Kiddushin 12a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Do not let it enter your mind,

to say that the Hebrew maidservant will be acquired with money in which the law of deduction of the purchase price cannot be fulfilled, since the matter of a maidservant states the law of deduction of the purchase price.

And a proof for the matter:

analogous to designation,

just as we find something similar concerning the mitzva of designation, as follows:

In the section of the Hebrew maidservant [Exodus 21:8] it is stated: “If [the maidservant] is displeasing in the eyes of her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed.”

That is, it would have been proper for the master to designate her and take her in as a wife, and the money of her purchase is the money of her kiddushin, and she does not require other kiddushin. Rather, he says to her: Behold, you are designated for me through what I have a right to concerning you.

But if she is displeasing in the eyes of her master, and he does not wish to designate her, she is redeemed from him with money, or she leaves through the other forms of release of a Hebrew maidservant.

And we learned in a beraita: A father may not sell his daughter to relatives to whom she is forbidden by the prohibition of forbidden relations, because it is impossible to fulfill the law of designation with her.

And just as a sale of a Hebrew maidservant cannot exist in a manner in which the law of designation cannot be fulfilled, so too a sale cannot exist that is not fit for deduction of the purchase price—

for

as with designation, even though

there is no obligation upon the master to designate her, but

if he wishes

[if he wished]

he designates, and if he wishes

[and if he wished]

he does not designate,

nevertheless,

wherever he is unable to designate—

the sale is not a sale,

wherever there is no possibility of designation, the sale is not a sale.

Here too,

so it is proper to say concerning deduction of the purchase price:

wherever she is unable to be redeemed by deduction—

the sale is not a sale.

Wherever it is impossible to fulfill the law of deduction of the purchase price, the sale is not a sale.

And the Gemara brings the continuation of the words of Reish Lakish:

Reish Lakish proved that a male slave and a maidservant are acquired with a dinar and not with a peruta, because it is necessary that the law of deduction of the purchase price be able to be fulfilled with them. And from here Beit Shammai learned that the money with which a woman is acquired is a dinar.

But one must ask: Behold, the law of deduction of the purchase price is not stated concerning a woman, and if so, from where do we know that the money of kiddushin also must be a dinar and not a peruta?

And in order to answer this, Reish Lakish added and said:

And the kiddushin of a woman, according to Beit Shammai, they derive

[are learned]

from the Hebrew maidservant,

who is betrothed to the master through designation:

Just as a Hebrew maidservant is not acquired with a peruta,

just as a Hebrew maidservant is not acquired by the master with a peruta,

so too a woman—

with a peruta

alone

is not betrothed.

And we raise an objection against Reish Lakish: indeed, Reish Lakish proved that a Hebrew maidservant is not acquired with a peruta, because the money must be of such a measure that the law of deduction of the purchase price can be fulfilled with it; but from where do we know that the measure of money is a dinar?

And say half a dinar?

Say that the measure is half a dinar, for even with this value the master can deduct from her redemption price, and a peruta will still remain for the maidservant to redeem herself! And it is also possible that the measure of the money is even less than half a dinar:

And say,

say that its measure is

two perutot,

for even with this it is possible to fulfill the law of deduction of the purchase price! And we answer:

Since you have removed it from a peruta—

establish it as a dinar.

Since, necessarily, the acquisition with money of a maidservant and of a woman is not effective with a peruta, even though a peruta is the measure of money everywhere, it follows that the Torah required significant money; therefore, it is reasonable that acquisition with money is effective only with a dinar, which is significant money. [ d] Another reason for the words of Beit Shammai:

Rava said: This is the reason of Beit Shammai:

This is the reason of Beit Shammai: by Torah law, a woman is betrothed with a peruta, but the Sages enacted that a woman should not be betrothed except with a dinar,

so that the daughters of Israel should not be treated as ownerless,

through their being betrothed with a peruta. Therefore, one who betroths a woman with less than a dinar—the Sages invalidated his kiddushin. We learned in the Mishna [above, 2a]:

And Beit Hillel say:

A woman is acquired

with a peruta.

The Gemara discusses whether the measure of a peruta is fixed, so that even if they increased or decreased the peruta, the measure does not change from the measure of a peruta that the Sages assessed, or whether one follows specifically the measure of the peruta current at the time of the kiddushin.

Rav Yosef thought to say,

Rav Yosef thought to say that the intention of the Mishna is

a peruta, whatever it may be,

according to the value of the peruta in every generation, at the time of the kiddushin. We do not care whether the value of the peruta has risen above the value of the peruta that the Sages established, or whether its value has now diminished from the peruta that the Sages established; rather, one always follows the value of the peruta current at that time.

Abaye said to him

a difficulty:

But concerning it it is taught,

and behold, we learned concerning that peruta in our Mishna: “And

how much is a peruta?”—

one-eighth of an Italian issar!

And it is implied that the measure of the peruta with regard to the money of kiddushin is a fixed measure according to the value of one-eighth of an Italian issar, and not according to the changing value of the peruta in each generation, at the time of the kiddushin!

And if you would say,

and perhaps you will answer:

These words

the words of our Mishna are stated

in the generation of Moses

only, when they assessed it as one-eighth of an Italian issar.

But here, according to what people considered.

For nowadays one follows the measure of money that is significant in the eyes of people, and this depends upon the peruta current in each generation, as it is.

But

it is impossible to say so! For

when he came,

when

Rav Dimi

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said:

There was an incident involving a woman who was betrothed with a peruta. And the matter came before Rabbi Simai, and

Rabbi Simai assessed in his generation how much a peruta is—

one-eighth of an Italian issar.

And he found that the peruta with which the woman had been betrothed was not worth that amount, because at that time they had reduced the perutot; therefore Rabbi Simai invalidated the kiddushin.

And it is demonstrated from here that Rabbi Simai holds that there is a fixed measure for a peruta forever, and one does not follow the peruta current in that generation.

And

yes,

when Ravin came,

when Ravin came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: Rabbi Dostai, Rabbi Yannai, and Rabbi Oshaya,

an incident came before them involving a woman who was betrothed with a peruta. And

they assessed how much a peruta is—

one-sixth of an Italian issar.

And if at that time the peruta was worth less than this, the woman is not betrothed [and below it will be explained why they assessed the peruta as one-sixth of an Italian issar and not one-eighth of it].

And from here there is a contradiction to the words of Rav Yosef, who said that one follows the peruta current at that time!

Rav Yosef said to him

to Abaye:

If so,

if indeed there is no peruta smaller than one-eighth of an Italian issar, a difficulty must be raised:

One who unwittingly derives benefit from consecrated property pays the principal and a fifth, and brings a ram worth two selaim as a guilt-offering. As it is stated [Leviticus 5:15]: “If a person commits a trespass and sins unwittingly against the sacred things of the Lord, he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, an unblemished ram from the flock, according to your valuation in silver selaim, by the sacred shekel, as a guilt-offering.”

And they said in the Torat Kohanim there: “Go out and calculate: how many perutot are there in two selaim? More than two thousand.” And from this you will understand how much one must distance himself from transgression. For even one who sins unwittingly must bring such a great atonement.

And from here Rav Yosef raised a difficulty against the view of all the amoraim, from whose words it is demonstrated that the measure of a peruta is fixed, one-eighth of an Italian issar:

This is what we learned,

this is what we learned in the Torat Kohanim:

Go out and calculate how many perutot

there are

in two selaim—

more than two thousand,

this is difficult according to their words:

For

now,

now that you say that a peruta is always one-eighth of an Italian issar, even

two thousand

perutot

are not

in two sela coins! According to this calculation, you will not find even two thousand perutot in two sela coins!

And if so, is it possible that “

more than two thousand

perutot”

they call them

in the Torat Kohanim?!

That certain elder said to them

to Rav Yosef and Abaye, who were discussing the matter: It is possible to reconcile the words of this beraita even according to those who say that one always assesses the peruta as one-eighth of an Italian issar: 413]. This should be explained according to the version of the books before us, in which we read “he said to them” in the plural. But from Rashi it is evident that that certain elder said his words only to Abaye. Apparently he read in the Gemara, “he said to him”].

I teach it thus,

I teach the beraita in the Torat Kohanim in a different style: How many perutot are there in two sela coins? —

Close to two thousand.

And I do not teach in it “more than two thousand”! According to this, although a peruta is one-eighth of an Italian issar, and there are not two thousand perutot in two sela coins, nevertheless the words of the beraita are reconciled, because there are in two sela coins close to two thousand perutot.

But Rav Yosef again asked that certain elder:

Ultimately,

even according to your words it is still difficult: for if a peruta is one-eighth of an Italian issar, then

one thousand five hundred and thirty-six is what there are. There are only 1536

perutot in two sela coins, and not close to two thousand!

For a sela is four dinars. And a dinar is 24 issarin. It follows that there are 96 issarin in a sela [96=244].

And in every issar there are 8 perutot. It follows that there are 768 perutot in a sela [768=896]. And in two sela coins there are 1536 perutot [1536=2768].

That certain elder answered:

Since they emerge from half,

since the perutot pass the halfway point of the second thousand [for there are 1536 perutot, that is, 36 perutot more than half of the second thousand], therefore “

close to two thousand”

they call it.

The substance,

now the Gemara brings the body of the discussion that Abaye brought above briefly:

When he came,

when

Rav Dimi

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: Rabbi Simai assessed in his generation how much a peruta is —

one-eighth of an Italian issar.

And when Ravin came,

he said:

Rabbi Dostai, Rabbi Yannai, and Rabbi Oshaya assessed how much a peruta is —

one-sixth

of an

Italian issar.

And the Gemara now discusses in what Rav Dimi [in the name of Rabbi Simai] and Ravin [in the name of the other amoraim] disagreed:

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: Let us say, you and Ravin —

you disagree concerning the dispute of these tannaim.

Shall we say that you and Ravin disagree in the dispute in which the following tannaim disagreed?

For it was taught: The peruta that the Sages said —

one-eighth of an Italian issar.

For this is the scale of the coins:

a.

Six silver ma’ot

are equal to one

dinar.

b. One

ma’a is

two

coins called

fundyonin.

c. One

fundyon is

two issarin.

d. One

issar is

two

coins called

musmisin.

e. One

musmis is

two kontrankin.

f. One

kontrank is

two perutot.

It follows that

a

peruta

is

one-eighth of an Italian issar.

For an issar is two musmisin, a musmis is two kontrankin, and a kontrank is two perutot.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From a ma’a onward there are other coins:

a.

Three

hadrasin

are equal

to one ma’a.

b.

Two hantzin are

to one hadras.

c.

Two shammin are

to one hantz.

d.

Two perutot are

to one sham.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel too agrees with the words of the first tanay that an issar is 1/24 of a dinar [a dinar = 6 ma’ot. A ma’a = two fundyonin. A fundyon = two issarin].

According to the calculation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, there are 144 perutot in a dinar. [

A dinar = 6 ma’ot. A ma’a = 3 hadrasin. A hadras = two hantzin. A hantz = two shammin. A sham = two perutot. Total = 144].

And since there are 24 issarin in a dinar,

it follows

that a

peruta

is

one-sixth of an Italian issar [6=144/24].

And Abaye concludes his question:

Let us say.

Shall we say

that Mar said according to the first tanay, and Ravin said according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

He said to him,

Rav Dimi:

Between me

the statement that I brought

and between Ravin —

we both spoke

according to the first tanay,

that a peruta is one-eighth of an Italian issar. For both of us taught our anonymous Mishna according to his words.

Nevertheless, what Ravin brought, that a peruta is one-sixth of an Italian issar,

is not difficult.

For indeed the value of the peruta in the Torah never changes, but the value of the issarin can change. And the value of the perutot is always measured according to one-eighth of an issar worth 1/24 of a dinar. Thus a peruta is always 1/192 of a dinar. Therefore —

This,

what we both taught, that a peruta is one-eighth of an issar, is at a time

when the issarin became expensive,

when the issarin were expensive, as follows.

And

if

this,

what Ravin said, is at a time

when the issarin became cheap,

when the issarin became cheaper.

And Rav Dimi explains his words:

This,

what we both taught, that a peruta is one-eighth of an issar, is at a time

when the issarin became expensive, when

there stood twenty-four

issarin

in one

zuz.

That 24 issarin stood in one silver dinar, and it follows that a peruta is one-eighth of an issar. For when we multiply the 24 issarin by 8 perutot, it follows that there were 192 perutot in a dinar. [192=824].

And

this,

what Ravin said, that a peruta is 1/6 of a dinar, is at a time

when it became cheap,

that is, when

there stood thirty-two issarin to a zuz,

when 32 issarin stood in a dinar, and therefore a peruta is one-sixth of an issar. For when we multiply the 32 issarin by 6 perutot, it follows that there were 192 perutot in a dinar [192=632]. And we have already said that there are always 192 perutot in a dinar.

And the Gemara brings a statement of Shmuel concerning the amount of silver for kiddushin:

Shmuel said: If he betrothed her with a date —

even

if there was

a kor of dates for a dinar,

and it follows that every single date was worth much less than a peruta, nevertheless the woman

is betrothed

doubtfully, because

we are concerned lest

the date

is worth a peruta in Mede,

in a place where dates are not common.

And we challenge Shmuel’s words:

But we learned in our Mishna,

for we learned in the Mishna:

Beit Hillel

say: With a peruta or with the value of a peruta.

And it implies that the woman is betrothed only with an object worth a peruta, and not with less. Whereas according to Shmuel’s words, even with an object worth less than a peruta she is betrothed, because perhaps it is worth a peruta in Mede, and it follows that there is no fixed amount for kiddushin!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This —

our Mishna speaks

of definite kiddushin,

for kiddushin is definite only when he betrothed her with an object that is worth a peruta in its place.

But

this,

what Shmuel said, that even if he betrothed her with less than the value of a peruta she is betrothed, is

in

the category of

doubtful kiddushin.

And there is a difference between definite kiddushin and doubtful kiddushin, in a case where another man betrothed her after the first kiddushin:

If the first kiddushin was definite kiddushin, then the woman is permitted to him and does not need a get from the second. For since the woman had already been betrothed to him, the kiddushin of another does not take effect with regard to her.

But if the first kiddushin was doubtful kiddushin, then she is forbidden to both of them out of doubt, for on the possibility that the first kiddushin was kiddushin, she is forbidden to the second. And on the possibility that the first kiddushin was not kiddushin, she is betrothed to the second and forbidden to the first.

However, if only one man betrothed her, whether with definite kiddushin or with doubtful kiddushin, she is forbidden to marry another without a get from the first.

And our Mishna teaches that the amount of the money is the value of a peruta, in order to know what constitutes complete kiddushin. For when it is worth a peruta in its place, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the kiddushin.

And the Gemara now brings an incident that apparently contradicts Shmuel’s words:

There was a certain man who betrothed [a woman] with a bundle of flax,

an incident involving a man who betrothed a woman with a bundle of combed flax.

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya sat

[he sat]

before Rav, and was examining it,

and he examined the value of the bundle in order to determine:

If it has the value of a peruta —

yes,

if it has the value of a peruta, she is betrothed.

If not —

no.

And we are astonished:

And if it does not have

[it does not have]

the value of a peruta

in this place, is she

not

betrothed?!

But Shmuel said: We are concerned

lest it be worth a peruta somewhere else. Does Rav disagree with this?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This,

the incident involving Rav Shimi, who examined the value of the bundle before Rav, speaks

in

the matter of

definite kiddushin.

That is, Rav Shimi clarified whether the bundle was worth a peruta, in which case the kiddushin is definite kiddushin.

But

this,

what Shmuel said, “We are concerned lest it be worth a peruta in Mede,” speaks

in

the matter of

doubtful kiddushin.

And the Gemara brings an incident from which it is proven that this is not according to Shmuel’s words:

There was a certain man who betrothed [a woman] with a blue stone.

An incident involving a man who betrothed a woman with a blue stone, and afterward a second man came and betrothed her with a peruta.

Rav Hisda sat

[he sat]

and was assessing it, whether it had the value of a peruta: yes —

she is betrothed,

and if not —

no.

If the stone does not have the value of a peruta, the first man’s kiddushin is not kiddushin, and she is betrothed to the second.

And we are astonished:

And if it does not have

now

the value of a peruta, is

she

not

betrothed to the first, but only to the second?!

But Shmuel said: We are concerned

lest it be worth a peruta somewhere else! And why did Rav Hisda permit her to the second?

And we answer:

Rav Hisda —

did not hold like Shmuel.

And the Gemara brings the continuation of the incident that came before Rav Hisda:

Ultimately it was found that that stone was not worth a peruta, and she had not become betrothed to the first. Therefore Rav Hisda ruled that the woman was betrothed to the second.

His mother said to him,

the mother of the first betrothed man said to Rav Hisda:

But

indeed, now the stone is not worth a peruta. But

on that day when he betrothed her, it did have the value of a peruta!

On the day that my son betrothed the woman, the stone was worth a peruta, and if so she is betrothed to my son and forbidden to the second!

He said to him

Rav Hisda:

It is not within your power to prohibit

her to the latter! —

You do not have the power to testify that your son’s betrothal is a valid betrothal and thereby to prohibit her to the latter. And even if your daughter agrees with your words, she cannot prohibit herself to the second one.

And Rav Hisda proves that a woman does not have the power to prohibit herself to her husband: