Kiddushin, Daf Yod Aleph, Part 6
The sugya continues to try to understand why Bet Shammai rules that a woman cannot be betrothed for less than a dinar.
רבי שמעון בן לקיש אומר טעמייהו דבית שמאי כדחזקיה דאמר חזקיה אמר קרא (שמות כא, ח) והפדה מלמד שמגרעת מפדיונה ויוצאה
אי אמרת בשלמא דיהב לה דינר היינו דמגרעה ואזלה עד פרוטה אלא אי אמרת דיהב לה פרוטה מפרוטה מי מגרעה
R. Shimon b. Lakish said: Beth Shammai’s reason is in accordance with Hizkiyah. For Hizkiyah said: The verse says, Then he shall let her be redeemed (Exodus 21:8), this teaches that she deducts from her redemption [money] and goes out [free].
Now, if you say that he [the master] gave her a dinar, it makes sense, she can continue deducting until a perutah.
But if you say that he gave her a perutah: what can be deducted from a perutah?
R. Shimon b. Lakish says that Bet Shammai derives the rule that a woman is betrothed for a minimum of a dinar from a rule that Hizkiyah stated with regard to the redemption of a slave girl. The Torah says that the girl (or someone else on her behalf) can continue to reduce from the money through which she was purchased. If she was acquired for a dinar, then this could be reduced to a perutah, essentially buying her back. But if she was acquired through a perutah, there is no more money that could be reduced.
ודלמא ה"ק רחמנא היכא דיהב לה דינר תיגרע עד פרוטה היכא דיהב לה פרוטה לא תיגרע כלל
But perhaps this is what the Torah said: if he gave her a dinar, she can go on deducting until a perutah; [but] if he gave her a perutah, she does not deduct at all?
Perhaps the notion of deducting is not mandated. He could buy her for whatever amount her father would agree to. She only deducts if there is enough to deduct from.
לא ס"ד דומיא דייעוד מה ייעוד אע"ג דאי בעי מייעד ואי בעי לא מייעד כל היכא דלא מצי מייעד לא הוו זבינא זביני ה"נ כל היכא דלא מצי מיגרעא לא הוו זבינא זביני
You cannot think so, [for] it is similar to designation: just as designation, even though he [the master] can designate her or not, in a case where he cannot designate her, the sale is invalid; so too here, where he cannot deduct, the sale is invalid.
The Talmud rejects the above notion, positing that like designation, deducting from the sale money must be possible for the sale to be invalid. Designation refers to the idea that the owner would marry the girl off to his son. If this is not possible, for instance the son is prohibited to her, then the sale is not valid.
I should reemphasize by rabbinic times such institutions such as selling daughters into slavery did not exist. They are there in the Torah, and therefore rabbis interpret them, but they did not practice them in their real lives.
וקידושי אשה לב"ש נפקא להו מאמה העבריה מה אמה העבריה בפרוטה לא מקניא אף אשה בפרוטה לא מיקדשא
And a woman’s kiddushin, according to Beth Shammai, is deduced from a Hebrew female slave: just as a Hebrew female slave cannot be acquired for a perutah, so a woman cannot be betrothed for a perutah.
As stated above, Beth Shammai derives the laws of betrothal from the laws of the female slave. This is the conclusion of Resh Lakish s statement.
ואימא פלגא דדינר ואימא שתי פרוטות כיון דאפיקתיה מפרוטה אוקמה אדינר
Then say half a dinar, or two perutahs?
Since it excluded a perutah, they established it at a dinar.
Although a perutah cannot be used, why does the amount have to go all the way up to a dinar. Why not some amount in-between? The answer is that once a perutah was excluded, they went to the next highest coin.
רבא אמר היינו טעמא דב"ש שלא יהו בנות ישראל כהפקר
Rava said: This is Beth Shammai’s reason: that the daughters of Israel should not be treated like ownerless property.
This is the conclusion of the sugya about why Bet Shammai demands a dinar. Less than a dinar is simply too cheap. It s treating Jewish women as if they were hefker, ownerless property that no one cares about.
While this is a more pleasant saying than comparing betrothal to slave acquisition, we should acknowledge that a dinar is still a very low amount of money.