## Kiddushin Daf 7b

###### Kiddushin 7b:1
[Kiddushin 7b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/7b:1)

שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Conclude from it that living things can be** permanently **deferred.** Not only an offering that has already been slaughtered, but also a living animal that has been separated as an offering for which it is disqualified, is permanently deferred from being sacrificed on the altar. Likewise here, when he consecrated only half of it, the animal cannot be offered and is rejected. This ruling is in opposition to the claim that only slaughtered animals are permanently rejected.


###### Kiddushin 7b:2
[Kiddushin 7b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/7b:2)

וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דָּחוּי מֵעִיקָּרָא הָוֵי דָּחוּי, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יֵשׁ דִּחוּי בְּדָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, **learn from it that deferral at the outset,** i.e., a condition disqualifying the animal from being sacrificed that was present when the animal was first consecrated, **is** considered a permanent **deferral.** One does not say that the *halakha* of deferral applies only to an animal that was eligible to be sacrificed at the time it was consecrated and later was deferred. **And learn from it** that **there is deferral** not only with regard to an offering itself, but also **with regard to monetary** value, i.e., deferral applies even to an animal whose value was consecrated. In this case, half of an animal is not consecrated to be sacrificed as an offering, and yet it can still be permanently deferred from the altar.


###### Kiddushin 7b:3
[Kiddushin 7b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/7b:3)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: ״חֶצְיֵיךְ בַּחֲצִי פְרוּטָה, וְחֶצְיֵיךְ בַּחֲצִי פְרוּטָה״ מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לַהּ ״חֲצִי פְרוּטָה״ – פַּסְקַהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא מוֹנֶה וְהוֹלֵךְ הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava raises a dilemma:** If a man says to a woman: **Half of you** is betrothed **with half** of **one *peruta*, and half of you with half** of **one *peruta*, what is** the *halakha*? Does one say that **since he said to her: Half** of **one *peruta*, he has divided** his statement? In other words, by specifying half of one *peruta* he intended the betrothal to be performed in two stages, with one half-*peruta* for each stage, and half of one *peruta* does not effect betrothal. **Or perhaps he was counting** toward the full sum of the betrothal money, and intends for the betrothal to take effect at one time.


###### Kiddushin 7b:4
[Kiddushin 7b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/7b:4)

אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר מוֹנֶה וְהוֹלֵךְ הוּא, ״חֶצְיֵיךְ בִּפְרוּטָה וְחֶצְיֵיךְ בִּפְרוּטָה״ מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לַהּ בִּפְרוּטָה וּפְרוּטָה – פַּסְקַהּ לְמִילְּתֵיהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא כֹּל בְּיוֹמֵיהּ מוֹנֶה וְהוֹלֵךְ הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **if you say** that in that case it is considered as though **he were counting,** then if he said to her: **Half of you** is betrothed **with one *peruta* and half of you with one *peruta*, what is** the *halakha*? Does one say that **since he said to her: With one *peruta* and one *peruta*, he divided his statement** and intended to betroth her two halves separately, and one cannot betroth half a woman? **Or perhaps anything** that he does **on** that **day is** considered as if **he were counting,** i.e., since he intended to complete the action that day it is as though she were betrothed with two *perutot*.


###### Kiddushin 7b:5
[Kiddushin 7b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/7b:5)

אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר כֹּל בְּיוֹמֵיהּ מוֹנֶה וְהוֹלֵךְ הוּא, ״חֶצְיֵיךְ בִּפְרוּטָה הַיּוֹם וְחֶצְיֵיךְ בִּפְרוּטָה לְמָחָר״ מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לַהּ לְמָחָר – פַּסְקַהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר לַהּ: ״קִדּוּשִׁין מַתְחֲלוּ מֵהָאִידָּנָא וּמִגְמָר לָא נִיגְמְרוּ עַד לִמְחַר״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **if you say** that **everything** he does **on** that **day** is considered as if **he were counting,** then if he said to her: **Half of you** is betrothed **with one *peruta* today, and half of you** is betrothed **with one *peruta* tomorrow, what is** the *halakha*? Does one say that **since he said to her: Tomorrow,** he has **divided** his statement, which prevents the days from being combined, **or perhaps this is what he is saying to her: The betrothal begins from now, and** it **will not be completed until tomorrow.**


###### Kiddushin 7b:6
[Kiddushin 7b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/7b:6)

״שְׁנֵי חֲצָיַיִךְ בִּפְרוּטָה״ מַהוּ? הָכָא וַדַּאי בְּחַד זִימְנָא קָאָמַר לַהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵין אִשָּׁה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת לַחֲצָאִין כְּלָל? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava further inquires: If he said to her: **Your two halves** are betrothed **with one *peruta*, what is** the *halakha*? **Here, he certainly spoke to her at one time,** i.e., he did not divide his statement into two, and therefore it should be a valid betrothal, **or perhaps a woman may not be betrothed in halves at all.** No resolution was found for any of these questions, and therefore the Gemara says that the dilemmas **shall stand** unresolved.


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

בָּעֵי רָבָא: ״שְׁתֵּי בְנוֹתֶיךָ לִשְׁנֵי בָנַי בִּפְרוּטָה״ מַהוּ? בָּתַר נוֹתֵן וּמְקַבֵּל אָזְלִינַן וְהָאִיכָּא מָמוֹנָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא בָּתַר דִּידְהוּ אָזְלִינַן וְהָא לֵיכָּא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises** another **dilemma.** If one man said to another: Let **your two daughters** be betrothed **to my two sons with one *peruta*, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do **we follow the giver and recipient, and** as the giver bestows one *peruta* and the recipient receives one *peruta* **there is money** here, since one *peruta* is considered money and therefore the betrothal is valid. **Or perhaps we follow them,** i.e., those affected by the issue, in this case the sons and the daughters, **and there is not** one *peruta* for each of these individuals, and therefore the betrothal is not valid? This problem is also left unanswered, and therefore the Gemara says that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Kiddushin 7b:8
[Kiddushin 7b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/7b:8)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: ״בִּתְּךָ וּפָרָתְךָ בִּפְרוּטָה״ מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן בִּתְּךָ בַּחֲצִי פְרוּטָה וּפָרָתְךָ בַּחֲצִי פְרוּטָה, אוֹ דִילְמָא בִּתְּךָ בִּפְרוּטָה וּפָרָתְךָ בִּמְשִׁיכָה? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa raises a dilemma:** If one man said to another: I hereby acquire **your daughter and your cow with one *peruta*, what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say** that he meant: **Your daughter** should be betrothed **with half** of **one *peruta* and your cow** purchased **with half** of **one *peruta*?** In that case neither the betrothal nor the acquisition take effect. **Or perhaps** he meant: **Your daughter** should be betrothed **with one *peruta* and your cow** should be acquired **by pulling?** No satisfactory answer was found in this case either, and the Gemara says that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Kiddushin 7b:9
[Kiddushin 7b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/7b:9)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: ״בִּתְּךָ וְקַרְקָעֲךָ בִּפְרוּטָה״ מַהוּ? בִּתְּךָ בַּחֲצִי פְרוּטָה וְקַרְקָעֲךָ בַּחֲצִי פְרוּטָה, אוֹ דִילְמָא בִּתְּךָ בִּפְרוּטָה וְקַרְקָעֲךָ בַּחֲזָקָה? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi raises a dilemma:** If he said: I hereby acquire **your daughter and your land with one *peruta*, what is** the *halakha*? Does this mean: **Your daughter** should be betrothed **with half** of **one *peruta* and your land** should be acquired **with half** of **one *peruta*? Or perhaps** it means: **Your daughter** should be betrothed **with one *peruta* and your land** should be acquired **through** the act of **taking possession?** This question is also left unanswered, and the Gemara again says that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Kiddushin 7b:10
[Kiddushin 7b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/7b:10)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאקַדֵּישׁ בְּשִׁירָאֵי, רַבָּה אָמַר: לָא צְרִיכִי שׁוּמָא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: צְרִיכִי שׁוּמָא. אִי דְּאָמַר לַהּ בְּכֹל דְּהוּ, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא צְרִיכִי שׁוּמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain man who betrothed** a woman **with silk [*beshira’ei*]** garments. **Rabba said: An appraisal** of the value of the garments is **not necessary,** as they are certainly worth more than one *peruta*. **Rav Yosef said: An appraisal** of the value of the garments is **necessary,** and as the man did not determine the value of the silk garments before the betrothal, the betrothal is invalid. The Gemara comments: **If he said to her** that she should become betrothed to him **by any amount,** regardless of the value of the silk garments, **everyone agrees that** the garments do **not require appraisal,** as they are undoubtedly worth more than one *peruta*.


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

אִי דְּאָמַר לַהּ ״חַמְשִׁין״ וְלָא שָׁווּ חַמְשִׁין – הָא לָא שָׁווּ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דְּאָמַר ״חַמְשִׁין״ וְשָׁווּ חַמְשִׁין. רַבָּה אָמַר: לָא צְרִיכִי שׁוּמָא, דְּהָא שָׁווּ חַמְשִׁין. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: צְרִיכִי שׁוּמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיתְּתָא לָא בְּקִיאָה בְּשׁוּמָא לָא סָמְכָה דַּעְתַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Conversely, **if he said to her** that they are worth **fifty** dinars, **and they are not worth fifty** dinars, then everyone agrees that the betrothal is not valid, as **they are not worth** the amount he specified. **They disagree when he said** that they are worth **fifty** dinars, **and** in actuality **they are worth fifty** dinars. **Rabba said: An appraisal** of the value of the garments is **not necessary** before the betrothal, **as they are worth fifty** dinars. **Rav Yosef said: An appraisal** of the value of the garments is **necessary, because the woman** herself **is not an expert in appraisal** and **she does not rely on** his assessment. Since she is unsure if the garments are actually worth fifty dinars as he claimed, she does not agree to be betrothed.


###### Kiddushin 7b:12
[Kiddushin 7b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/7b:12)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי בְּכֹל דְּהוּ נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֶסֶף, מָה כֶּסֶף דְּקִיץ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that **even** in a case where he says to her: Be betrothed to me with these silk garments, **whatever** they are worth, the *amora’im* **disagree** with regard to the *halakha*. The reason for the dispute in this case is as follows. **Rav Yosef said:** An item **worth money is like money** in every way. **Just as money is set,** i.e., it has a clearly defined value,