Kiddushin 15

אף שוה כסף נמי דקייץ

so must the equivalent be definite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its value must be exactly known.');">¹</span> R'Joseph said: Whence do I know it?

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא (ויקרא כה, נא) מכסף מקנתו בכסף הוא נקנה ואינו נקנה בתבואה וכלים

For it was taught: [If there be yet many years, according unto them he shall give back the price of his redemption] out of the money with which he was acquired:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 51; this refers to the redemption of a Hebrew slave.');">²</span> thus he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hebrew slave.');">³</span>

האי תבואה וכלים היכי דמי אילימא דלא מקנו בהו כלל (ויקרא כה, נא) ישיב גאולתו אמר רחמנא לרבות שוה כסף ככסף

may be acquired by money, but not by produce or utensils. Now, what is meant by 'produce or utensils'?

ואי דלית בהו שוה פרוטה מאי איריא תבואה וכלים אפי' כסף נמי אלא לאו דאית בהו שוה פרוטה וכיון דלא קייצי לא

Shall we say, that he cannot be acquired through these at all? But Scripture saith, 'he shall return the price of his redemption,' to include the equivalent of money as money?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'He shall return' implies that a return may be made in any way desired, i.e., by goods of monetary value; obviously then he can be purchased on the same terms.');">⁴</span>

ואידך ה"ק בתורת כסף הוא נקנה ואין נקנה בתורת תבואה וכלים ומאי נינהו חליפין

Whilst if they are worth less than a perutah, why specify 'produce and utensil'? The same applies to money too?

ולרב נחמן דאמר פירות לא עבדי חליפין מאי איכא למימר אלא לעולם דלית בהו שוה פרוטה ודקאמרת מאי איריא תבואה וכלים אפי' כסף נמי לא מיבעיא קאמר

Hence it must surely mean that they are worth a perutah, but since they are not definite, they cannot [acquire the slave].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the same holds good of a woman.');">⁵</span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah: How does he refute this proof?');">⁶</span>

לא מיבעיא כסף דאי אית ביה שוה פרוטה אין אי לא לא אבל תבואה וכלים אימא מדמקרבא הנאתייהו גמר ומקני נפשיה קא משמע לן

- This is its meaning: he can be acquired in virtue of money, but not in virtue of produce or utensils. And what is that?

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא עגל זה לפדיון בני טלית זה לפדיון בני לא אמר כלום עגל זה בחמש סלעים לפדיון בני טלית זו בחמש סלעים לפדיון בני בנו פדוי

Barter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatever is given for a slave, be it money or property, must be given as money. Produce and utensils too can be given under that designation, but not in the nature of barter, in exchange for the slave: for barter can acquire only movables, whereas human beings rank as real estate.');">⁷</span> But according to R'Nahman, who ruled: produce cannot effect a barter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An article must be given, but not produce.');">⁸</span>

האי פדיון היכי דמי אילימא דלא שוי כל כמיניה אלא לאו אף על גב דשוי וכיון דלא קייצי לא

what can be said? - But after all it means that they are not worth a perutah: and as to your objection, why specify 'produce and utensils'? The same applies to money?

לא לעולם דלא שוי וכגון דקביל כהן עילויה כי הא דרב כהנא שקיל סודרא מבי פדיון הבן אמר ליה לדידי חזי לי חמש סלעים

He [the Tanna] proceeds to a climax.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he says, it is unnecessary.'');">⁹</span> [Thus:] It is unnecessary [to state] that money, only if worth a perutah is it valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב אשי לא אמרן אלא כגון רב כהנא דגברא רבה הוא ומבעי ליה סודרא ארישיה אבל כולי עלמא לא כי הא דמר בר רב אשי זבן סודרא מאימיה דרבה מקובי שוי עשרה בתליסר :

not otherwise. But as for produce and utensils, I might argue, Since the benefit derived is immediate,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They can be put to immediate use, unlike money, which must first be expended.');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבי אלעזר התקדשי לי במנה ונתן לה דינר הרי זו מקודשת וישלים מאי טעמא כיון דאמר לה מנה ויהב לה דינר כמאן דאמר לה על מנת דמי

he resolves and lets himself be acquired. Therefore we are informed [otherwise].

ואמר רב הונא אמר רב כל האומר ע"מ כאומר מעכשיו דמי

R'Joseph said: How do I know it? For it was taught: [If one declares,] 'This calf be for my son's redemption,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 138.');">¹²</span>

מיתיבי התקדשי לי במנה והיה מונה והולך ורצה אחד מהן לחזור אפילו בדינר האחרון הרשות בידו

'this garment be for my son's redemption,' his declaration is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has said nothing.'');">¹³</span> 'This calf, worth five sela's,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sela' - Biblical Shekel.');">¹⁴</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר במנה זו הא מדסיפא במנה זו רישא במנה סתם

be for my son's redemption,' or 'this garment, worth five sela's, be for my son's redemption,' - his son is redeemed. Now, how is this redemption meant?

דקא תני סיפא אמר לה התקדשי לי במנה זו ונמצא מנה חסר דינר או דינר של נחשת אינה מקודשת דינר רע הרי זו מקודשת ויחליף

Shall we say that it [the calf or the garment] is not worth [five sela's]? does it rest with him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To assign to it an artificial valuation - surely not!');">¹⁵</span>

לא רישא וסיפא דאמר במנה זו ופרושי קא מפרש רצה אחד מהן לחזור אפי' בדינר האחרון הרשות בידו כיצד כגון דאמר לה במנה זו

Hence it must surely mean even if it is worth [it]; yet since it wa not defined, it is not valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the only possible difference between the two clauses is that in the first it was not formally valued, whereas in the second it was.');">¹⁶</span> - No.

והכי נמי מסתברא דאי ס"ד רישא במנה סתם השתא במנה סתם לא הוו קידושי במנה זו מיבעיא

After all, it means that it was not worth [it], but, we suppose the priest accepted it [for the full value], as in the case of R'Kahana, who accepted a scarf for a son's redemption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although it was certainly not worth five sela's.');">¹⁷</span> observing to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The father who redeemed his son.');">¹⁸</span>

אי משום הא לא איריא תנא סיפא לגלוי רישא שלא תאמר רישא במנה זו אבל במנה סתם הוו קידושין תנא סיפא במנה זו מכלל דרישא במנה סתם ואפילו הכי לא הוו קידושין

'To me it is worth five sela's' R'Ashi said: This holds good only of, e.g. , [a man like] R Kahana, who is a great man and needs a scarf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [A sudarium, which served as a distinctive head-gear for scholars. V. Krauss, T.A., I, 167.] Hence he would be willing to pay an enhanced price for it when necessary.');">¹⁹</span> for his head; but not of people in general.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a priest cannot place a fictitious price upon an article unless it may conceivably be worth it for him.');">²⁰</span>

רב אשי אמר מונה והולך שאני דדעתה אכוליה

Thus it happened that Mar, son of R'Ashi, bought a scarf from the mother of Rabbah of Kubi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neubauer, Geographie, p. 397, is unable to identify this. [MS.M.: Raba b. Kahana.]');">²¹</span> worth ten for thirteen.

האי דינר של נחשת היכי דמי אי דידעה ביה הא סברה וקבלה לא צריכא דיהביה ניהליה בליליא אי נמי דאשתכח ליה ביני זוזי

R'Eleazar said: [If a man declares,] 'Be betrothed to me with a maneh,' and he gives her a denar, she is betrothed, and he must complete [the amount]. Why?

האי דינר רע היכי דמי אי דלא נפיק היינו דינר של נחשת אמר רב פפא כגון דנפיק על ידי הדחק :

Since he stipulated a maneh but gave her a denar, it is as though he had said to her 'on condition' [that I give you a maneh], and R'Huna said in Rab's name: He who says on condition,' is as though he says 'from now'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus here it is as though he said: 'Be betrothed to me immediately for a denar, on condition that I give you a maneh later.'');">²²</span> An objection is raised: [If a man declares,] 'Be betrothed to me with a maneh,' and is proceeding with the counting out [of the money], and either party wishes to retract, even at the last denar he [or she] can do so!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The kiddushin being invalid until the whole sum is given. This contradicts the view that the first denar immediately effects betrothal.');">²³</span>

אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן אמר לה התקדשי לי במנה והניח לה משכון עליה אינה מקודשת

- The reference here is to one who declares, 'With this maneh.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the woman desires the whole of that maneh before she consents.');">²⁴</span> But since the second clause refers to 'this maneh,' the first treats of an unspecified maneh? For the second clause teaches: If he declares to her, 'Be thou betrothed unto me by this maneh,' and it is found to be a maneh short of a denar or containing a copper denar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A maneh - a hundred silver denarii.');">²⁵</span> she is not betrothed: [if it contained] a debased denar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., underweight.');">²⁶</span> she is betrothed, but he must change it. - No: the first and the second clauses [both] refer to 'with this maneh,' 'the second [being] explanatory of the first. [Thus:] if either party wishes retract, even at the last denar, he [or she] can do so. How so? E.g. , if he said to her, 'for this maneh.' Reaso too supports this view, for should you think that the first clause refers to an unspecified maneh: seeing that it is not kiddushin in the case of an unspecified maneh: is it necessary [to teach it] in the case of 'for this maneh? ' - As for that,it does not prove it: the second clause may be stated in order to illumine the first, that you should not say: The first clause deals with 'this maneh,' but in the case of an unspecified maneh it is valid kiddushin: therefore the second clause is taught with reference to 'this maneh,' whence it follows that the first refers to an unspecified maneh, yet even so, the kiddushin is null. R'Ashi said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Answering the objection against R. Eleazer.');">²⁷</span> If he is proceeding with the counting it is different, because [then we assume] her mind is set on the whole sum. This 'copper denar,' how is it meant? If she knew thereof, then she understood and accepted? - This is only if he gave it to her at night, or she found it among the other zuz. How is this 'debased denar' meant? If it has no currency, is it not the same as a copper denar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then is she betrothed?');">²⁸</span> - Said R'Papa, E.g. ,it circulates with difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only few people accept it.');">²⁹</span> Raba said in R'Nahman's name: If he says to her, 'Be thou betrothed to me with a maneh,' and gives her a pledge on it, she is not betrothed: