Kiddushin, Daf Het, Part 1
Introduction
At the end of last week s daf R. Joseph said that when a woman is betrothed with the equivalent of money, i.e. goods, the goods must have a clearly defined value. In our sugya, R. Joseph offers a source for this ruling. The source is then rejected by Rabbah.
אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא (ויקרא כה, נא) מכסף מקנתו בכסף הוא נקנה ואינו נקנה בתבואה וכלים
R. Joseph said: From where do I know this? As it was taught: [He shall give back the price of his redemption] out of the money that he was bought for (Leviticus 25:51): He may be acquired by money, but not by produce or utensils.
R. Joseph takes a source about a Hebrew slave who buys his freedom. The verse implies he was acquired with money, which the rabbis understand as excluding produce or utensils.
האי תבואה וכלים היכי דמי אילימא דלא מקנו בהו כלל (ויקרא כה, נא) ישיב גאולתו אמר רחמנא לרבות שוה כסף ככסף
Now, what is meant by produce or utensils ? If we say, that he cannot be acquired through these at all? He shall return the price of his redemption, to include the equivalent of money as money?
The baraita cannot possibly mean that a slave cannot be acquired by produce or utensils for we have an explicit source that says that he can. When he pays back his purchase price, he can pay back the equivalent of money. Thus he must have been acquired through goods as well.
ואי דלית בהו שוה פרוטה מאי איריא תבואה וכלים אפי’ כסף נמי
And if they are worth less than a perutah, why specify produce and utensils ? Even money [would not be effective if it is less than a perutah].
The produce and utensils would not be valid to acquire the slave if they were less than a perutah, but this is true also of money. So why specify produce and utensils.
אלא לאו דאית בהו שוה פרוטה וכיון דלא קייצי לא
Rather it must refer to a case where they are worth a perutah, but since they are not definite, they cannot [acquire the slave].
This is the conclusion of R. Joseph s proof. The problem with acquiring a slave with produce or utensils is that they do not have definite value. Thus the same, according to R. Joseph, applies to kiddushin the goods used for kiddushin must have a definite value.
ואידך ה"ק בתורת כסף הוא נקנה ואין נקנה בתורת תבואה וכלים ומאי נינהו חליפין
And the other? This is what it means: he can be acquired through the law of money, but not through the law of produce or utensils. And what is this? Exchange.
Rabbah argued earlier that the goods being used for kiddushin do not need to be of definite value. So how does he read this baraita, such that it does not prove R. Joseph s rule? He reads it as excluding exchange as a means to acquire a slave (or to betroth). Exchange is the symbolic act whereby one person symbolically acquires something of insignificant value and thereby gives the other person something of significant value. This was often done with a handkerchief. Sometimes today it is done with a pen. The two most common occasions on which one would see this is with the signing of the ketubah and with selling chametz.
ולרב נחמן דאמר פירות לא עבדי חליפין מאי איכא למימר
But according to R. Nahman, who ruled: produce cannot effect exchanges, what can be said?
There is a debate in Bava Metzia whether produce can be used in exchanges. R. Nahman says it cannot and thus there is no need to exclude produce.
אלא לעולם דלית בהו שוה פרוטה ודקאמרת מאי איריא תבואה וכלים אפי’ כסף נמי לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא כסף דאי אית ביה שוה פרוטה אין אי לא לא אבל תבואה וכלים אימא מדמקרבא הנאתייהו גמר ומקני נפשיה קא משמע לן
Rather, it does after all refer to a case where they are not worth a perutah: and as to your objection, why specify produce and utensils ? The same applies to money? It was a not even necessary to say statement. It is unnecessary [to state] that money, only if worth a perutah is it valid, but if it is not valid. But as for produce and utensils, I might argue, Since the benefit derived is immediate, he resolves and lets himself be acquired. Therefore he teaches us that this is not so.
The Talmud now retracts and says that produce and utensils are invalid only if they are not worth a perutah. Above, we rejected this interpretation because the same is true of money it too must be worth a perutah. So why specify produce and utensils ? The answer is that we might actually have thought that goods worth less than a perutah can be used for kiddushin because they can be used immediately. For instance, if you need an eraser, it might be worth more to you than a perutah, even if you would not pay a perutah for an eraser at the store. Therefore, the baraita needs to teach us that a slave cannot be bought for less than a perutah. But according to Rabbah, the goods need not have a definite value.