## Kiddushin Daf 11b

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

וַהֲרֵי טַעֲנָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים לִשְׁמֹר״, וּתְנַן: שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּינִין, הַטַּעֲנָה – שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף, וְהַהוֹדָאָה – שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** with regard to **a claim that** someone has not returned a deposit or loan, when the defendant admits that only part of the claim is true, **it is written: “If a man deliver to his neighbor money or vessels to guard** and it be stolen out of the man’s house” (Exodus 22:6). The following verses teach that if the thief is not found, the case is brought to a court, where the defendant must take an oath. **And we learned** in a mishna with regard to one who admits to part of a claim (*Shevuot* 38b): **The oath** administered **by the judges** to one who admits to part of a claim is administered only when **the claim** is for at least **two silver** *ma’a*, **and the** defendant’s **admission** is to at least **the value of one *peruta*.** If every sum of money mentioned in the Torah is referring to Tyrian coinage, how did the Sages arrive at the amount of two *ma’a* in this case?


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

הָתָם דּוּמְיָא דְּכֵלִים, מָה כֵּלִים שְׁנַיִם – אַף כֶּסֶף שְׁנַיִם, וּמָה כֶּסֶף דָּבָר חָשׁוּב – אַף כֵּלִים דָּבָר חָשׁוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **There,** the *halakha* is derived from a juxtaposition, as the “money” mentioned in the verse is **similar to “vessels”: Just as** the word **“vessels”** indicates at least **two, so too “money”** is referring to at least **two** coins. **And just as money is a significant item, so too** the **vessels** must be **a significant item.**


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

וַהֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ״, וּתְנַן: הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי! ״כֶּסֶף״ ״הַכֶּסֶף״ – רִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** there is the case of the redemption of second **tithe, as it is written: “And bind up the money in your hand”** (Deuteronomy 14:25). **And** yet **we learned** in a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 2:8): With regard to **one who exchanges** copper coins **of second-tithe money** for **a *sela*,** Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver *sela*. This mishna indicates that second-tithe money, mentioned in the Torah, can be in the form of copper coins, and it is not required to be in the form of silver coins. The Gemara explains that the verse does not say **money,** but **“the money.”** The addition of the article **serves as an amplification.** In other words, this addition teaches that second-tithe money can be in any coinage, including copper coins.


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

וַהֲרֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״, וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה – מְחוּלָּל! הָתָם נָמֵי, ״כֶּסֶף״ ״כֶּסֶף״ יָלֵיף מִמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** there is the case of **consecrated** property, **as it is written: “And he will give the money and it will be assured to him”** (see Leviticus 27:19). **And Shmuel says:** With regard to **consecrated** property **worth one hundred dinars, which was redeemed for** an item **worth one *peruta*, it is redeemed.** Although the word “money” is stated in the Torah, a copper *peruta* may be used. The Gemara answers: **There too,** there is a reason for this unusual *halakha*, as **he derives** this ruling from a verbal analogy of the terms **“money”** mentioned here and **“money” from tithes.** Consequently, one may use any type of coin in this case as well.


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

וַהֲרֵי קִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ״, וְגָמַר ״קִיחָה״ ״קִיחָה״ מִשְּׂדֵה עֶפְרוֹן, וּתְנַן: בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. נֵימָא רַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** there is the case of **the betrothal of a woman, as it is written: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her”** (Deuteronomy 24:1), **and one derives** betrothal through money by a verbal analogy of the term **“taking”** used here and **“taking” from** the case of **the field of Ephron. And** yet **we learned** in the mishna that **Beit Hillel say** one can betroth a woman **with one *peruta* or with** any item that is **worth one *peruta*.** If so, **shall we say** that **Rav Asi,** who claims that all sums of money mentioned in the Torah are in Tyrian coinage, **stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai?**


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

אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: כׇּל כֶּסֶף קָצוּב הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה – כֶּסֶף צוֹרִי, וְשֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם – כֶּסֶף מְדִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: **If** this **was stated,** it **was stated like this: Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav Asi says: Every set** amount of **money stated in the Torah,** i.e., when a specific amount is mentioned, is referring to **Tyrian coinage, and** any amount of money set **by rabbinic law** is in **provincial coinage.**


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

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁל בֵּן, שְׁלֹשִׁים שֶׁל עֶבֶד, חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל אוֹנֶס וְשֶׁל מְפַתֶּה, מֵאָה שֶׁל מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע – כּוּלָּם בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ, בְּמָנֶה צוֹרִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **what is** Rav Asi **teaching us?** We have already **learned** all of these *halakhot* explicitly (*Bekhorot* 49b): The payment of **five *sela* for** the redemption of a firstborn **son** (Numbers 18:16); the payment of **thirty** *sela* **for a slave,** paid by the owner of the ox that killed the slave (Exodus 21:32); the **fifty** *sela* paid **by a rapist and by a seducer** (Deuteronomy 22:29); the **one hundred** *sela* paid **by a defamer** (Deuteronomy 22:19); **all of these are** paid **in the sacred shekel,** which is **one hundred dinars in Tyrian** coinage. All of the cases in which a defined amount is mentioned by the Torah have already been taught, and it is unclear what Rav Asi adds.


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

״וְשֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם כֶּסֶף מְדִינָה״ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, דְּלָא תְּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: הַתּוֹקֵעַ לַחֲבֵירוֹ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ סֶלַע. וְלָא תֵּימָא מַאי סֶלַע – אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי, אֶלָּא מַאי סֶלַע – פַּלְגָא דְזוּזָא, דַּעֲבִידִי אִינָשֵׁי דְּקָרוּ לְפַלְגָא דְזוּזָא אִיסְתֵּירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It was necessary for** Rav Asi to teach: **And** any amount of money set **by rabbinic law** is in **provincial coinage, as we did not learn** that *halakha* in that mishna. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The Sages established that **one who strikes another** as an act of disrespect **must give him one *sela*** as a fine. **And** Rav Asi is teaching that one should **not say: What** is the meaning of **one *sela*?** It is a Tyrian *sela* worth **four dinar. Rather, what** is the meaning of **one *sela*?** This is the *sela* of provincial coinage, which is worth **half a dinar, as people commonly call half a dinar** by the name ***sela* [*isteira*].**


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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, כִּדְחִזְקִיָּה. דְּאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֶפְדָּהּ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמְּגָרַעַת מִפִּדְיוֹנָהּ, וְיוֹצְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says** a different explanation: **The reasoning of Beit Shammai,** that the minimum amount with which a woman can be betrothed is one dinar, is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Ḥizkiyya. As Ḥizkiyya says** that **the verse states** with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: **“Then he shall let her be redeemed”** (Exodus 21:8), which **teaches that she can deduct** an amount **from** the price of **her redemption and leave** before her time of slavery is complete. If she comes into possession of money, she can pay the master for her value, less the work she has performed. Beit Shammai derive the *halakhot* of regular betrothal from the case of a Hebrew maidservant, as explained below.


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

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דִּיהַב לַהּ דִּינָר – הַיְינוּ דִּמְגָרְעָה וְאָזְלָה עַד פְּרוּטָה, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דִּיהַב לַהּ פְּרוּטָה, מִפְּרוּטָה מִי מְגָרְעָה? וְדִלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: הֵיכָא דִּיהַב לַהּ דִּינָר – תְּיגָרַע עַד פְּרוּטָה, הֵיכָא דִּיהַב לַהּ פְּרוּטָה – לָא תְּיגָרַע כְּלָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say that** when she was acquired **he gave her** at least **one dinar, this is** the meaning of the statement **that she may continually deduct** from that amount **up to one *peruta*. But if you say that** he **gave her one *peruta*** when he purchased her as a maidservant, can **she deduct from one *peruta*?** One *peruta* is already the smallest possible sum of money. The Gemara rejects this argument: **But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying:** In a case **where he gave her one dinar, she deducts** from that amount **up to one *peruta*;** in **a case where he gave her one *peruta* she cannot deduct at all.** If he paid one *peruta* for her, the option of redemption does not apply.