Kiddushin 11b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara now brings several examples of kesef mentioned in the Torah, and it seems to prove that the Torah’s intention is money, and not specifically a silver coin:

[A] In the section concerning bailees [Exodus 22:6–8] it is stated: “When a man gives his fellow money or vessels to guard, and it is stolen from the man’s house. The owner of the house shall approach the judges [to swear]. Concerning every matter of transgression, ‘that he says, This is it,’ the matter of both of them shall come before the judges.”

And what is the intention of the verse, “that he says, This is it”? The Sages expounded that the intention of the verse is to say that the defendant admits to part of the claim, and thus the verse said: “that he says,” the defendant, “it is,” what you claimed from me [one maneh], is only “this” [fifty sela].

And from here it is proven that one who admits to part of the claim is liable for an oath. And this oath is called “the oath of the judges.”

And we learned in this matter [Shevuot 38b]: “The oath of the judges: the claim [of the claimant must be for] two silver maot, and the admission [of the defendant must be] worth a pruta.” But for less than these amounts there is no obligation to swear. And the Gemara raises an objection from this Mishna against Rav Asi, who says: Every kesef mentioned in the Torah is Tyrian silver—

And is this a claim,

that a person makes against his fellow, and the defendant admits to him in part, and therefore is liable for an oath concerning it,

as it is written

in that section:

“When a man gives money or vessels to his fellow to guard.”

And we learned [

Shevuot 38b ]:

“The oath of the judges: the claim—

Shevuot 38b]:

two

maot

of silver.

And the admission

in part—

worth a pruta.

And one must ask: From where did the Sages learn that the claim is two silver? Necessarily one must say that when the verse said “silver,” its intention was not specifically silver, but money.

And since it did not specify how much money, the matter depends on the judgment of the Sages, because the verse entrusted it to them, to establish the measure according to their understanding. And it did not seem appropriate to the Sages to administer an oath to the defendant for less than two silver maot. (367a)

And according to Rav Asi, who said that every kesef mentioned in the Torah is Tyrian silver, it is difficult: indeed, a ma'a is the smallest coin in Tyrian silver, but from where did the tanna know that the measure of the claim is two silver maot, and not one ma'a? And we answer: Indeed, the silver mentioned in the Torah is Tyrian silver. But

there,

the reason that the claim is two silver and not one is because it is stated: “When a man gives his fellow money or vessels.” And Rava expounded in tractate Shevuot [39b]: “Money

analogous to vessels”—

the money must be compared to the vessels with regard to two matters:

The first:

Just as

vessels

are

two,

so too money

is

two—

two silver coins.

And the second:

And just as

money

is

a significant item,

two silver—

so too vessels

must be

a significant item,

worth two silver.

This is not in accordance with the statement of the one who says in tractate Shevuot [40b]: If he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one of them, he is liable.

And from the words of the verse one can learn that this is not so, for the needles are not worth two silver.

In any event, we have learned from Rava’s words that money must be compared to vessels. Therefore the claim must be for two silver and not one. [B] The Gemara brings the law of the redemption of Second Tithe, from which it seemingly follows that kesef mentioned in the Torah means money, and not Tyrian silver:

Second-Tithe produce is eaten in Jerusalem.

One who is outside Jerusalem and does not wish to bring the tithe produce up to Jerusalem may redeem it and bring its value up to Jerusalem, and purchase produce with it and eat it there. As it is stated [Deuteronomy 14]: “And you shall give the money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place that the Lord your God will choose.”

And the Gemara proves from here that kesef mentioned in the Torah means money, and not specifically silver. And as follows:

And we raise an objection:

But Second-Tithe

produce,

as it is written [

Deuteronomy 14 ]:

“And bind up the money in your hand,”

and from here it follows that Second Tithe is redeemed

with “

money.”

And

nevertheless

we learned [

Second Tithe 2:9 ]:

“One who exchanges a sela from the coins

from prutot

of Second Tithe —

the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed as to how he should do this.

And it implies that initially the person had prutot of the redemption of Second Tithe.

And it is difficult: for according to Rav Asi, the kesef mentioned in the Torah concerning the redemption of Second Tithe is specifically silver, and not copper prutot. How is it possible that a person should have copper prutot from the redemption of Second Tithe?

And it is proven from here that kesef mentioned in the Torah means money, and not necessarily Tyrian silver! And we answer: It would have been appropriate for the verse to say

“money,”

but it says

“the money,”

with the addition of the definite article, the verse

included

also copper prutot for the redemption of Second Tithe.

G] The Gemara brings the law of redeeming consecrated property.

And it is proven from there that the money mentioned in the Torah means monetary value and not Tyrian silver. And we raise an objection:

But

the redemption

of consecrated property, as it is written:

“And he shall give the money, and it shall be his,”

and Shmuel said: Consecrated property,

even if it

is worth a maneh, which he redeemed with something worth a peruta,

behold, it is

redeemed

after the fact, even though he redeemed it for less than its value.

In any event, it is proven from Shmuel’s words that consecrated property can be redeemed with something worth a peruta.

And from here, that the money mentioned in the Torah means monetary value and not actual money! And this is contrary to the words of Rav Asi, who says that the money mentioned in the Torah means Tyrian silver!

And we answer:

There too,

there too, Scripture included even something worth a peruta, because

“money, money”

is learned

from Second Tithe.

We learn from Second Tithe: just as the money mentioned concerning Second Tithe is even something worth a peruta, so too the money mentioned concerning consecrated property means even something worth a peruta.

However, in the other places where “money” is stated in the Torah, it means Tyrian silver, and we learn from Second Tithe only the money of the redemption of consecrated property, since it resembles the redemption money of Second Tithe, in that both are redemption monies.

D] And we raise an objection:

But the betrothal of a woman, as it is written

in it [Deuteronomy 24]:

“When a man takes a woman and cohabits with her,” and it is derived

and the meaning of the verse is learned by a gezerah shavah,

“taking” “taking” from the field of Ephron,

as it is stated there [Genesis 23]: “I have given the money for the field; take it from me.”

And

nevertheless

we learned

in our Mishna: “By money — Beit Shammai say: with a dinar or something worth a dinar.

And Beit Hillel say: with a peruta or something worth

a peruta.” And the halakha is according to Beit Hillel. From here, although money is stated concerning betrothal, Tyrian silver is not required; even a copper peruta is included in this.

And

shall we say [shall it be said] that

[should we say] that

Rav Asi, who says

that the money mentioned in the Torah means Tyrian silver, holds

like Beit Shammai,

who say that the money of betrothal is a dinar or something worth a dinar?!

By the force of this difficulty, the Gemara proves that the money stated in the Torah means monetary value and not Tyrian silver, and therefore even a peruta is included. And this is in accordance with the words of Beit Hillel. Necessarily, Rav Asi too agrees with this.

But

rather, if it was stated,

but if indeed a statement was said in the beit-midrash in the name of Rav Asi, a law concerning the money mentioned in the Torah, that it means Tyrian silver, one must say that

this is how it was stated —

this is what was said:

Rav Yehuda said: Rav Asi said: Every “fixed” money mentioned in the Torah,

every place where a fixed amount concerning money is mentioned in the Torah, such as “fifty money,” or “one hundred money,” that fixed amount is according to the value of

Tyrian silver.

And

if the fixed amount

of their words

is in

provincial silver.

But wherever the Torah states money without qualification, such as concerning a claim, Second Tithe, consecrated property, and betrothal, the Torah’s intention is monetary value and not Tyrian silver. And we raise an objection: Since we said that Rav Asi spoke only about money fixed in the Torah, and not about money without qualification, it is difficult:

What does he teach us?

What did Rav Asi teach us? After all,

we learned it,

we learned this in an explicit Mishna in tractate Bekhorot [49b]:

five selas of

the redemption of the

son, thirty

shekels

of a slave,

fifty

shekels

of

rape and of seduction, one hundred

shekels

of one who brings an evil report —

all according to the sacred shekel,

which is 1/25

of a Tyrian maneh.

If so, why did Rav Asi need to teach us something that we learned explicitly in the Mishna?

And we answer: Indeed, what Rav Asi said, that money mentioned in the Torah means Tyrian silver, can be known from the words of the Mishna in Bekhorot.

But the end of Rav Asi’s words: “

And that of their words

means

provincial silver” —

was necessary for him,

it was necessary to teach us this, because

we did not learn it,

we did not learn this law in any Mishna.

And where do we find a fixed amount of their words?

For example, this:

we learned

[Bava Kamma 90a and elsewhere]:

One who sounds a blast into his fellow’s

ear, the Sages said that he

gives him a sela,

for this is the amount of embarrassment caused to an average person.

And

Rav Asi comes to teach us that

do not say

[do not say]:

What is a sela? —

Four zuz.

A Tyrian sela, which is worth four zuz.

Rather, what is a sela? -

Half a zuz,

half a zuz, which is one-eighth of a Tyrian sela.

For the Tyrian sela is four zuz. And this is a provincial sela.

Because

people are accustomed to calling half a zuz "

a istira."

Because people are accustomed to calling half a zuz an "istira," that is, a sela.

Up to here, the Gemara brought the discussion that they discussed concerning the words of Rav Asi, who said: "Every silver stated in the Torah is Tyrian silver."

And this discussion was brought in the Gemara incidentally, because Rav Yosef explained through the words of Rav Asi the opinion of Beit Shammai, that a woman is betrothed with a dinar.

And now the Gemara returns to explain the words of Beit Shammai: Until now, two reasons for the words of Beit Shammai were brought, and now the Gemara brings two additional reasons for it:

G

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The reason of Beit Shammai

is

as

the words of

Hezekiah

below [14b]:

We learned below [14b]: A Hebrew slave acquires himself through deduction of money. When the slave comes to redeem himself, the master deducts for him from the purchase money according to the years that he worked, in proportion to his purchase price. And through the redemption with this money, the slave acquires himself and goes out to freedom.

And from where did we learn this? -

Hezekiah said [below 16a]:

below [16a]:

For the verse says,

it is stated concerning the Hebrew maidservant [Exodus 21]: "

And he shall redeem her,"

and it does not say, "And she shall be redeemed."

And from the expression "and he shall redeem her" it follows that the master should redeem her. And how is it possible for the master himself to redeem her? Rather,

it teaches

the verse that the master assists her in her redemption, by

deducting from her redemption price,

and through this she

goes out

to freedom [and a Hebrew slave was equated with a Hebrew maidservant].

And Reish Lakish holds that the purchase money of the slave or the maidservant must be of such a measure that the law of "deduction of money" can be fulfilled through it.

And therefore Reish Lakish said:

Granted, if you say that he gave her a dinar,

if you say that the acquisition through money is effected by the master giving her a dinar, then indeed it is possible to fulfill deduction of money through this, and

this is: he deducts and continues until a peruta.

But,

however,

if

you say

that he gave her a peruta, what can he deduct?

How can the master deduct from her redemption price? For less than the value of a peruta is not money, and necessarily, when she comes to redeem herself, she must pay a complete peruta, which is money.

And from here it follows that the acquisition through money of a maidservant is not made with a peruta. And below Reish Lakish says that according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, the law of the money of kiddushin is learned from the money of the purchase of the maidservant. And even before the Gemara brings the conclusion of the words of Reish Lakish, we immediately raise the question: From where did Reish Lakish learn that an acquisition through money is effective for a maidservant only if the law of deduction of money can be fulfilled through it?

And perhaps this is what the Merciful One said,

perhaps this is what the verse said:

Where he gave her a dinar,

in the case where the master acquired her with a dinar, then

it shall be deducted

from her redemption price

until a peruta.

But

where he gave her a peruta -

it shall not be deducted at all,

but if she comes to redeem herself, she will pay a complete peruta!