Kiddushin

so must the equivalent be definite.1 R. Joseph said: Whence do I know it? For it was taught: [If there be yet many years, according unto them he shall give back the price of his redemption] out of the money with which he was acquired:2 thus he3 may be acquired by money, but not by produce or utensils. Now, what is meant by ‘produce or utensils’? Shall we say, that he cannot be acquired through these at all? But Scripture saith, ‘he shall return the price of his redemption,’ to include the equivalent of money as money?4 Whilst if they are worth less than a perutah, why specify ‘produce and utensil’? The same applies to money too? Hence it must surely mean that they are worth a perutah, but since they are not definite, they cannot [acquire the slave].5 And the other?6 — This is its meaning: he can be acquired in virtue of money, but not in virtue of produce or utensils. And what is that? Barter.7 But according to R. Nahman, who ruled: produce cannot effect a barter,8 what can be said? — But after all it means that they are not worth a perutah: and as to your objection, why specify ‘produce and utensils’? The same applies to money? He [the Tanna] proceeds to a climax.9 [Thus:] It is unnecessary [to state] that money, only if worth a perutah is it valid,10 not otherwise. But as for produce and utensils, I might argue, Since the benefit derived is immediate,11 he resolves and lets himself be acquired. Therefore we are informed [otherwise]. R. Joseph said: How do I know it? For it was taught: [If one declares,] ‘This calf be for my son's redemption,’12 ‘this garment be for my son's redemption,’ his declaration is invalid.13 ‘This calf, worth five sela's,14 be for my son's redemption,’ or ‘this garment, worth five sela's, be for my son's redemption,’ — his son is redeemed. Now, how is this redemption meant? Shall we say that it [the calf or the garment] is not worth [five sela's]? does it rest with him!15 Hence it must surely mean even if it is worth [it]; yet since it was not defined, it is not valid!16 — No. After all, it means that it was not worth [it], but, we suppose the priest accepted it [for the full value], as in the case of R. Kahana, who accepted a scarf for a son's redemption,17 observing to him,18 ‘To me it is worth five sela's’ R. Ashi said: This holds good only of, e.g., [a man like] R. Kahana, who is a great man and needs a scarf19 for his head; but not of people in general.20 Thus it happened that Mar, son of R. Ashi, bought a scarf from the mother of Rabbah of Kubi21 worth ten for thirteen. R. Eleazar said: [If a man declares,] ‘Be betrothed to me with a maneh,’ and he gives her a denar, she is betrothed, and he must complete [the amount]. Why? Since he stipulated a maneh but gave her a denar, it is as though he had said to her ‘on condition’ [that I give you a maneh], and R. Huna said in Rab's name: He who says on condition,’ is as though he says ‘from now’.22 An objection is raised: [If a man declares,] ‘Be betrothed to me with a maneh,’ and is proceeding with the counting out [of the money], and either party wishes to retract, even at the last denar he [or she] can do so!23 — The reference here is to one who declares, ‘With this maneh.’24 But since the second clause refers to ‘this maneh,’ the first treats of an unspecified maneh? For the second clause teaches: If he declares to her, ‘Be thou betrothed unto me by this maneh,’ and it is found to be a maneh short of a denar or containing a copper denar,25 she is not betrothed: [if it contained] a debased denar,26 she is betrothed, but he must change it. — No: the first and the second clauses [both] refer to ‘with this maneh,’ ‘the second [being] explanatory of the first. [Thus:] if either party wishes to retract, even at the last denar, he [or she] can do so. How so? E.g., if he said to her, ‘for this maneh.’ Reason too supports this view, for should you think that the first clause refers to an unspecified maneh: seeing that it is not kiddushin in the case of an unspecified maneh: is it necessary [to teach it] in the case of ‘for this maneh?’ — As for that,it does not prove it: the second clause may be stated in order to illumine the first, that you should not say: The first clause deals with ‘this maneh,’ but in the case of an unspecified maneh it is valid kiddushin: therefore the second clause is taught with reference to ‘this maneh,’ whence it follows that the first refers to an unspecified maneh, yet even so, the kiddushin is null. R. Ashi said:27 If he is proceeding with the counting it is different, because [then we assume] her mind is set on the whole sum. This ‘copper denar,’ how is it meant? If she knew thereof, then she understood and accepted? — This is only if he gave it to her at night, or she found it among the other zuz. How is this ‘debased denar’ meant? If it has no currency, is it not the same as a copper denar?28 — Said R. Papa, E.g.,it circulates with difficulty.29 Raba said in R. Nahman's name: If he says to her, ‘Be thou betrothed to me with a maneh,’ and gives her a pledge on it, she is not betrothed: then he can be purchased on the same terms. given under that designation, but not in the nature of barter, in exchange for the slave: for barter can acquire only movables, whereas human beings rank as real estate. the second it was. willing to pay an enhanced price for it when necessary. later.’ effects betrothal.