Kiddushin 11a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Judah ben Beteira adds and says:

“But what shall I do, that

indeed we do not fear a simpon, but for another reason,

the Sages have said: A betrothed Israelite woman does not eat teruma! ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

until she enters the bridal canopy, because of Ulla.

For Ulla said above [5a] that they were concerned regarding a betrothed woman who is in her father’s house: perhaps they will pour for her a cup of teruma wine, and she will give it to her brothers and sisters, who are Israelites, and they are forbidden to eat teruma.

And below the Gemara will explain: What difference does it make to me what the reason is that the Sages forbade a betrothed Israelite woman to eat teruma—whether it is because of a simpon, according to the view of Ben Bag Bag, or because perhaps they will pour her a cup, according to the view of Ben Beteira.

Until here Ravina explained the kal va-chomer of Rabbi Judah ben Beteira.

And one must ask concerning Ben Bag Bag: Why, according to his words, did they forbid a betrothed Israelite woman to eat teruma because of a simpon, whereas regarding a Canaanite maidservant they were not concerned about a simpon? And why does he not agree with the kal va-chomer that Rabbi Beteira said?

And Ravina answers this:

And Ben Bag Bag

holds that specifically with a betrothed woman it is possible that the transaction will be nullified by a simpon [blemish]. But

a simpon with slaves—

he does not have it!

According to Ben Bag Bag, it is not possible that the transaction of slaves and maidservants will be nullified because of a blemish, for—

If

that simpon is

blemishes that are visible, he sees it!

The master sees this before the purchase, and since he purchased the slave [or maidservant] despite everything, it is certainly the case that he purchased him with this in mind, and this is not a mistaken transaction.

And

if,

if the nullification of the transaction is

because

it becomes clear that he has

hidden blemishes—

it is impossible to nullify the transaction on account of this!

For

what difference does it make to him,

what harm is there to the master from the fact that the slave has hidden blemishes? For

he needs him for work.

The master needs the slave only so that he will perform his work, and

it does not matter to him

about hidden blemishes.

Lest you say that nullification of the transaction is also possible with a slave, for example, if

it is found

that the slave is

a thief, or a kobiustos,

a kidnapper, and the master claims that this is a mistaken transaction, and that he would not have agreed to purchase the slave had he known this—

the transaction is not nullified on account of this!

For we learned in a beraita in tractate Bava Batra [92b]: One who sells a slave to his fellow and he is found to be a thief or a kobiostos—

they have reached

the purchaser!

He belongs to the purchaser, and there is no mistaken transaction in the matter, because ordinary slaves are thieves. And one who purchases a slave knows that, presumably, he is a thief.

What will you say,

what will you say? That nullification of a transaction is nevertheless possible with a slave, in a case where it is found that the slave is

an armed bandit,

which is something uncommon, and the purchaser did not purchase him with this in mind,

or

it is found that he is

“written for the kingdom,”

having incurred a death sentence from the king, and this is a mistaken transaction—

the transaction is not nullified on account of this!

For

those—

they have a public reputation!

These matters have a public reputation, because they are uncommon, and everyone knows that this slave is an armed bandit or is written for the kingdom. And necessarily, the person who purchased him as a slave also learned of the matter before the purchase, and there is no mistaken transaction here. And we raise an objection:

Now,

for

both according to this master and according to that master,

a betrothed woman

does not eat

teruma. Behold, according both to the view of Ben Bag Bag and to the view of Ben Beteira, rabbinically a betrothed woman does not eat teruma.

And if so,

what is the difference between them,

what is the practical halakhic difference between them?

With regard to what did they disagree, whether the reason for the matter is because of a simpon or because perhaps they will pour her a cup?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them,

there is a difference between them in three ways, and their mnemonic is:

“Received, delivered, and departed.”

a. “Received”—if the betrothed man accepted upon himself that even if he finds a blemish in her, he desires the kiddushin, then there is no concern about a simpon. Therefore, according to Ben Bag Bag, she eats teruma even before she has entered the bridal canopy.

But according to Ben Beteira, even in this case there is concern lest they pour her a cup in her father’s house and she give it to her brothers and sisters. Therefore, she does not eat teruma.

b. “Delivered”—if the father delivered his daughter to the husband’s agents so that they would deliver her to the husband to bring her into the bridal canopy, and she is still on the way, then there is no concern lest they pour her a cup in her father’s house and she give it to her brothers and sisters, for she has already left her father’s house.

According to Ben Beteira, she eats teruma, even though she has not yet entered the bridal canopy.

But according to Ben Bag Bag, even in this case there is concern about a simpon, because it is possible that the husband has not yet examined her through his female relatives to determine whether she has a blemish. Therefore, she does not eat teruma.

c. “And departed”—if the father departed, or if the father’s agents departed together with the husband’s agents, to accompany the bride on her way to the bridal canopy in her husband’s house, and she is still on the way.

According to Ben Beteira, there is no concern lest she pour a cup for her brothers and sisters, because they are not with her, whereas according to Ben Bag Bag there is still concern about a simpon.

We learned in the Mishna [above 2a]:

With money—

the House

of Shammai say [

the amount of the money is]

a dinar,

or something worth a dinar.

And we inquire into it:

What is the reason of the House of Shammai,

what is the reason for the words of the House of Shammai?

And the Gemara brings four reasons for the words of the House of Shammai:

a.

Rabbi Zeira said: For a woman is particular with regard to herself, and she does not become betrothed with less than a dinar.

He said

he objected

to him, Abaye,

to Rabbi Zeira:

But if that is so,

since you said that one takes the woman’s particularity into account, one must ask:

For example, the daughters of Rabbi Yannai, who are particular with regard to themselves and do not become betrothed with less than three kav of dinars,

important women, such as the daughters of Rabbi Yannai, who customarily are particular about their honor and do not agree to become betrothed with less than three kav of gold—would

even so

it be said

that if she extended her hand and accepted one dinar from another, even so they would not be kiddushin!?

And would you also say in this case that an important woman, if she extends her hands and takes a dinar for the sake of kiddushin, the kiddushin does not take effect?

He said

replied

to him

Rabbi Zeira to Abaye: If the woman

extended her hand and accepted

less than a dinar,

I did not say so,

I did not say that the kiddushin would not take effect. Rather, certainly even the House of Shammai agrees that if a woman accepted kiddushin with less than a dinar, she is betrothed, because since she extended her hand and accepted the kiddushin, it is evident that she agrees to become betrothed even with less than a dinar.

And similarly, the daughters of Rabbi Yannai who extended their hands and accepted kiddushin are betrothed even with less than three kav of dinars.

And when I said—

everything that I said, that one takes the woman’s particularity into account, applies specifically in a case such as

that he betrothed her at night

[at night], and the woman does not see with how much he is betrothing her.

Alternatively, that she appointed an agent,

or when the woman appointed an agent and did not see with her own eyes with how much he was betrothing her.

Only in this case did the House of Shammai say that a woman is particular with regard to herself and does not agree to become betrothed with less than a dinar.

Similarly, an important woman like the daughters of Rabbi Yannai, if she sent an agent or became betrothed at night, does not become betrothed with less than three kav of dinars.

b. And the Gemara brings another reason for the words of the House of Shammai, that a woman becomes betrothed with a dinar:

Rav Yosef said:

The House of Shammai holds that even if the woman saw that the man came to betroth her with less than a dinar and agreed to it, her kiddushin is not kiddushin.

And

the reason of the House of Shammai—

is in accordance with Rav Judah,

who

said

in the name of

Rav Asi:

For Rav Judah said in the name of Rav Asi:

Every “

money”

mentioned in the Torah

is

Tyrian money—

in coins of Tyre. If the name of a coin is stated explicitly in the Torah, such as a shekel, the reference is to a Tyrian shekel.

And if it is said in the Torah “silver,” but no name of a coin was mentioned, the intention is the smallest Tyrian coin.

And

silver

of their words,

the silver mentioned in the words of the Sages, such as a sela or a dinar, is

provincial silver,

the coins of Jerusalem, which are worth one-eighth of the coins of Tyre.

Thus far are the words of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav Asi.

According to this, it is impossible for a woman to be betrothed with a peruta, because the silver of kiddushin is learned by a gezerah shavah, “taking, taking,” from the field of Ephron. And in the field of Ephron “silver” was stated, and this means Tyrian silver. And in Tyre they did not mint copper coins at all but silver coins alone, whereas the coin of a peruta is a copper coin.

And therefore Beit Shammai disagree with Beit Hillel and hold that a woman is not betrothed with a peruta.

Gufa,

the Gemara brings the substance of the words of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav Asi, and what they discussed in the beit-midrash concerning his words:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Asi: All silver mentioned in the Torah

is

Tyrian silver.

But silver

of their words—

is

provincial silver.

And everywhere that “silver” is stated in the Torah, it was possible to explain it in two ways: (a) the intention is a silver coin; (b) the meaning of silver is money.

From the words of Rav Asi, who said that all silver mentioned in the Torah is a coin of Tyrian silver, it is proven that when silver is stated in the Torah, the intention is not all money, but a coin; therefore, the verse must be explained as referring to a Tyrian silver coin. Indeed, other things are also effective by virtue of a money’s worth, which is like money, but they must be worth the equivalent of Tyrian silver.

And we objected:

And

for

is it a general principle?!

Is it indeed stated as a general principle that the silver mentioned in the Torah means specifically silver, and the intention is not all money whatsoever?!