-tnan ha-poret sela mi-me'ot ma'aser sheni. It says that a person is poret sela mi-me'ot ma'aser sheni: a guy takes a sela and wants change. He is making change for a sela of me'ot ma'aser sheni. Now, there’s a problem with sela. Look at Rashi: ha-poret sela mi-me'ot ma'aser sheni. Maskana Beit Shammai omer be-chol ha-sela me'ot. Mihu she'ar mili she-chillel techilah ma'aser bi-perutot shel nechoshet ve-attah ba lifrot bahem sela.
Here’s what that means: you’re making change on your ma'aser sheni coins. What did you do? You took perutot and made the chillul on a perutah. Now you’re taking the perutah and you want to exchange it for a sela. You’re making change. But the point is that you made your chillul ma'aser on a perutah, while it says kesef. Your rule, Rabbah, says that any time the Torah says kesef, it’s talking about Tzuri coins. In Tzuri they don’t have a perutah. How, then, did you make your ma'aser sheni chillul on a perutah, and how can you now make change later on to a sela?
The Gemara’s answer: kesef ha-kesef ribah, gezerat ha-katuv. It says ha-kesef there. Do you know what ha-kesef tells me? Even a perutah is okay. Normally kesef alone means Tzur; ha-kesef includes even a perutah.
Ve-harei hekdesh, de-chtiv ve-natan ha-kesef ve-kam lo, ve-amar Shmuel. What is the kesef there? Ve-natan ha-kesef ve-kam lo. We’re talking about a guy who has hekdesh. You’re able to take the kedushah of the item and put it on money. That’s an interesting law. Normally we have a law called ona'ah, which means that in business I can’t overcharge the customer by one sixth of the normal price. If I do that, the sale is batel, and things like that. In hekdesh there’s no law like that. The law of ona'ah only applies to ish le-re'ehu: the Torah says that. But when it comes to hekdesh, let’s say the item is worth a lot of money, whatever it is, and I make a pidyon and put the kedushah on a coin that is significantly less than the item, it says ve-natan ha-kesef ve-kam lo. It works! There’s no ona'ah by hekdesh.
Ve-amar Shmuel: hekdesh shaveh maneh, let’s say the item was worth a maneh, she-chillelo al shaveh perutah, which is significantly less, mechullal. It works! But what do you see? You’re putting the kedushah on a perutah even though it says the word kesef. I thought you don’t use perutot when it says kesef. How could you mechalel hekdesh onto a perutah? Ha-tam nami kesef kesef yalif mi-ma'aser. A gezerah shavah: it says kesef by hekdesh and kesef by ma'aser. What did we say about ma'aser? Since it says ha-kesef, that includes perutot. Kesef kesef, so hekdesh also includes perutot.
Look at Rashi: she-chillelo al perutah mechullal, de-ein ona'ah le-hekdesh. Even though, let’s say, you didn’t value it fairly—the item in hekdesh was worth $100, and you put it on a coin that was worth $10—Rashi says ein ona'ah le-hekdesh de-chtiv ish et achiv. Ve-ashme'inan Shmuel de-heichi de-ime'at me-hona'ah, ime'at nami mi-bittul mekach. Not only is it not ona'ah, but it’s hekdesh. You might have thought that doing such a trade means the hekdesh is not chal. Shmuel says no: the hekdesh is chal, meaning the coins now have kedushah, and we don’t say bittul mekach; we don’t say the thing is nullified. But the point is, you could do it on a perutah. How could you do it? Kesef kesef mi-ma'aser. Rashi: kesef kesef, gamar pidyon hekdesh mi-pidyon ma'aser. Aval she'ar kesef she-baTorah lo yalif mineih.
Now Tosafot Rosh has a question. You’re making a gezerah shavah from kesef by hekdesh to kesef by ma'aser. Once you’re doing that, make hekdesh have a gezerah shavah to every kesef in the Torah, to ma'aser, and therefore say you can use a perutah. Tosafot Rosh gives two answers.
Number one: de-lo damu, they’re not similar. These two are similar because, bottom line, they’re both pidyon. I’m taking the kedushat ma'aser sheni and putting it on a coin. I’m taking the kedushah of hekdesh and putting it on a coin. Therefore, I can make a connection between this kesef and that kesef, as opposed to a kesef of a shevuat modeh be-miktzat, which has nothing to do with pidyon. That’s one reason why I don’t make that gezerah shavah.
Hekdesh a lady? Oh, wait: aval ve-od de-hacha kesafim yeteira ketiva. By ma'aser, the word kesef is written several times, and therefore I can use the kesef to make a gezerah shavah to hekdesh. It seems that in these subjects, hekdesh and ma'aser, the word kesef is written a couple of times. That’s why I connected those: kesafim harbeh ketivei. Again, Rashi was bothered by the question: you’re making a gezerah shavah from ma'aser to hekdesh, kesef to kesef, and you could use perutot—why not do that everywhere? No. First of all, that’s not similar to all the other cases; we’re talking about pidyonot. And number two, we have extra words, kesef, written in these parashiyot to link these two items together, as opposed to the other cases.
What about kidushei ishah? Your question: it says by kiddushin, de-chtiv, ki yikkach ish ishah u-ve'alah (and he consummates the marriage), ve-gamar kichah kichah mi-sedeh Efron. U-tnan: Beit Hillel omrim be-frutah u-vi-shaveh perutah. Beit Hillel said clearly in the Mishnah that for kiddushin you can use a perutah! Neima Rav Asi de-amar ke-Beit Shammai? Rav Asi’s statement was that any time kesef is mentioned in the Torah, it follows a Tzuri matbea. Are you going to tell me Rav Asi is a Beit Shammai, going with Beit Shammai? Beit Shammai is the one who said dinar. You don’t want to make Rav Asi go against Beit Hillel. By making this statement, the only one he can agree with is Beit Shammai. Are you going to tell me now that he holds against Beit Hillel, who says you can use a perutah? That’s the question.
The Gemara says, “Ela, you’re right: i itmar hachi itmar.” Change the statement; reset it. Amar Rav Yehudah amar Rav Asi: kol kesef katzuv ha-amur baTorah kesef Tzuri. Any time the Torah puts a set price on kesef, it is Tzuri: five kesef for pidyon haben, 50 shekalim for ones and mefateh, and 100 shekalim for motzi shem ra. Any time the Torah puts a number, then you have to go with Tzuri.
Now we answer all our cases. We had a question from pidyon of ma'aser; there doesn’t have to be a set price there, so you can use perutot. Hekdesh: use perutot. The shevuah of modeh be-miktzat: it just says kesef there, so you don’t have to follow a Tzuri measurement. Kiddushin also doesn’t say a shi'ur. Ha, ve-shel divreihem kesef medinah. Whenever you go with kesef mi-divreihem, it doesn’t matter; you always use kesef of medinah.
So the Gemara says, mai ka-mashma lan? Rav Asi, what are you teaching us? If your chiddush is that any time there’s a set price it goes with the Tzuri denomination, tenina. We learned: chamesh sela'im shel ben, sheloshim shel eved—what is sheloshim shel eved? That is the law that if a person’s ox gores and kills somebody else’s eved Kena'ani, he has to pay compensation of 30 shekalim to the owner, as the Torah says. Chamishim shel ones—that’s for rape: a guy rapes a lady and has to pay 50. Ve-shel mefateh: seduction. And me'ah shel motzi shem ra. Kulam be-shekel ha-kodesh bi-mneih Tzuri. Clearly, it’s all going according to the Tzuri denomination. Ve-shel divreihem kesef medinah. So, thank you, Rav Asi: there’s an explicit Mishnah or Beraita saying that all these fixed prices go by the Tzuri calculation!
Itztericha leh: you need this statement to teach you not to say something about the case where it doesn’t give a set price. Why? De-tanya, what does it say? We have a Beraita: ha-tokei'a le-chaveiro. What did the guy do? A guy blew a shofar in his friend’s ear; he deafened him, blew in his friend’s ear, or whatever he did. Ha-tokei'a le-chaveiro—noten lo sela. He embarrassed him, scared him, he jumped, he got embarrassed. So you have to pay him a sela for the boshet, for the embarrassment.
Ve-lo teima: don’t think, mai sela? Arba zuzei, because normally a sela in Tzur is four zuz. When it says sela in the Beraita, you might think you have to pay him a sela, and we know a sela in Tzur is four zuz. Ela mai sela? Do you know what the sela of that Beraita is? Palga di-zuza. It’s half a zuz, which is one eighth of Tzuri, a medinah, which is what you pay. De-avdi inshi de-karu leh le-palga di-zuza istera. Sometimes people call half a zuz a sela. Istera is a sela. Normally, when you say the word sela, sela is a Tzuri coin. So when you read the Beraita, it says that a guy damages his friend. That’s not a fixed price, right? It says he has to pay a sela. You would think, “Oh, sela, sela is a coin of Tzur,” so that means four zuz. The chiddush is, don’t worry about it: you don’t have to pay four zuz; you have to pay half a zuz. But it says sela. No, people also refer to half a zuz as a sela.
Where is this going? Let’s read Rashi now. Toke'a le-chavero be-ozno. Rabbeinu HaLevi explains it one way. Ve-Rabbeinu Yitzchak amar she-hikah etzel ozen: he banged next to the guy’s ear. Either way, he caused him—either he hit him in the ear, or he banged something next to his ear and scared him. Noten lo sela ki-deshayru demey boshto de-adam beinoni. That’s the standard amount of embarrassment that you pay for a regular person.
Ve-hishmi'anu Rav Asi de-lo teima hai sela arba zuzei, sela Tzuri, ela palga de-zuza, sheminit she-be-sela Tzuri, istera sela. When Rav Asi made his statement—that anytime there’s a fixed number, it follows Tzuri—the Gemara says we already know that. We have a clear Mishnah: pidyon haben, ones, mefateh, motzi shem ra. Those are all fixed numbers, and the Mishnah clearly says it is a Tzuri calculation. He came to tell you the chiddush that when it’s not a fixed item, it refers to medinah. But we know that! No, because you might have made a mistake from the Beraita. The Beraita says that if a guy has to pay boshet, which is not a fixed amount, he has to pay a sela. You would have thought sela means Tzuri. That’s why he came along and said that if it’s not fixed, it refers to medinah. But it says sela. You should know that sometimes people refer to half a zuz as a sela. He’s clarifying that you shouldn’t make the mistake of paying eight times the amount prescribed.
So lema'aseh, let’s review what took place here. The Gemara was asking: where do we know that according to Beit Shammai you pay a dinar? The first answer was that Beit Shammai follows the ladies: ladies are makpedet. A lady is not going to get kiddushin unless she gets her dinar. That’s how it is. According to that version, Beit Shammai agrees that a perutah is kesef. If a lady wants to accept kesef, she can accept it. But stam, a lady, in the dark, al yedei shaliach, whatever it is, you have to make sure she gets the magic number of a dinar.
The second answer is Rav Asi’s rule. What is Rav Asi’s rule? Any item that has a fixed price, you go with the Tzuri calculation. Now let’s analyze that. Any item that has a fixed price is one where the Torah gives a fixed amount. But the question is about what is not a fixed price. Ones and mefateh are fixed; for them, you have to go with maneh Tzuri. Is kesef kiddushin fixed? No. That is already mi-divreihem. What is the law mi-divreihem? Medinah.
Let me explain. The Gemara’s question was, “What are you telling me? Rav Asi is going like Beit Shammai? Beit Shammai is the one who said dinar.” We thought that Rav Asi’s rule was that any de'oraita law goes with Tzuri items. Kiddushin is de'oraita, so you go with a dinar. What do you mean? How can that be? You’re putting him with Beit Shammai. He cannot go against Beit Hillel.
You’re right: he’s not going against Beit Hillel. He really holds that since kiddushin is not fixed, you can use kesef medinah, and therefore Rav Asi agrees you can use a perutah. Rav Asi was never explaining Beit Shammai. Rav Asi’s rule—that any item needs Tzuri—applies only to fixed items. In a case where it’s not fixed, like kiddushin, he goes like Beit Hillel. Therefore, you only have one answer for why Beit Shammai holds what he holds: ishah makpedet. But Rav Asi has nothing to do with Beit Shammai. Rav Asi goes like Beit Hillel; it doesn’t fit with Beit Shammai. Very good. Baruch Hashem l'olam amen ve-amen.