Kiddushin

[i] Live animals may be rendered [permanently] rejected;1 [ii] that which is rejected ab initio is rejected;2 [iii] rejection applies to monetary sanctity.3 Raba propounded: What [if one declares,] ‘Thy half [be betrothed to me] for half a perutah, and thy [other] half for half a perutah’? Since he says to her, ‘for half a perutah,’ he divided it;4 or perhaps, he was proceeding with his enumeration?5 Should you rule, he was proceeding with his enumeration: what [if he declares,] ‘Thy half [be betrothed unto me] for a peru!ah, and thy [other] half for a perutah’? Since he said to her, ‘for a perutah’ ‘and a perutah’, he divided his proposal;6 or perhaps, providing it was on the same day, he was proceeding with his enumeration? Should you answer: Providing it was on the same day, he was proceeding with his enumeration: What [if he declares,] ‘Thy half [be betrothed to me] for a perutah to-day, and thy [other] half for a perutah tomorrow’? Since he said to her, ‘To-morrow,’ he divided it; or perhaps he meant thus: the kiddushin commence immediately, but shall not be completed until to-morrow? [Further,] what [if he says], ‘Thy two halves for a perutah’: here he certainly proposed to her in once; or perhaps a woman cannot be betrothed at all by halves? The questions stand over. Raba propounded: What [if he declares,] ‘Thy two daughters [be betrothed] to my two sons for a perutah’? Do we consider the giver and the receiver, so that there is money;7 or perhaps, we consider them [who betroth and are betrothed], and there is not? The question stands over. R. Papa propounded: What [if he declares,] ‘Thy daughter and thy cow [be mine] for a perutah’? Do we say [it means,] thy daughter for half a perutah, and thy cow for half a perutah:8 or perhaps [he meant,] ‘Thy daughter by a perutah, and thy cow by meshika’?9 The question stands over. R. Ashi propounded: What [if one declares,] ‘Thy daughter and thy land [be mine] for a perutah’? Does he mean, ‘Thy daughter for half a perutah and thy land for half a perutah’; or perhaps, ‘Thy daughter for a perutah, and thy land by hazakah’? 10 The question stands over. A certain man betrothed [a woman] with silk.11 Rabbah ruled: No valuation is necessary;12 R. Joseph maintained: It must be valued. Now, if he declared to her, ‘[Be thou betrothed to me] for whatever it is worth,’ all agree that valuation is unnecessary.13 If he declared to her, ‘[Be thou betrothed to me] for fifty [zuz],’ and this [the silk] is not worth fifty: then of course it is not worth it!14 They differ only if he stipulated fifty and it was worth fifty. Rabbah maintained: [Prior] valuation is unnecessary, since it is worth fifty: R. Joseph said: [Prior] valuation is required: Since the woman has no expert knowledge of its value, she does not rely thereon.15 Others state: They disagree in the case of ‘for whatever it is worth’ too. R. Joseph maintained: The equivalent of money must be as money itself: just as the latter is definite, when the other half too is dedicated. There is an opposing view that only a dead animal can be rendered permanently ineligible, v. Yoma 64a. an animal can be rendered unfit only if it was originally rejected permanently. should be expended for a sacrifice; nevertheless it becomes permanently ineligible for the altar. This excludes the view that might have been held that only an animal that was fit in the first place to be dedicated to the altar can be rendered permanently ineligible. entirely for the first perutah.