Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that, according to ben Bag-Bag, there is no Simpon by Avadim. The purchaser does not have a claim of a false sale by ...

1. ... visible blemishes - because he obviously saw them and accepted them.
2. ... hidden blemishes - because why should it bother him, seeing as he only needs the slave to work.
3. ... a slave who turns out to be a thief or a Kubiyustes (a kidnapper - see Tosfos) - because that is only to be expected of a slave.
4. ... an armed robber or if he is being hunted by the king's men for murder - because these have a Kol, and we assume that he knew about it (in which case he accepted the situation, and cannot later claim that it was a false sale).

(b) Basically then, ben Bag-Bag and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira agree that an Arusah bas Yisrael is forbidden to eat Terumah, either because of Simpon or because of the fear that she will feed her siblings. They argue only in two cases. They argue by 'Kibeil' (if he accepted the blemishes before they became betrothed), where Simpon no longer applies, but the fear that she might feed her siblings does. Their Machlokes in the case of 'Masar ve'Halach is - during the short period between the time that the girl's father had already handed her over to the Chasan's Sheluchim to take her to the Chupah, or if his own Sheluchim accompanied the Chasan's Sheluchim, when she is still an Arusah, but is no longer in the company of her siblings. In that case, Simpon will still be applicable, but the fear that she will feed her siblings will not (and this is the case about which ben Bag-Bag expressed surprise).

(a) Rebbi Zeira initially ascribes Beis Shamai who requires a Dinar for Kidushin, to the fact that a woman will not agree to less. Abaye asked him from the daughters of Rebbi Yanai, who were fussy not to accept less than three Kabin of gold coins. Would he say there too, that if one of them did accept one Zuz, the Kidushin would not be effective?

(b) To which Rebbi Zeira replied - that obviously, if one of the daughters (or anybody else) accepted less than the norm, she would be betrothed. And he was speaking is a specific case, as we shall now see.

(c) And he established Beis Shamai - when she either became betrothed at night (when she could not see the coins that she was receiving, or when she appointed a Sheli'ach to receive the Kidushin on her behalf, without telling her how much she expected.

(a) Rav Yosef connects Beis Shamai with a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi - who said that whenever the Torah specifies oney, it refers to the coinage known as 'Kesef Tzuri'; each Shekel being a Shekel Tzuri, and whenever no specific coin is mentioned, then it refers to the smallest Tzuri coin.

(b) This rules out a P'rutah with regard to Kidushin - because Kesef Tzuri comprises only silver, and P'rutos are made of copper (and the Torah specifically writes by Kidushin 'Kesef' (via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kichah" "Kichah" from S'dei Efron).

(c) The basic difference between Kesef Tzuri and Kesef Medinah lies in the fact - that a Medinah coin is one eighth of its Tzuri counterpart.

(d) Despite the fact that there are other silver coins of smaller demoninations than a Dinar, Beis Shamai fix the minimum Shiur for Kidushin as a Dinar - because once the Torah precludes a P'rutah, we assume that a more valuable coin is required (which Chazal fixed at a Dinar [See also Tosfos Amud Beis, who maintains that a Dinar was the smallest Tzuri coin).

4)

(a) The Torah writes (in connection with a Shomer Chinam) "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu Kesef O Keilim Lishmor ... Asher Yomar *Ki Hu Zeh*" - from which we learn the principle 'Modeh be'Miktzas ha'Ta'anah Yishava' (someone who admits to part of the claim, is obligated to swear on the rest).

(b) The Mishnah in Shevu'os gives as the minimum sum for a monetary claim (according to Shmuel, and the denial, according to Rav) - two Ma'ah.

(c) The smallest coin in the range of Tzuri coins - is a Ma'ah.

(a) The Mishnah in Shevu'os poses a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi ('Kol Kesef he'Amur ba'Torah S'tam ... ') - inasmuch as *one* Ma'ah should suffice. From where did the Tana learn two?

(b) Rav Asi answers - with the Torah's Hekesh of Kesef to Keilim, (which automatically implies two).

(c) The Torah compares Keilim to Kesef - inasmuch as the vessels, like the money, must be valuable (one does swear, for example, on vessels as inauspicious as two pins).

(a) Others explain that a Dinar is the smallest Tzuri coin. They explain the Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi from the Mishnah - as being how can Chazal then take the Pasuk out of context on the basis of a Hekesh (since "Kesef" always implies Kesef Tzuri, how can one use other coins)?

(b) We answer - that the Hekesh teaches us that as long as the Kesef, like the Keilim, is valuable, it is included, even though it is not Kesef Tzuri.

(c) Rashi rejects this explanation, on the grounds that, besides the change of text from the Sugya in Shevu'os (which learns this Limud the other way round [Keilim from Kesef]), the words 'Mah Keilim Davar Chashuv, Af Kesef Davar Chashuv' make no sense - seeing as pins (which are also included in "Keilim") can hardly be termed as 'a Davar Chashuv'?

(d) According to Rashi, the comparison of Kesef to Keilim comes to teach us (not that the money should be a Davar Chashuv, but) - that there he must claim at least two coins, and not just one (see also Tosfos).

(a) When the Tana of the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini says 'ha'Poret Ma'os mi'Ma'os Ma'aser Sheini' - he is referring to someone who redeemed his Ma'aser Sheini on P'rutos, and now wishes to convert them into Ma'os.

(b) Beis Shamai conclude - 'be'Chol ha'Sela Ma'os'.

(c) Based on the Pasuk "ve'Tzarta *ha'Kesef* be'Yadecha", this Mishnah too, poses a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi. The answer however, lies in the superfluous 'Hey' in "ha'Kesef", which comes to permit using P'rutos for the redemption of Ma'aser.

(a) Shmuel says that if someone redeemed 'Hekdesh Shaveh Manah' for a P'rutah - Bedieved the Hekdesh is redeemed.

(b) Shmuel's Chidush is that not only is there no Din Ona'ah (overcharging by one sixth of the object's value) by Hekdesh - but that the Din of invalidating the sale (if one overcharged more than a sixth) does not apply to Hekdesh either.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi will reconcile Shmuel with the Pasuk which writes (in connection with the redemption of Hekdesh) "ve'Yasaf Chamishis *Kesef* Erkecha Alav ve'Kam Lo" - by citing the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kesef" "Kesef" through which we can learn Hekdesh from Ma'aser Sheini.

(a) We finally ask on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi from the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in our Mishnah - that if, as we have understood until now, he considers all money in the Torah to be Kesef Tzuri, then he will hold like Beis Shamai, because according to Beis Hillel, the minimum sum for Kidushin is a P'rutah, which does not fit *his* description of Kesef.

(b) So in order to eliminate this problem, we amend Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi's statement to read - 'Kol Kesef *Katzuv* ha'Amur ba'Torah Kesef Tzuri ... ' (restricting it to money which is fixed, and Kidushin is not fixed).

(a) The Torah's obligation to pay ...

1. ... five Sela'im - pertains to a father who is redeeming his first-born son.
2. ... thirty Sela'im" - to someone whose ox gored and killed someone else's Eved Cana'ani.
3. ... fifty Sela'im" - to someone who raped or seduced somebody else's daughter.
4. ... a hundred Sela'im" - pertains to 'Motzi Shem Ra (someone who slandered his wife the day after their wedding, accusing her of having committed adultery whilst she was betrothed to him).

(b) After listing these five, the Mishnah concludes - 'Kulam be'Shekel ha'Kodesh be'Manah Tzuri'?

(c)

1. A Shekel is - half a Sela.
2. A Shekel ha'Kodesh is - one Sela.

(d) Despite the fact that the Tana has already taught us that these five must pay in Tzuri coinage, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi is coming to teach us - 've'Shel Divreihem, Kesef Medinah', which is not mentioned in the Mishnah.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa rules '*ha'Tokei'a* la'Chaveiro, Nosen Lo Sela' - referring either to somene who blew a Shofar in his ear or who hit him in the ear.

(b) He is paying for the 'Bo'shes' (the embarrassment), which Chazal fixed at that amount for the average man in the street. Although the obligation to pay for Bo'shes is min ha'Torah, the amount fixed is mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) Based on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi, a Sela is - half a Zuz (alias a Dinar).

(d) Had it not been for Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi's Chidush - it would have been four Shekalim (the value of a Sela Tzuri).

(a) Resh Lakish disagrees with the explanations of both Rebbi Zeira and Rav Yosef in Beis Shamai. According to him, they derive the Dinar of Kidushin from Amah ha'Ivriyah, which in turn, they learn from Chizkiyah - who learns from "ve'Hefdah" that her master is obligated to assist her to go free, by dividing the money he paid for her into six and deducting the years that she had already worked until the time of her redemption from the total that she has to pay him back when redeeming herself.

(b) We extrapolate from there - that, in any event, she cannot be bought for just a P'rutah, because then there would be nothing to deduct.

(c) Neither can we say that Gera'on Kesef applies whenever it is possible, but not when the sale is for less than a Shaveh P'rutah - because we learn from the Din of Yi'ud (where a girl cannot be sold to close relatives, since they will later be unable to perform Yi'ud) - that where Gera'on Kesef is not possible, the sale is not valid either.