Kiddushin

until she enters huppah, on account of ‘Ulla's statement. And the son of Bag Bag?1 — He disregards the possibility of nullification in the case of slaves: if there are open bodily defects — then he has seen them.2 If on account of concealed bodily defects, what does it matter to him? He needs him for work, and so does not care. If he [the slave] is found to be a thief or a rogue,3 he is his.4 What can you say: he was discovered to be an armed robber or proscribed by the State5 — these are well known.6 Let us see: both agree that she [an arusah] may not eat:7 wherein then do they differ? — They differ where he [the husband] accepted [bodily defects],8 or he [the father] delivered [her to the husband's messengers to be taken to her husband's home],9 or if they [the father's messengers] were on the way with [the husband's messengers to escort the bride to her new home].10 ‘BY MONEY: BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN, BY A DENAR etc. What is Beth Shammai's reason? — Said R. Zera: Because a woman is particular about herself and will not [permit herself to] become betrothed with less than a denar. Abaye objected to him: If so, then e.g., R. Jannai's daughters, who are particular about themselves and will not become betrothed with less than a tarkabful11 of denarii, if she stretches out her hand and accepts a zuz from a stranger [as kiddushin], is the kiddushin indeed invalid?12 — He replied: If she stretches out her hand and accepts. I do not say thus: I refer to a case where he betroths her at night,13 or if she appoints an agent.14 R. Joseph said: Beth Shammai's reason is in accordance with Rab Judah's dictum in R. Assi's name, viz., Wherever ‘money’15 is mentioned in Scripture: Tyrian coinage is meant; whereas the Rabbinical usage16 refers to provincial coinage.17 It was stated above: Rab Judah said in R. Assi's name: Whenever ‘money’ is mentioned in Scripture: Tyrian coinage is meant; whereas the Rabbinical usage refers to provincial coinage. Now, is this a universal rule? R. Judah b. Bathyra she is forbidden, since ‘Ulla's reason holds good here. possibility of nullification. provincial denar = 1/8th of a Tyrian, etc.; v. J.E. IX, 351, and Zuckermann, Tal. Mun. pp. 15-33. Tyrian is further to be identified with Jerusalem (coins). Krauss, T.A., 11-405 and n. 639 a.l., v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 204, n. 11. Now, since kiddushin by money is Biblical (supra 2a), it cannot be a copper perutah, for there were no copper coins in the Tyrian system: hence, the perutah being excluded, it is evident that a coin of considerable value is required, and this was fixed at a denar.