Kiddushin, Daf Yod Aleph, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s sugya discusses the statement we learned yesterday about whether the coins referred to are Tyrian coins or the lower value provincial coins.

 

גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי כל כסף האמור בתורה כסף צורי ושל דבריהם כסף מדינה :

 

It was stated above: Rav Judah said in the name of R. Assi: Wherever money is mentioned in the Torah it refers to Tyrian coinage; but if it is a case of rabbinic law, it refers to provincial coinage.

 

This is the same statement we saw at the end of yesterday s passage.

 

וכללא הוא והרי טענה דכתיב (שמות כב, ו) כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף או כלים לשמור ותנן שבועת הדיינין הטענה שתי כסף וההודאה שוה פרוטה

 

Now, is this a universal rule? But what of a claim, concerning which it is written: If a man gives to his neighbor money or utensils to keep yet we learned: The oath taken before judges [is imposed] for a [minimum] claim of two silver [ma’ahs] and an admission of a perutah ?

 

The Talmud now examines whether R. Asi s rule is always true. There is a concept called partial admission. Let me illustrate this. Reuven claims that Shimon owes him something and Shimon admits that he owes him some of what Reuven claims but not the whole amount. Shimon now must take an oath that he does not owe him the rest. For this to happen, Reuven s claim must be for at least two ma ahs and Shimon must deny at least a perutah. But why two ma ahs? Why not one? After all, a dinar would seem to be the minimum amount for any money mentioned in the Torah and as the Talmud shows, the source of this oath is from a verse (it is derived midrashically from there).

 

התם דומיא דכלים מה כלים שנים אף כסף שנים ומה כסף דבר חשוב אף כלים דבר חשוב

 

There it is similar to utensils : just as utensils implies [at least] two, so must money refer to two [coins], and just as money is something of value, so utensils are something of value.

 

The reason why the claim must be for two pieces of silver and not just one is a midrash comparing money and utensils, which appears in the plural. Just as the claim must be for utensils, i.e. a minimum of two, so too must the claim of money be for at least two coins. These coins must have value, like utensils. So it cannot be for two perutot, which have minimal value.

Thus this source does not disprove the rule that any money mentioned in the Torah must be Tyrian coins.