Commentary for Kiddushin 3:1

To her husband

"The woman (האשה) is acquired": here [the Mishnah] teaches with a ה, and so too in many places regarding איש or אשה it teaches with ה, such as: "The woman that went", "The woman whose husband went", "The woman that was widowed", "The man betroths". Problem: we also teach regarding this "A virgin married"—why did [the Mishnah] not teach "The virgin married"? Solution: Here, it relies on Scripture, i.e. that it is "The woman" selected in the verse, for we find "A woman" selected in Scripture regarding marriage, as it is written, "When a man acquires a woman". But "A virgin" does not rely on Scripture, for we don't find any place where "A virgin" is specified in Scripture regarding marriage. However, problem: Later we teach [in the Mishnah] "A Hebrew slave", "A Canaanite slave", "A Hebrew slave girl"—why does it not teach them with ה, for they are selected by the verse! Perhaps with these, slave and slave girl, the use of ה is not suitable for them, for they are not so selected, since it is required to explain which of them one is, whether Hebrew man, Canaanite man, Hebrew woman, or Canaanite woman, as as opposed to regarding the Yevamah where it teaches "The Yevamah". But one shouldn't care too much, for in every place the Tanna teaches the language that flows from his mouth. For thus we find that, in some places it teaches the law before the list—like here [because it begins with "The woman is acquired in 3 ways..." and only then lists the 3 ways]. This is also the case for "A virgin is married on Wednesday", "An etrog is equal to a tree in 3 ways", "The Torah is acquired in 48 ways"—and in other places it teaches the list first—such as "With 10 statements", They check light for 14", "7 days before Yom Kippur", "In seven ways they check the zav", "In 3 ways are women's gittin equal to slaves' emancipation agreements".

As we will explain later on, "and these three are in female form." And the Gemara will ask why it's taught in feminine form.

"Beit Shammai say: With a dinar". In Eduyot 4:7, it teaches this [debate] among the [Mishnah's list of the] leniencies of Beit Shammai [that they aren't married if he gave her less than a Dinar] and the stringencies of Beit Hillel [that if he gave her a Pruta they'd be married and he'd have to divorce her]. Problem: If she received kiddushin [money] from another man, then Beit Shammai would be stringent [since, if it were less than a dinar, she would still be betrothed to the first man]! Solution: It was not brought up for this case [but for the more general case when Beit Shammai is lenient], just like we say in Yoma, "When it was brought up was for the subject of Og King of Bashan".

Our printing: And she "acquires" herself in two ways

"With a perutah or worth a perutah". Problem: [The Mishnah] only needed to teach "worth a perutah", as we teach in Ha-Zahav "There are 5 perutot: loans with something worth a perutah, and the woman is betrothed with something worth a perutah"! Solution: Because it teaches here "with money", it explains with which kind of money—dinar for Beit Shammai and perutah for Beit Hillel, and in order that we shouldn't err to say [it requires] specifically money (i.e. coins) and not something worth money, as we derive "Acquire" "Acquire" from the field of Efron, where it is written money, it explains: "worth money" [and not specifically coins]. [Problem:] But if you say: How do we know that something "worth money" can be equivalent to "money"? since later, [the Talmud] needs a verse regarding the Hebrew slave: "'He will return'—to include something worth money as money"! [Solution:] Well, it says later that "Rav Kahana took a turban for redeeming a firstborn son"—how do we know that something worth money can be equivalent to money [for redemption, since there is no proof offered, it is just assumed by Rav Kahana]?! Problem: In the first chapter of Shevuot, [the Talmud] derives this with כלל ופרט וכלל! Solution: Regarding arakhin it is written "money", and for hekdesh also, as we teach regarding one who makes a field hekdesh that "the hekdesh can be redeemed with money or something worth money"—how do we know that that something worth money can be equivalent to money [since there is no derivation here, for arakhin and hekdesh, either]?! Problem: For hedkesh, it is also possible that we explain through כלל ופרט וכלל, for hekdesh can't be redeemed with land, as we say in Ha-Zahav: "For they say hekdesh cannot be made unsanctified through land, for God says 'He will give the money and it will stand for him'", and later we also say that hekdesh and second tithe can't be redeemed with contracts (the only way you would come to these conclusions was if you were following כלל ופרט וכלל)! Problem: So how do we know that something worth money can be equivalent for kiddushin and arakhin [since all other categories here have specific ways in which this is derived]?! Solution: We derive it from the Hebrew slave. Problem: If you say: But regarding damages Scripture also wrote "He will return money to its master", and we explain this in the first chapter of Bava Kama, "'He will return'—to include something worth money as equivalent to money", and then, if so, Hebrew slave and damages would be 2 verses that teach the same thing and we do not learn from this [since the assumption is that the Torah would not repeat itself, so if it looks like 2 verses are teaching exactly the same thing, you must be wrong]! Solution: They are both needed. For, if it wrote [the verse about the Hebrew] slave only, I would not have been able to derive [that שווה כסף = כסף regarding] damages from it, for we find that the Torah cares about this topic [damages] more, and I might have thought that [it requires] specifically money and not something worth that much—thus, "He will return money" is needed for damages; and regarding the Hebrew slave the verse is also needed, for I would not have been able to derive it from damages, for I would have thought that a slave is similar to damages and if he could be purchased with land, so much the better [which we know he can't]—thus both are needed. Alternative solution: If it wrote about the slave. I would have thought it the law would be lenient on him such that he would be able to redeem himself even with something worth money, in order that he should not be mixed up among the Gentiles [since he is or could be sold to them], but regarding damages, for which it is not possible to say this, I would not have said this [and required literal coins]; and if it wrote about damages alone, I would not have been able to derive the slave from it, and I would have thought that something worth money is not equivalent to money for a slave, for he also in some way caused himself to be sold, because of his conducting business with Shemittah produce [which is forbidden to do] and according to R. Yose bR. Hanina later, and so I would have thought that we are stringent upon him to say: specifically money, and not something worth that much. Solution [going back to redeeming firstborns and hekdesh]: A verse is needed for redeeming firstborns and hekdesh that something worth money can be equivalent to money, and we can't derive it from the Hebrew slave, because [the midrash and the כלל ופרט וכלל] comes to exclude land and contracts, for one can't redeem sons or hekdesh with those [but you can use those to buy out your slavery, thus if we had learnt directly from Eved Ivri we would have come to an incorrect conclusion about hekdesh and pidyon ha-ben].

To be within her rights to marry another

"How much is a perutah?" The reason that [the Mishnah] doesn't explain how much a dinar is is because the dinar was known how much it was, for it was 1/24th of a golden dinar, as we say in the beginning of Ha-Zahav. But for a perutah, there is a disagreement later—sometimes it is worth less, sometimes more. Additionally: Since our halakhah is established according to Beit Hillel, it wanted to explain [their position] more.

The Braisa explains in the Gemara (5b), [acquisition with money:] give her money or money-equivalent and say to her, "behold you are betrothed to me." Document: write it for her on paper, even though the paper is not worth a prutah, [say,] "behold you are betrothed to me." Through intercourse: come upon her and say "betroth me with this intercourse." All of this is learned from the [written] Torah.

"1/8th of an issar". This is when the issars are normal, but when the issars are worth less, it is 1/6th, as we say in the Gemara (later).

Beit Shammai's reasoning is explained in the Gemara (11a)

"Italian (איטלקי)". Rabbenu Tam explained: This is the name Italy (of Greece), and one shouldn't be surprised about the ק just as we find "Shushan" spelled as שושנכיא (in Ezra 4:9).

of copper

of silver and its value is eight prutas.

A man can betroth his wife in any one of three ways. The first is by giving her a small amount of money and saying to her “Behold you are betrothed to me with this money.” Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate how much money is needed to effect betrothal. What is crucial is that both a denar and a perutah are small amounts of money; a perutah is almost valueless. These are not representative of a woman’s true value, which is clearly much greater. Rather they are symbolic, especially in Bet Hillel’s opinion. To this day, nearly all betrothals are effected through money. Since the Middle Ages and perhaps earlier, Jews have used rings to effect betrothal. This custom was originally a Christian custom. In the Talmud rings are never used.
The second way is for the husband to write her a document in which it is stated, “Behold you are betrothed to me.” This document is not to be confused with a ketubah, although some scholars posit that they are both derived from common origins and that originally they were written together.
The thirds means of betrothal is sexual relations. This act must be done with the intent of betrothal. No one holds that casual intercourse can effect betrothal. The thornier problem is whether or not sexual relations between a couple “living together” can effect betrothal. Most modern halakhists rule that it does not, although there are some who hold that couples who live together with the intent to form a familial type of unit do require a get in order to separate.