## Kiddushin Daf 11a

###### Kiddushin 11a:1
[Kiddushin 11a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/11a:1)

עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לַחוּפָּה, מִשּׁוּם דְּעוּלָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**until she enters the** wedding **canopy, due to** the reason **of Ulla,** lest she feed her non-priestly family members the *teruma* that her husband has given her.


###### Kiddushin 11a:2
[Kiddushin 11a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/11a:2)

וּבֶן בַּג בַּג? סִימְפּוֹן, בַּעֲבָדִים לֵית לֵיהּ. אִי מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי הוּא – הָא קָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ. אִי מִשּׁוּם מוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר – מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? לִמְלָאכָה קָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And ben Bag Bag,** what does he say about this *a fortiori* inference? The Gemara answers that he maintains that this *a fortiori* inference is invalid because **he does not accept** that there can be a claim of ***simfon* with regard to** the acquisition **of slaves.** The reason is that **if it is an exposed blemish** that the master found on the slave, **he saw** the blemish and purchased him regardless. Therefore, he cannot later claim that the transaction was unfair. **If** it is **due to hidden blemishes** on his slave, **what difference does that make to him?** Why should it matter if a slave has hidden blemishes? **He needs him** only **for labor,** and **he does not care** if he has hidden blemishes that do not impair his ability to perform labor.


###### Kiddushin 11a:3
[Kiddushin 11a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/11a:3)

נִמְצָא גַּנָּב אוֹ קוּבְיוּסְטוּס – הִגִּיעוֹ. מַאי אָמְרַתְּ, לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין אוֹ (נִכְתַּב) [מוּכְתָּב] לַמַּלְכוּת? הָנְהוּ קָלָא אִית לְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And even if this slave **is discovered** to be **a thief or a gambler [*kuvyustus*],** which are considered hidden blemishes that affect his work, **it has come to him,** i.e., the slave is acquired by the one who purchased him and the transaction is non-refundable. The reason is that the buyer should have suspected behavior of this kind, which is common among slaves, and therefore he suffers the loss. **What do you say?** Perhaps he discovered that the slave is **an armed bandit** and subject to be killed by the government for this, **or sentenced** to death **by the government** for another reason, and is sought by the authorities. This is not a valid claim, since **these** matters **generate publicity,** and therefore he is assumed to have taken the risk into consideration.


###### Kiddushin 11a:4
[Kiddushin 11a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/11a:4)

מִכְּדִי, בֵּין לְמָר וּבֵין לְמָר לָא אָכְלָה, מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Now, both according to** the one **Master,** Yoḥanan ben Bag Bag, **and according to** the other **Master,** Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest **may not partake** of *teruma* by rabbinic decree. **What,** then, **is** the difference **between them?**


###### Kiddushin 11a:5
[Kiddushin 11a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/11a:5)

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ: קִיבֵּל, מָסַר, וְהָלַךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The** difference **between them** involves three cases. The Gemara elaborates: If the husband initially **accepted** her blemishes, there is no concern that an annulling factor might lead to the nullification of the betrothal, but there is still concern that she might feed *teruma* to the members of her family. If her father **transferred** her to the betrothed husband’s agents, **or** if the father’s agents **walked** with the husband’s messenger, and therefore she is no longer in her father’s house, there is no concern that she might feed her family members *teruma*, but it remains possible that the betrothal will be nullified.


###### Kiddushin 11a:6
[Kiddushin 11a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/11a:6)

בְּכֶסֶף, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים בְּדִינָר וְכו׳. מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: שֶׁכֵּן אִשָּׁה מַקְפֶּדֶת עַל עַצְמָהּ, וְאֵין מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּפָחוֹת מִדִּינָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the *halakhot* of the mishna. The mishna teaches that if one betroths a woman **with money, Beit Shammai say** he must betroth her **with** at least **one dinar,** whereas according to the opinion of Beit Hillel even one *peruta* is sufficient. The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of Beit Shammai? Rabbi Zeira says:** Their reasoning is **that a woman is particular about herself** and considers it beneath her dignity to be acquired with a paltry sum, **and** therefore she **will not** agree to **be betrothed with less than one dinar.**


###### Kiddushin 11a:7
[Kiddushin 11a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/11a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כְּגוֹן בְּנָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי, דְּקָפְדָן אַנַּפְשַׁיְיהוּ, וְלָא מִקַּדְּשָׁן בְּפָחוֹת מִתַּרְקְבָא דְּדִינָרֵי, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאִי פָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְקִבְּלָה חַד זוּזָא מֵאַחֵר, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא הָווּ קִדּוּשִׁין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: If that is so, with regard to Rabbi Yannai’s daughters, for example, who are** very **particular about themselves** and their honor, **and they will not** agree to **be betrothed with less than three *kav* of dinars** due to their status, **so too** will you say **that if she reaches out her hand and accepts one dinar from another** man, **so too,** this **is not a betrothal?**


###### Kiddushin 11a:8
[Kiddushin 11a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/11a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְקִבְּלָהּ לָא קָאָמֵינָא, כִּי קָאָמֵינָא, דְּקַדְּשַׁהּ בְּלֵילְיָא, אִי נָמֵי דְּשַׁוִּיָה שָׁלִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira **said to** Abaye: **I did not say** that this *halakha* includes a case where **she reached out her hand and accepted** a betrothal. She has the right to willingly relinquish her dignity. **When I said** this *halakha* I was referring to a case **where he betrothed her at night** and she did not see what she was being given. **Alternatively, where she appointed an agent** to betroth her but did not explicitly tell him how much she wished to receive for her betrothal. In these cases it is assumed that she is particular about her honor and will not agree to be betrothed for less than one dinar.


###### Kiddushin 11a:9
[Kiddushin 11a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/11a:9)

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: טַעְמַיְהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: כׇּל כֶּסֶף הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה – כֶּסֶף צוֹרִי, וְשֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם – כֶּסֶף מְדִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said** a different explanation: **The reasoning of Beit Shammai is in accordance with** that **which Rav Yehuda** says that **Rav Asi says. As Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav Asi says: Every** sum of **money mentioned in the Torah is** in **Tyrian coinage,** i.e., dinars from Tyre, which have a high value. **And** any amount of money set **by rabbinic law** is measured by **provincial coinage.** Local currency, i.e., that which existed at the time of the Sages of the Mishna, was worth about one-eighth of the value of Tyrian coinage. Beit Shammai follow the standard sum of the Torah, and the smallest possible amount in Tyrian currency is the silver coin, which is worth one dinar.


###### Kiddushin 11a:10
[Kiddushin 11a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/11a:10)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: כׇּל כֶּסֶף הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה – כֶּסֶף צוֹרִי, וְשֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם – כֶּסֶף מְדִינָה. וּכְלָלָא הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself. Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav Asi says: Every** sum of **money mentioned in the Torah is Tyrian coinage, and** any amount of money set **by rabbinic law** is measured by **provincial coinage.** The Gemara asks: **And is** it an established **principle** that any mention of money in the Torah is referring to a silver coin worth at least one dinar?