Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 1:1

משנה: הָאִשָּׁה נִיקְנֵית בְּשָׁלֹשׁ דְּרָכִים וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בִּשְׁתֵּי דְרָכִים. נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף בִּשְׁטָר וּבְבִיאָה. בְּכֶסֶף בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים בְּדֵינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דֵינָר וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְרוּטָה אַחַת בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה בְּאִסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּגֵט וּבְמִיתַת הַבַּעַל. הַיְבָמָה נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בַּחֲלִיצָה וּבְמִיתַת הַיָּבָם. MISHNAH: A wife may be acquired¹In matters of criminal law, any relations the woman might have with another man would be adultery. The husband cannot live with his wife (and does not acquire any dowry she might bring with her) unless he accepts the financial responsibilities incumbent upon a husband in a public ceremony, attended by at least 10 witnesses (cf. Peah 6:2, Note 46). The acquisition, or betrothal, mentioned here only needs the presence of two witnesses. in three ways; she regains her autonomy in two ways. She is acquired by money²The woman agrees to be preliminarily married for a monetary consideration given in the presence of two witnesses., or by a document³A written promise of marriage., or by intercourse⁴Attested to by two witnesses. It is enough for the witnesses to confirm that the parties were together in a locked bedroom for a period of time sufficient for intercourse. Since one speaks of preliminary marriage, the couple is in principle forbidden to live together after such intercourse and before the definitive marriage. There is a midrashic doctrine that no woman can become pregnant from her first intercourse unless she had lesbian or autoerotic experiences [Gen.rabba45(5), 51(11); Pesiqta rabbati 42, p. 177].. By money, the House of Shammai say, by a denar⁵A Roman silver denar; under Augustus and his first successors about 3.5 g of silver. or a denar’s value; but the House of Hillel say, by a peruṭa or a peruṭa’s value. How much is a peruṭa⁶The peruṭa was a small Hasmonean copper coin which disappeared with the end of the Jewish commonwealth, more than 100 years before the compilation of the Mishnah. Therefore, its value has to be defined in terms of Roman coins.? One eighth of an Italic assarius⁷Corresponding to ¹/₁₉₂ of a denar. Assarius is the old name of the Roman as. In rabbinic practice, a peruṭa is defined as half a grain (¹/₉₆₀ of a troy oz. or 0.0324 g) of sterling silver.. She regains her autonomy by a bill of divorce or by the husband’s death. A sister-in-law⁸The widow of a brother who died childless; cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot. is acquired⁹In definitive marriage. By biblical standards there is no preliminary levirate marriage. by intercourse; she regains her autonomy by ḥaliṣah or by the brother-in-law’s death¹⁰Before she entered the levirate marriage. Once she is married, she is a wife in all respects and regains her autonomy by divorce or widowhood..

הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה נִיקְנֵית בְּשָׁלֹשׁ דְּרָכִים כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אוֹ בְּכֶסֶף אוֹ בִּשְׁטָר אוֹ בְּבִיאָה. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה כֵן. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בִּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ בְאֶחָד מֵהֶן. HALAKHAH: “A wife may be acquired in three ways,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Either by money, or by document, or by intercourse. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated as follows: Not only by all three together, but even by any one of them.

בְּכֶסֶף מְנַיִין. כִּי יִקַּח. מַגִּיד שֶׁנִּקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף. בְּבִיאָה מְנַיִין. וּבְעָלָהּ. מַגִּיד שֶׁנִּקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. עַל יְדֵי זוֹ וְעַל יְדֵי זוֹ. כֶּסֶף בְּלֹא בִיאָה בִּיאָה בְלֹא כֶסֶף מְנַיִין. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֶׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּתִיב. כִּי יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ שׁוֹכֵב עִם אִשָּׁה בְעוּלַת בַּעַל. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ. אֲפִילוּ לֹא קְנָייָהּ אֶלָּא בְבִיאָה אָֽמְרָה תוֹרָה. הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו בְּחֶנֶק. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בִּכְדַרְכָּהּ אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ שֶׁלֹּא כְדַרְכָּהּ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֶׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא צְרִיכָא שֶׁלֹּא מִכְּדַרְכָּהּ. אִין תֵּימַר מִכְּדַרְכָּהּ. לָמָּה לִי בְעָלָהּ. אֲפִילוּ אַחֵר. כַּיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁנַיִם. הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּסְקִילָה וְהַשֵּׁינִי בְּחֶנֶק. By money, from where? “After he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money.¹¹Kiddushin.2a">Babli 2a. In rabbinic Hebrew, לקח means “to buy”. The Babli shows from Genesis.23.13">Gen. 23:13 that לקח in biblical Hebrew may mean “to accept a deal involving money”. By the talmudic doctrine of invariability of lexemes in biblical language, the same meaning must apply in all cases. By marital relations, from where? “And has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse¹²Kiddushin.9b">Babli 9b. Deuteronomy.24.1">Deut. 24:1: “After a man takes a wife and has marital relations with her” is the preamble to the rules of divorce. The verse is read to mean: “After a man buys and/or has marital relations with a woman, if he desires to terminate the relationship he is required to follow the rules of divorce.” Since there is no divorce without a preceding marriage, it follows that acquiring a wife by money and/or intercourse establishes marriage by biblical standards.. I would say, by both together. Money without intercourse and intercourse without money, from where? ¹³This elliptic statement is shortened from Ketubot 3:6:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.3.6.3">Ketubot 3:6 (Notes 88–92). The man who sleeps with a virgin preliminarily married to another man is stoned; one who sleeps with a married woman who is not a virgin is strangled. Since the verse mentions only intercourse, it is deduced that even if no money was given, the girl is legally bound to her husband and the seducer or rapist is executed for adultery. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is written: “If a man is found lying with a woman having had intercourse with her husband.” Think of it, even if he did only acquire her by intercourse, the one coming after him is [executed] by strangulation. Not only regular intercourse but even perverse¹⁴Sex play which leads to satisfaction without penetration and ejaculation.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband¹⁵If the verse was simply intended to state that the punishment of the adulterer with a non-virgin is different from that with a virgin, it would not have mentioned “her husband”. The husband makes his wife a non-virgin even by perverse intercourse, any other man only by penetration.? As we have stated there¹⁶Sanhedrin 7:11:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.11.1">Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:15.: “If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled¹⁷If the first one penetrated her..”

הָא לָמַדְנוּ בִּיאָה בְלֹא כֶסֶף. כֶֶּסֶף בְּלֹא בִיאָה מְנַיִין. וְיָֽצְאָה חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף. אִם אֲחֶרֶת יִקַּח לוֹ. מַה זוֹ בְּכֶסֶף אַף זוֹ בְּכֶסֶף. So we learned intercourse without money. Money without intercourse, from where? “She shall go free, without money.” “If he did acquire another one.”¹⁸Exodus.21.11">Ex. 21:11,Exodus.21.10">10, speaking of the “Hebrew slave girl”, the underage girl sold by her father with the understanding that the buyer may use the amount he paid for the girl as bride-money in case he wants to marry her or give her to his son. This certainly is marriage by money. V. 11 notes that if she is not married either within 6 years or by the time she reaches adulthood, she goes free; the money given for her was to buy her working power. V. 10 states that once she is married, she cannot be treated differently from any other wife. It is inferred that as a matter of principle her acquisition cannot be different from that of any other wife. Since one was by money, so the other is by money¹⁹In Mekhilta dR.Simeon bar Ioḥai (p. 167) the argument is inverted: Since in general a woman may be acquired by a document, so Hebrew slave girls may be acquired by a document..

בִּשְׁטָר. וְכָתַב לוֹ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁילְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ וְיָֽצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָֽלְכָה וְהָֽיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר. מַקִּישׁ הֲוַייָתָהּ לִיצִיאָתָהּ. מַה יְצִיאָתָהּ בִּשְׁטָר אַף הֲוִייָתָהּ בִּשְׁטָר. By a document? “He shall write her a bill of divorce, hand it to her, and send her out of his house. If she left his house and went to be another man’s.²⁰Deuteronomy.24.1">Deut. 24:1.” It brackets her being with her leaving²¹Kiddushin.5a">Babli 5a, Eruvin.15b">Erubin 15b, Sukkah.25a">Sukkah25a, Ketubot.47a">Ketubot 47a, Gittin.21b">Giṭṭin 21b; Sifry Deut. 269, end.. Since her leaving was by a document, so her being is by a document.

אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין וְתַנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה. וְכִי יִקַּח. מַגִּיד שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף. וְדִין הוּא. מָה אִם עִבְרִיָּיה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף. זוֹ שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנִּקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף. יְבָמָה תוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה וְאֵינָהּ נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף. אַף אַתָּה אַל תְּתַמֶּה עַל זוֹ שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּקָּנֶה בְּכֶסֶף. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי יִקַּח. מַגִּיד שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף. Rebbi Abin said that Ḥisqiah stated: ²²Sifry Deut. 268; Kiddushin.4b">Babli 4b.“After he acquires,” which means that she is acquired by money¹¹Kiddushin.2a">Babli 2a. In rabbinic Hebrew, לקח means “to buy”. The Babli shows from Genesis.23.13">Gen. 23:13 that לקח in biblical Hebrew may mean “to accept a deal involving money”. By the talmudic doctrine of invariability of lexemes in biblical language, the same meaning must apply in all cases.. Would it not be an argument de minore ad majus?²³Then the verse would be redundant. Since the Hebrew slave girl, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by money, would it not be logical that this one, who may be acquired by intercourse, should be acquired by money? This is proved²⁴In these kinds of arguments, “proves” means “disproves the possibility of an argument de minore ad majus” because the rules are not comparable. by the sister-in-law, who cannot be acquired by money but is acquired by intercourse⁹In definitive marriage. By biblical standards there is no preliminary levirate marriage.. Therefore you would not be astonished if this one, who may be acquired by intercourse, might not be acquired by money. The verse says, “after he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money²⁵The verse is necessary to understand the rules..

וּבְעָלָהּ. מַגִּיד שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה. וְדִין הוּא. מָה אִם יְבָמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה. זוֹ שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּקָּנֶה בְּבִיאָה. עִבְרִיָה תוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף וְאֵינָהּ נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה. אַף אַתָּה אַל תְּתַמֶּה עַל זוֹ שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף לֹא תִקָּנֶה בְּבִיאָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי יִקַּח. מַגִּיד שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף. וּבְעָלָהּ. מַגִּיד שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה. ²⁶Sifry Deut. 268; Kiddushin.5a">Babli 5a. The argument is completely parallel to that of the preceding paragraph.“And has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse. Would it not be an argument de minore ad majus? Since the sister-in-law, who cannot be acquired by money, can be acquired by intercourse, would it not be logical that this one, who may be acquired by money, should be acquired by intercourse? The Hebrew slave girl proves²⁴In these kinds of arguments, “proves” means “disproves the possibility of an argument de minore ad majus” because the rules are not comparable., who cannot be acquired by intercourse but is acquired by money. You likewise do not wonder that this one, who may be acquired by money, might not be acquired by intercourse. The verse says, “after he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money; “and has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse.

בִּשְׁטָר. מָה אִם הַכֶּסֶף שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא הֲרֵי הוּא מַכְנִיס. שְׁטָר שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיַּכְנִיס. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּכֶּסֶף שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא לְהֶקְדֵּישׁ יְדֵי פִדְיוֹנוֹ. תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ יְדֵי פִדְיוֹנוֹ. נִשְׁבַּר קַל וָחוֹמֶר וְחָזַרְתָּה לַמִּקְרָא. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ וְיָֽצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָֽלְכָה וְהָֽיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר. הִקִּישׁ הֲװָיָתָהּ לִיצִיאָתָהּ. מָה יְצִיאָתָהּ בִּשְׁטָר אַף הֲוָייָתָהּ בִּשְׁטָר. ²²Sifry Deut. 268; Kiddushin.4b">Babli 4b. By a document. Since money which does not send out permits to enter, would it not be logical that a document which sends out should permit to enter²⁷Money is used in preliminary marriage, to permit the woman to enter her husband’s family. Money cannot be used for divorce; the wife cannot pay the husband as a formal means of divorce.? No. If you speak about money which eliminates dedication through redemption²⁸All valuables dedicated to the Temple regain their profane status by redemption when that money is given to the Temple treasury, and in no other way., what can you say about a document which does not eliminate dedication through redemption²⁹Dedications cannot be redeemed by an I.O.U.? The argument de minore ad majus is broken and you have to return to Scripture. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “He shall write her a bill of divorce, hand it to her, and send her out of his house. If she left his house and went to be another man’s.²⁰Deuteronomy.24.1">Deut. 24:1.” It brackets her being with her leaving²¹Kiddushin.5a">Babli 5a, Eruvin.15b">Erubin 15b, Sukkah.25a">Sukkah25a, Ketubot.47a">Ketubot 47a, Gittin.21b">Giṭṭin 21b; Sifry Deut. 269, end.. Since her leaving was by a document, so her being is by a document.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְבַת חוֹרִין שֶׁתִּקָּנֶה בַּחֲזָקָה. וְדִין הוּא. מָה אִם שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה נִקְנֵית בַּחֲזָקָה. זוֹ שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּקָּנֶה בַּחֲזָקָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּבְעָלָהּ. בְּבִיאָה הִיא נִקְנֵית וְאֵינָהּ נִקְנֵית בַּחֲזָקָה. קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּשִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית שֶׁתִּקָּנֶה בְבִיאָה. וְדִין הוּא. וּמָה אִם בַּת חוֹרִין שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִקְנֵית בַּחֲזָקָה נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה. זוֹ שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בַּחֲזָקָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּקָּנֶה בְּבִיאָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אוֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחוּזָה וגו׳. בַּחֲזָקָה הִיא נִקְנֵית וְאֵינָהּ נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה. הֲרֵי לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּרָכִים. אוֹ בְכֶסֶף אוֹ בִשְׁטָר אוֹ בְבִיאָה. Rebbi Yudan said, an argument de minore ad majus that a free woman should be acquired by actual possession³⁰His proof that arguments de minore ad majus are inappropriate here is explained at length in Ketubot 5:4:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.4.3">Ketubot5:5, Note 100.
As a legal term, חֲזָקָה may have two very different meanings. What seems to be intended here is that ownerless property can be acquired by active actual possession (i. e., possession combined with use.) The idea seems to be that a woman, performing a wife’s duty in a man’s house, by this act should become his wife. The comparison is to a slave woman who belonged to a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family and dies without heirs. Any Jew who gets hold of her and lets her perform a servile job for himself has acquired her in law.
A second meaning of חֲזָקָה is “permanence of the status quo ante,” cf. Giṭṭin 3:3, Notes 81,89; Nazir 9:2:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.9.2.8">Nazir 9:2, Note 90. This meaning is referred to, somewhat incongruously, in the verse quoted at the end; property is inherited by the permanence of the state of “belonging to”.
A subcategory of “permanence of the status quo ante” is the validation of squatter’s rights after three years of undisturbed possession, if accompanied by a claim of rightful acquisition.. Is it not logical that since a Gentile slave woman, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by actual possession, by an argument de minore ad majus a free woman, who can be acquired by intercourse, could be acquired by actual possession? The verse says, “and has marital relations with her.” She can be acquired by intercourse but cannot be acquired by actual possession. An argument de minore ad majus that a Gentile slave woman should be acquired by intercourse: Is it not logical that since a free woman, who cannot be acquired by actual possession, can be acquired by intercourse, by an argument de minore ad majus a Gentile slave woman, who can be acquired by actual possession, could be acquired by intercourse? The verse³¹Leviticus.25.46">Lev. 25:46. says, “you may leave them as inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit them as property.” She is acquired by actual possession; she is not acquired by intercourse. So we inferred that a woman can be acquired in three ways: by money, or by document, or by intercourse.

עַד כְּדוֹן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. בַּגּוֹיִם. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כְּתִיב הִנִּךָ מֵת עַל הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר לָקַחְתָּ וְהִיא בְעוּלַת בָּעַל. עַל הַבְּעוּלוֹת הֶן חַייָבִין. וְאֵינָן חַייָבִין עַל הָאֲרוּסוֹת. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָֽמְרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁנִּתְכַּװֵן לִקְנוֹתָהּ. מִילְּתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אָֽמְרָה. אֲפִילוּ לֹא נִתְכַּװֵן לִקְנוֹתָהּ. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. זוֹנָה עוֹמֶדֶת בַּחֲלוֹן. בָּאוֹ עָלֶיהָ שְׁנַיִם. הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵינוֹ נֶהֱרַג וְהַשֵּׁינִי נֶהֱרַג עַל יָדָיו. וְכִי נִתְכַּוֵּון הָרִאשׁוֹן לִקְנוֹתָהּ. So far for Israel. For the Gentiles? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar³²In Gen.rabba 18(8), a parallel source for this and the following paragraphs: R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan.: It is written³³Genesis.20.3">Gen. 20:3, speaking to the Gentile Abimelech. “you shall die because of the woman whom you took, since she is having marital relations with a husband.” They are guilty for those having marital relations; they are not guilty for the betrothed³⁴Sanhedrin.57b">Babli, Sanhedrin 57b.. The words of Rebbi Eleazar imply, only if he had intention of acquiring her; the words of Samuel imply, even if he had no intention of acquiring her; since Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Samuel³⁵In Gen.rabba: “Rebbi Samuel.” For chronological reasons, and also because he is quoted after R. Eleazar, the reading of Gen.rabba is the only acceptable one.: “A prostitute stands in a window³⁶To attract customers.. Two men sleep with her. The first one³⁷Who deflowers her. In R. Samuel’s opinion, a Gentile marriage can be contracted only by intercourse and there is no divorce. Therefore, a free woman is automatically married to the man who deflowers her and any subsequent intercourse with any other man (during the first man’s lifetime) is adultery. is not killed, the second one is killed because of him³⁸As an adulterer. In his theory, a Gentile can sleep without guilt only with a wife whom he married as a virgin, or a chaste widow, or a servile prostitute who as a slave cannot marry..” But did the first one intend to acquire her³⁹According to R. Eleazar, Gentiles can be married only by mutual consent. Then they also can repudiate the marriage.
In Gen.rabba 18(8) only R. Samuel’s opinion is quoted, with the addition that “for Gentiles, intercourse acquires automatically.”?

אִישׁ. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ אִישׁ. אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁבָּאוֹ עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאוּמּוֹת שֶׁיִּדּוֹנוּ כְּדִינֵי הָאוּמּוֹת. וְאִם בָּאוֹ עַל עֲרָיוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּדּוֹנוּ אוֹתָם כְּדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מִכּוּלָּם אֵין לָךְ אֶלָּא אֲרוּסַת יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבַד. שֶׁאִם בָּא עַל אֲרוּסַת יִשְׂרָאֵל חַייָב. עַל אֲרוּסַת גּוֹיִם פָּטוּר. אִם בָּא עַל אֲרוּסַת יִשְׂרָאֵל חַייָבִין. בְּמַה הוּא מִתְחַייֵב. בְּדִינֵיהֶן בְּדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִין תֵּימַר. בְּדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים וּבְעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דַייָנִים זוֹ בְהַתְרָייָה וּבִסְקִילָה. וְאִין תֵּימַר. בְּדִינֵיהֶן. בְּעֵד אֶחָד וּבְדַייָן אֶחָד וְשֶׁלֹּא בְהַתְרָייָה וּבְסַיָּף. “A man.” Why does the verse⁴⁰Leviticus.18.5">Lev. 18:5: “Any man to any blood relation shall not come to uncover nakedness.” Parallel interpretations are in the Sanhedrin.57b">Babli, Sanhedrin57b; Sifra Aḥare Pereq 13(1). say, “any man”? To include that Gentiles who committed adultery or incest⁴¹עֶרְוָה “nakedness”, abbreviated for גִּלּוּי עֶרְוָה “uncovering of nakedness”, is the legal term for “incest and/or adultery”. by Gentile rules should be judged by Gentile law, but if they committed adultery with a Jewishwoman, one judges them by Jewish law. Rebbi Eleazar said, of all of them there is only the Jewish betrothed⁴²The Gentile cannot commit incest with a Jewish partner since he has no family relationship with her. If he commits adultery with a married woman, he is guilty under Gentile law. The only case is intercourse with a preliminarily married woman, which is adultery in Jewish law but a relationship with an unmarried woman by Gentile standards.
In the Sanhedrin.57b">Babli, Sanhedrin 57b, this also is a statement of R. Joḥanan., for if he had intercourse with a Jewish preliminarily married woman he is guilty, with a betrothed Gentile woman he cannot be prosecuted. If he had intercourse with a Jewish preliminarily married woman he is guilty. How is he found to be guilty? By their rules or by Jewish rules? If you say by Jewish rules, by two witnesses⁴³Deuteronomy.19.15">Deut. 19:15., 23 judges⁴⁴Sanhedrin 1:2:1-4:10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.1.2.1-4.10">Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:4., after warning⁴⁵Cf. Sotah 3:4:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.3.4.7">Soṭah 3:4, Note 121., and by stoning. If you say by their rules, by one witness, one judge, without warning, and by the sword⁴⁶Reading of the editio princeps. The corrector wrote בהונקו. No root הנק is known..

רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי מוֹסִיף בְּחוֹנְקוֹ. מִפְּנֵי עַצְמוֹ. מַה טַעַם. כִּי דָם בָּאָדָם. ⁴⁷This does not belong here; except for the name, it is the corrector’s text taken from Gen.rabba 34(19) where from Genesis.9.6">Gen. 9:6 it is inferred that Gentiles are executed by the sword. The verse reads: שוֹפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ “He who spills a human’s blood, by humans his blood shall be spilled.” Then the question arises whether a murderer who kills by strangling can be prosecuted under Noahide law. To this, R. Jehudah bar Simon gives a positive answer by reading the verse as: “He who spills a human’s blood within a human, his blood shall be spilled.” [In the Sanhedrin.57b">Babli, Sanhedrin 57b, R. Ismael is quoted as deducing that for a Gentile, the killing of a foetus, a “human within a human”, is a capital crime. In rabbinic law, abortion is not prosecutable and is even required if the mother’s life is at risk (Mishnah Ahilut 7:6).] Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi added one who strangles, as a separate offense. What is the reason? For “blood in a human.”

אִין תֵּימַר בְּדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְנִתְגַּייֵר חַייָב. אִין תֵּימַר בְּדִינֵיהֶם. נִתְגַּייֵר פָּטוּר. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. בֶּן נֹחַ שֶׁקִּילֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם נִתְגַּייֵר פָּטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנֶּה דִינוֹ. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מְנַיִין שֶׁבְּנֵי נֹחַ מוּזְהָרִין עַל עֲרָיוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ. וְלֹא בְאֶשֶׁת חֲבֵירוֹ. וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ. וְלֹא בְזָכוֹר וְלֹא בִבְהֵמָה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. בֶּן נֹחַ שֶׁבָּא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כְדַרְכָּהּ נֶהֱרַג. מַה טַעַם. וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד. מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן עוֹשִׂין בָּשָׂר אֶחָד. If you say, by Jewish rules, he⁴⁸The Gentile who had raped a preliminarily married virgin, mentioned in the paragraph before the last. is guilty if he converted. If you say, by their rules, he cannot be prosecuted if he converted, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, a descendant of Noah who blasphemed and then converted cannot be prosecuted since the law changed for him⁴⁹Nobody can be convicted under a law which did not apply to him at the moment the criminal act was committed. Since after conversion, Jewish law applies to him, he cannot be prosecuted for prior crimes. The Sanhedrin.71b">Babli agrees, Sanhedrin 71b.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The descendants of Noah are warned about nakedness⁴¹עֶרְוָה “nakedness”, abbreviated for גִּלּוּי עֶרְוָה “uncovering of nakedness”, is the legal term for “incest and/or adultery”. as Jews are⁵⁰Gen.rabba 18(8), Sanhedrin.58b">Babli Sanhedrin 58b.; ⁵¹Genesis.2.24">Gen. 2:24. Cf. Gen.rabba 18(8), Sanhedrin.57b">Babli Sanhedrin 57b. the verse says, “he shall cling to his wife”, not to somebody else’s wife. “He shall cling to his wife”, not to a male, nor to an animal⁵²In addition, it is deduced there that the wording “father and mother” prohibits incest of father with daughter or stepdaughter, and son with mother or father’s wife. From Genesis.20.12">Gen. 20:12 it is inferred that the uterine half-sister also is forbidden.. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A descendant of Noah who had perverse intercourse⁵³Any sex play which does not include penetration and ejaculation. with his wife is killed. What is the reason? “He shall cling to his wife so they become one flesh,” at the place where they together create one flesh⁵⁴Any intercourse which excludes the possibility of creating a pregnancy is sinful, except regular intercourse with one’s pregnant wife..

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְעָא. הַעֲרָייָה בְּזָכוֹר מַהוּ. הַעֲרָייָה בַּבְּהֵמָה מָה הִיא. וְכָל־הָעֲרָיוֹת לֹא מִן הַנִּידָּה לָֽמְדוּ. זָכוֹר מִינָּהּ. בְּהֵמָה מִינָּהּ. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. בַּגּוֹיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא מִינָּהּ. וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ. וְלֹא בְאֶשֶׁת חֲבֵירוֹ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. וְדִכְװָתָהּ לֹא בְזָכוֹר וְלֹא בִבְהֵמָה אֲפִילוּ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. Rebbi Yose asked: What is the legal status of “touching”⁵⁵If the two persons’ genitals are touching. This is the definition of a sex act for criminal and marriage laws (Yevamot 4:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.4.2.3">Yebamot, 4:2 Note 59; 6:1, Note 11 ff.) a male? What is the legal status of “touching” an animal? Were not all incest prohibitions inferred from the menstruating woman⁵⁶Not the prohibition, but the technicalities which make the act prosecutable. It is spelled out in Leviticus.20.18">Lev. 20:18 that in the case of the menstruating woman, “touching” establishes the criminality of the act. Therefore, for Jews “touching” is the equivalent of completed intercourse in criminal law. The Yevamot.54b">Babli, Yebamot 54b, seems to reject the equation of bestiality with homosexual activity.? The male is included; the animal is included. So far, for Israel. For Gentiles? Rebbi Mana said, not from this: “He shall cling to his wife”? Not in any way to somebody else’s wife, not in any way to a male or an animal.

הֲרֵי לָמַדְנוּ. גּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶן קִידּוּשִׁין. מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהֶם גֵּירוּשִׁין. רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי וְרִבִּי חָנִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנָה רוֹבָה דְצִיפּוֹרִין. אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן גֵּירוּשִׁין אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן מְגָֽרְשִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּצִפֹּרִין רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חִינְנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן. כִּי שָׂנֵא שַׁלַּח אָמַר יי֨ אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נָתַתִּי גֵּירוּשִׁין. לֹא נָתַתִּי גֵירוּשִׁין בְּאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פִינְחָס. כָּל־הַפֲּרָשָׁה כְתִיב יי֨ צְבָאוֹת. וְכָאן כְּתִיב אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. לְלַמְּדָךְ שֶׁלֹּא יִיחֵד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׁמוֹ בְגֵירוּשִׁין אֶלָּא בְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבַד. So we have established that Gentiles have no preliminary marriage. Do they have divorce? Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi and Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥuna of Sepphoris: Either they have no divorce, or either of them may divorce the other. Rebbi Joḥanan from Sepphoris, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: “For the divorcer is hateful, says the Eternal, Israel’s God.⁵⁷Malachi.2.16">Mal. 2:16, speaking of the person divorcing his first wife without necessity.” In Israel I gave divorce, I did not give divorce among the nations of the world. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: In the entire paragraph it is written “the Eternal, Sabaot”; only here it is written “Israel’s God.” To teach you that the Holy One, praise to Him, did lend his name only to Jewish divorce.

מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִייָה רֹבָה אָֽמְרָה. גּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶן גֵּירוּשִׁין. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה כֵן. גּוֹי שֶׁגֵּירַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָֽלְכָה וְנִישֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וְגֵירְשָׁהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְגַּייְרוּ שְׁנִיהֶן. אֵנִי קוֹרֵא עָלֶיהָ לֹא יוּכַל בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתַּהּ. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. מַעֲשֶׂה בָא לִפְנֵי רִבִּי וְהִכְשִׁיר. The word of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya implies that Gentiles have no divorce⁵⁸Not that divorce were impossible for Gentiles but that Gentile divorce does not have the legal implications of Jewish divorce., as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in this matter⁵⁹Gen.rabba 18(8).: A Gentile who divorced his wife, who herself then went and married another, when the latter divorced her and then both of them⁶⁰The first husband and the wife. converted, I do not read⁶¹Reading with Gen.rabba איני for אני. for them: “Her first husband who had divorced her cannot return to marry her.” It was stated in this matter: A case came before Rebbi and he approved⁶²He lets the first husband remarry the divorced wife who, while Gentile, had another husband..

בִּשְׁטָר. הָדָא דְתֵימַר. בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָפֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁהוּא יָפֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה כְּכֶסֶף הוּא. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה כֵן. לא סוֹף דָּבָר בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁהוּא יָפֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וַהֲלֹא מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת הִיא הָאִשָּׁה בְּכָל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא יָפֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ כְתָבוֹ עַל הַחֶרֶס אוֹ עַל נְייָר וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. By a document. This means, by a document which is not worth a peruṭah⁷Corresponding to ¹/₁₉₂ of a denar. Assarius is the old name of the Roman as. In rabbinic practice, a peruṭa is defined as half a grain (¹/₉₆₀ of a troy oz. or 0.0324 g) of sterling silver., but a document which is worth a peruṭah is money’s worth⁶³Since betrothal by document is deduced from divorce by document (Kiddushin 1:1:18" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.18">Note 21), if the document was invalid because it was not written for the specific woman for whom it was used, the preliminary marriage would be effected if and only if the material used for the document was worth a peruṭah (interpretation of R. Nissim Gerondi).. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in this respect⁶⁴Tosephta 1:2.: “Not only a document which is worth a peruṭah since a woman can have herself preliminarily married by anything which is worth a peruṭah. But even if he wrote it on an ostrakon or on papyrus⁶⁵The document must only read: הרי את מקודשת לי “you are preliminarily married to me”. It is possible to write it on a snippet of paper worth less than a penny. and gave it to her, she is preliminarily married.”

כְּתָבוֹ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חָנִין. מַעֲשֶׂה בָא לִפְנֵי רִבִּי וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הֲוְייָן רַבָּנִין פְּלִיגִין. מָן דְּאָמַר. אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. וּמָן דָּמַר. מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. חֲבֵרַייָה אָֽמְרִין לַחוֹמָרִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְעָא. מָהוּ לַחוֹמָרִין. אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת הַיינוֹ לַחוֹמָרִין. אִילּוּ אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת הַיְּנוֹ לַחוֹמָרִין. מָהוּ כְדוֹן. רִבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. אִיסּוּר הֲנָייָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וּמָן דָּמַר. אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אִיסּוּר הֲנָייָה מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. הָא בְּאִיסּוּר הֲנָייָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אִין תֵּימַר כֵּן לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. דְּרַב אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּחָמֵץ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָן לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. וְחָמֵץ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָן טָב הוּא כְלוּם. תַּמָּן בְּגוּפוֹ קִידֵּשׁ. בְּרַם הָכָא בִּתְנָיִים שֶׁבּוֹ קִידֵּשׁ. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ בְּאִיסּוּר הֲנָייָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה תְּהֵא מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מַה בֵינָהּ לִשְׁטָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָפֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. תַּמָּן אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהַשְׁלִים עָלָיו. בְּרַם הָכָא רָאוּי הוּא לְהַשְׁלִים עָלָיו. If he wrote it⁶⁶The declaration of marriage. on material forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi Ḥanin⁶⁷Rashba, Responsa vol. 1, #603, reads: Zenon. stated: A case came before Rebbi who said, she is divorced⁶⁸Quoted as anonymous statement in the Gittin.20a">Babli, Giṭṭin 20a, which also states as undisputed Galilean rule that a divorce document may be written on material forbidden for usufruct. By implication, a declaration of marriage also may be written on such material.. Rebbi Eleazar⁶⁹Rashba, loc.cit., reads “R. Eliezer.” said, she is not divorced⁷⁰This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli. Rashba holds that the Babli, which simply quotes the rule without discussion, by reference incorporates the Yerushalmi discussion and decision.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the rabbis disagree: For him who said, she is not preliminary married, she is not divorced. For him who said, she is preliminary married, she is divorced²¹Kiddushin.5a">Babli 5a, Eruvin.15b">Erubin 15b, Sukkah.25a">Sukkah25a, Ketubot.47a">Ketubot 47a, Gittin.21b">Giṭṭin 21b; Sifry Deut. 269, end.. The colleagues say, for restrictions. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restrictions”? She is not preliminarily married but divorced, is this “for restrictions”? Or she is not divorced but preliminarily married, is this “for restrictions”? What about it? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: He who says that she is divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by their words⁷¹Material permitted by biblical law, only forbidden by rabbinic rules.. But he who says that she is not divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by words of the Torah⁷²Most material prohibited for ususfruct by biblical law must be burned or otherwise disposed of. It seems that the authorities quoted follow the opinion, not mentioned in the Yerushalmi and attributed in the Babli to R. Simeon as minority opinion (Pesachim.12b">Pesaḥim 12b, Menachot.79b">Menaḥot 79b,Menachot.102b">102b, Keritot.24b">Keritut 24b, Temurah.23a">Temurah 23a) that anything which must be burned by biblical command is legally considered ashes even if not burned.. Therefore, by material forbidden for usufruct by their words she is preliminarily married. If you say so, does this not disagree with Rav? For Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: A person who uses leavened material for preliminary marriage after noontime did not do anything. Is leavened material of any use after noontime⁷³According to everybody, leavened matter in possession of a Jew is forbidden for usufruct after noontime on Passover eve, the 14^th of Nisan. For the majority, this is a biblical decree, derived from Exodus.23.18">Ex. 23:18, Exodus.34.25">34:25. For R. Meïr it is a rabbinic decree; biblical prohibition of leavened matter only starts shortly before nightfall on the fourteenth (Pesachim 1:4:2-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.1.4.2-7">Pesaḥim 1:4, 27c 1. 48 ff.). Why does R. Meïr invalidate a preliminary marriage document for which material was used which is only rabbinically prohibited for usufruct?? There, he used the material for preliminary marriage⁷⁴Since material rabbinically prohibited for usufruct has no monetary value, it cannot be used as a gift for preliminary marriage. It is possible that R. Meïr would validate a marriage by text written on paper sized with a solution of flour in water executed on Passover eve., but here he effected the preliminary marriage by the [written] conditions. But then she should be preliminarily married even with material forbidden for usufruct by the Torah⁷⁵If used as writing material, rather than for its intrinsic worth.! What is the difference between this and a document not worth a peruṭah? There, it cannot be used as filler. But here, it can be used as filler⁷⁶Material not worth a peruṭah (in the Gittin.20b">Babli, Giṭṭin 20b, the example is a single leaf of an olive tree) can be used together with other materials as stuffing. Material forbidden for ususfruct cannot be used for anything..

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּייָנִין. הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף וְהַהוֹדָייָה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. הַטַּעֲנָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. מָעָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. שְׁתֵּי מָעִין. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּתְהוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. תַּמָּן אִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין. כֶּסֶף דֵּינָר. וָכָא אִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין. כֶּסֶף מָעָה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּתְהוֹן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל. תַּמָּן אִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין. כֶּסֶף פְּרוּטָה. וָכָא אִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין. כֶּסֶף שְׁתֵּי מָעִין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּי לְמֵידִין מִתְּחִילַּת מְכִירָתָהּ שֶׁלָּעִבְרִייָה. מַה תְּחִילַּת מְכִירָתָהּ בְּדֵינָר אַף קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ בְּדֵינָר. בֵּית הִלֵּל לְמֵידִין מִסּוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ. מַה סוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה אַף קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְיָֽצְאָה חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף. וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים שֶׁאֵין כָּסֶף. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֵין כָּסֶף. מִיכָּן שֶׁנִּמְכְּרָה בְּכֶסֶף יוֹתֵר מִכֶּסֶף. וְכַמָּה יוֹתֶר מִכֶּסֶף. דֵּינָר. אוֹ כֶסֶף פְּרוּטָה. יוֹתֶר מִכֶּסֶף שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת. סוֹף מַטְבֵעַ כֶּסֶף מָעָה. וּתְהֵא מָעָה. רִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי. שֶׁאִם בִּיקְּשָׁה לִיגָּרַע. מְגָרַעַת בְּמָעָה בְכָל־שָׁנָה וְיוֹצֵא. וְתִגְרַע בִּפְרוּטָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁאִם בִּקְּשָׁה לִיגָּרַע מִתְּחִילַּת הַשָּׁנָה הַשִּׁשִּׁית תְּחִילַּת גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה וְסוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה. אֶלָּא תְּחִילַּת גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בְּמָעָה וְסוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה. אִילּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּייֵר שָׁם אֶלָּא שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה שֶׁמָּא אֵינָה מַגְרַעְתָּהּ וְיוֹצְאָה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁסּוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה אַף קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל. מִמַּה שֶׁסּוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁקִּידּוּשֶׁיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה. ⁷⁷The original of this and the following paragraphs is in Šebuot 6:1 (36d, 11. 21–50, ו). There, we have stated: “A judicial oath⁷⁸The oath required by Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8 for a person denying a claim when neither he nor the claimant have proof. The defendant can be made to swear only if he admits that at least one peruṭah’s worth of the claim is true; cf. Ketubot 2:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.2.1.4">Ketubot 2:1, Note 12 (Mekhilta dR.Ismael,Neziqin2)., for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus⁷⁹One sixth of a drachma identified with the imperial silver denar., but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There⁸⁰Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1. The formulation shows that the origin of the text is in Ševuot., they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There⁸⁰Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1. The formulation shows that the origin of the text is in Ševuot., they say, “money” is a peruṭah, but here, they say that “money” is two obols. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The house of Shammai learn from the initial sale of a Hebrew girl¹⁸Exodus.21.11">Ex. 21:11,Exodus.21.10">10, speaking of the “Hebrew slave girl”, the underage girl sold by her father with the understanding that the buyer may use the amount he paid for the girl as bride-money in case he wants to marry her or give her to his son. This certainly is marriage by money. V. 11 notes that if she is not married either within 6 years or by the time she reaches adulthood, she goes free; the money given for her was to buy her working power. V. 10 states that once she is married, she cannot be treated differently from any other wife. It is inferred that as a matter of principle her acquisition cannot be different from that of any other wife.. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar⁸¹It is clear from the biblical text, Exodus.21.7-11">Ex. 21:7–11, that the person buying an underage Hebrew girl is supposed to marry her when she grows up, or to marry her to his son. The money given for her services is at the same time the money for preliminary marriage. The House of Shammai hold that the original buying price, which later is shown to be at least a silver denar, is the bridal money used for the legal acquisition of the girl as preliminarily wedded wife. The House of Hillel hold that only the amount not amortized by the girl’s work in the meantime is bridal money. Since the master can marry the girl even on the last day of her servitude, he can marry her for a peruṭah’s worth and, as shown before, he can marry any other woman also for a peruṭah’s worth.. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution⁸²Since Exodus.21.8">Ex. 21:8 states that “if she is bad in her master’s eyes, who does not intend her for himself, let her be redeemed”, it is concluded that the Hebrew girl-servant can be redeemed during her servitude, in contrast to the Hebrew indentured servant who has to serve his full six years. Since it is prescribed for the Hebrew servant of a Gentile master that he can be redeemed by paying off the proportion of his original price not amortized by the time spent in servitude (Leviticus.25.50">Lev. 25:50), the same must hold for the servant girl. As long as she still is a servant, the redemption price is at least a peruṭah.. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah¹⁸Exodus.21.11">Ex. 21:11,Exodus.21.10">10, speaking of the “Hebrew slave girl”, the underage girl sold by her father with the understanding that the buyer may use the amount he paid for the girl as bride-money in case he wants to marry her or give her to his son. This certainly is marriage by money. V. 11 notes that if she is not married either within 6 years or by the time she reaches adulthood, she goes free; the money given for her was to buy her working power. V. 10 states that once she is married, she cannot be treated differently from any other wife. It is inferred that as a matter of principle her acquisition cannot be different from that of any other wife.. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver⁸³Exodus.21.11">Ex. 21:11. At the end of six years, the master cannot ask for money to let her go..” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”⁸⁴Since “gratis” means “without payment”.? From there, that she is sold for more than silver. And what is more than silver? A denar. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus⁸⁵Even though in Achaemenid Persia, the silver half-obolus was currency (also minted in the province of Yehud), in later times, prior to the Roman conquest, the obolus was the smallest silver coin. In Roman currency, the denarius was the smallest silver coin.. So why is it not an obolus? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: For if she wants to diminish, she diminishes every year by an obolus and leaves⁸⁶Since she serves for six years, her price must be a six-fold multiple of a silver coin. This determines the drachma as the minimum price.. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah⁸⁷And be bought at the start for 6 peruṭot.? Rebbi Abun said, think of it. If she wanted to compute the diminution at the start of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left, and at the end of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left. But the start of the diminution must be an obolus, the end of the diminution a peruṭah. If there is only one peruṭah left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage should be a peruṭah⁸⁸This argument is correctly missing in Šebuot since the House of Shammai consider the original sum as bride-money, cf. Kiddushin 1:1:19" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.19">Note 81. The Yerushalmi’s interpretation of the House of Shammai is explicitly rejected in the Kiddushin.12a">Babli, 12a.! What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since her last diminished amount is a peruṭah, you know that her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah^81,It is clear from the biblical text, Exodus.21.7-11">Ex. 21:7–11, that the person buying an underage Hebrew girl is supposed to marry her when she grows up, or to marry her to his son. The money given for her services is at the same time the money for preliminary marriage. The House of Shammai hold that the original buying price, which later is shown to be at least a silver denar, is the bridal money used for the legal acquisition of the girl as preliminarily wedded wife. The House of Hillel hold that only the amount not amortized by the girl’s work in the meantime is bridal money. Since the master can marry the girl even on the last day of her servitude, he can marry her for a peruṭah’s worth and, as shown before, he can marry any other woman also for a peruṭah’s worth.⁸⁹The Šebuot text has here an additional text similar to the text used in Qiddušin in the discussion of the House of Shammai: הַגַּע עַצְמְךָ שֶׁאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּר שָׁם שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה שֶׁמָּא אֵינָהּ מְגָרָעַתּוֹ וְיוֹצָא. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁסּוֹף גֵּרוּעֶיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה אַף קִדּוּשֶׁיהָ בִּפְרוּטָה. "Think of it, if there is one peruṭah's worth left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is a peruṭah.".

מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּתְהוֹן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל. כְּתִיב. כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רְעֵהוּ כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים לִשְׁמוֹר. אִם לְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין לְפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. כְּבָר כְּתִיב לְאַשְׁמָה בָהּ. פְּרָט לְפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֵין כָּסֶף. מִיכָּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן יוֹתֵר מִכֶּסֶף. וְכַמָּה הוּא יוֹתֵר מִכֶּסֶף. שְׁתֵּי מָעִין. אוֹ כֶסֶף פְּרוּטָה. יוֹתֵר מִכֶּסֶף שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת. סוֹף מַטְבֵעַ כֶּסֶף מָעָה. וּתְהֵא מָעָה. אוֹ כֵלִים. מַה כֵלִים שְׁנַיִם. אַף כֶּסֶף שְׁנַיִם. מַה מְקַייְמִין בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹ כֵלִים. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר. אוֹ כֵלִים. לְרַבּוֹת כֵּלִים הַרְבֶּה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. טְעָנוֹ שְׁנֵי מְחָטִים וְהוֹדָה לוֹ עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן. חַייָב. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהוּ יָפוֹת כִּשְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת. כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא הַטַּעֲנָה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְהַהוֹדָייָה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְאַתְייָא כְבֵית שַׁמַּי דְּלָא יַלְפֵי כֶסֶף מִכֵּלִים. בְּרַם כְּבֵית הִלֵּל דְּאִינּוּן יָֽלְפִין כֶּסֶף מִכֵּלִים. מַה כֵלִים שְׁנַיִם אַף כֶּסֶף שְׁנַיִם. וְדִכְװָתָהּ. מַה כֶסֶף שְׁתֵּי מָעִים. אַף כֵּלִים שְׁתֵּי מָעִים. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written⁹⁰Exodus.22.6">Ex. 22:6. The verse is the introduction to the judicial oath prescribed in Exodus.22.8">v. 8 (cf. Kiddushin 1:1:19" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.19">Note 78) and establishes the parameters of judicial intervention. The arguments in this paragraph are to some extent paralleled in Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 199.: “If a person give to his neighbor money or vessels to watch over.” If to teach that the court will not act on less that a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written: “To incur liability for it”⁹¹Leviticus.5.26">Lev. 5:26. One of the topics treated in Leviticus.5.20-26">Lev. 5:20–26 is the guilt of the person swearing falsely the oath required in Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8. For the translation of the verbal root אשם as “to incur liability”, cf. J. Milgram, Leviticus.1-16">Leviticus1–16, Anchor Bible 1991, pp. 339–345 (the author does not refer to the rabbinic texts.) Since restitution is possible only by payment, anything worth less than the smallest coin cannot be restituted: There can be no oath for a residual claim not worth a peruṭah (Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 23, end.)? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?)⁹²This text is an intrusion from the parallel discussion in the preceding paragraph; it is correctly missing in Šebuot. From there, that it should be more than silver⁹³The argument seems to be that nobody will give a worthless thing to be watched over. If the verse emphasizes “silver” or “money”, it must mean more than the minimum.. And what is more than silver? Two obols. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus⁸⁵Even though in Achaemenid Persia, the silver half-obolus was currency (also minted in the province of Yehud), in later times, prior to the Roman conquest, the obolus was the smallest silver coin. In Roman currency, the denarius was the smallest silver coin.. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two⁹⁴An indeterminate plural always means its minimum, 2. Cf. Niddah 2:6:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Niddah.2.6.2">Niddah 2:5, Note 90., also “money” is two⁹⁵Kiddushin.11b">Babli 11b, Shevuot.39b">Šebuot 39b.. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels⁹⁶This argument can only be understood by reference to Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai (Note 90). There it is argued that since silver is mined from the earth, also “vessels” should be restricted to those made from terrestrial material, to exclude anything coming from the sea (either from seaweed or fish skin). R. Jehudah reads כֵּלִים as כְּלֵי יַם “objects from the sea” (explanation of J. N. Epstein). E. Z. Melamed also reports there that J. N. Epstein, in his personal copy of the Yerushalmi, emended the parallel reading in Šebuot, כלי חרס “clay vessels”, into כלי חרם “fisherman’s netting”, which might have been made from material grown in the sea. (The reading כלי חרס makes no sense, since clay vessels are always understood if “vessel” is used without qualifier in biblical texts and do not need to be defined through additions. In the Zevachim.22a">Babli, Zebaḥim 22a, anything grown in water is considered water.) “All kinds of vessels” includes vessels made from marine material.. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty⁹⁷The Shevuot.40b">Babli, Šebuot 40b, points out that Samuel must hold that the “vessels” quoted in the verse refer to any vessels, irrespective of their value.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two perutot, that the claim should be about a perutah’s worth and the confession about a perutah’s worth⁹⁸Since otherwise the court could not take cognizance of the case, Kiddushin 1:1:20" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.20">Note 91 (quoted in Shevuot.39b">Tosephot Šebuot 39b, s. v.מה).. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two obols, also “vessels” means two oboli’s worth.

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּצָרוֹת וּבָאֲחָיוֹת וּבְגֵט יָשָׁן וּבִסְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וּבִמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְהַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְּפוֹנְדָקִי וְהָאִשָּׁה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּדֵינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דֵינָר. לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי לִישָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל וְלֹא בֵּית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּי אֶלָּא נוֹהֲגִין בֶּאֱמֶת וּבְשָׁלוֹם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם אֵהָבוּ. מַמְזֵירוּת בֵּנְתַיִים וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. קִידֵּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְהַשֵּׁינִי בְדֵינָר. עַל דַּעְתְּהוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי מְקוּדֶשֶׁת לַשֵּׁינַי וְהַװְלָד מַמְזֵר מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. עַל דַּעְתְּהוֹן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל מְקוּדֶשֶׁת לָרִאשׁוֹן וְהַװְלָד מַמְזֵר מַן הַשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּי לְבֵית הִלֵּל לְחוֹמָרִין. מֵעַתָּה בֵּית שַׁמַּי יִשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל דְּאִינּוּן מוֹדֵיי לוֹן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל לֹא יִשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים מִבֵּית שַׁמַּי דְּלֵית אִינּוּן מוֹדֵיי לוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ כַּהֲלָכָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין. בְּדָא תַנִּינָן. שָֽׁלְחוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּפְחָתוּהָ. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. עַד שֶׁיִּפְחוֹת רוּבָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָא מַעֲשֶׂה אֵצֶל בֵּית הִלֵּל הָיוּ בֵית שַׁמַּי נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. מִשֶׁבָּא מַעֲשֶׂה אֵצֶל בֵּית הִלֵּל לֹא הָיוּ בֵית שַׁמַּי נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי. וְיֵאוּת. מַה תַנִּינָן. טִימְּאוּ טָהֳרוֹת לְמַפְרֵעַ. לֹא מִיכָּן וְלָבֹא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר. אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ כַּהֲלָכָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. אֵילּוּ כְהִילְכָתָן וְאֵילּוּ כְהִילְכָתָן. מַמְזֵירוּת בֵּנְתַיִם וְאַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵן. הַמָּקוֹם מְשַׁמֵּר וְלֹא אִירָע מַעֲשֶׂה מֵעוֹלָם. ⁹⁹The text of this paragraph and the one following is from Yevamot 1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.6">Yebamot 1:6, Notes 243–261(א). It seems that the Yebamot text is the original.“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce, and a woman doubtfully married, and someone who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, and someone who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and a woman who receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second [gives her afterwards)] for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and her child by the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and her child by the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai say unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel disagreed. One said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed their own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

כְּהָדָא דְתַנִּי. כָּל־הָרוֹצֶה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ וְלִנְהוֹג כְּחוּמְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי וּכְחוּמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר וְהַכְּסִיל בַּחוֹשֶׁךְ הוֹלֵךְ. כְּקוּלֵּי אֵילּוּ וּכְקוּלֵּי אֵילּוּ נִקְרָא רָשָׁע. אֶלָּא אוֹ כְדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי כְקוּלֵּיהֶם וּכְחוּמְרֵיהֶן. אוֹ כְדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל כְקוּלֵּיהֶן וּכְחוּמְרֵיהֶן. הָדָא דְתֵימַר עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל. מִשֶׁיָּצָאת בַּת קוֹל לְעוֹלָם הֲלָכָה כְדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. וְכָל־הָעוֹבֵר עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל חַייָב מִיתָה. תַּנֵּי יָֽצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָֽמְרָה. אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ דִבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים הֵן. אֲבָל הֲלָכָה כְדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אֵיכָן יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל. רִבִּי בֵּיבַי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּיַבְנֶה יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל. ⁹⁹The text of this paragraph and the one following is from Yevamot 1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.6">Yebamot 1:6, Notes 243–261(א). It seems that the Yebamot text is the original. In this matter, it was stated: “About anybody who wanted to take upon himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said: ‘The silly one walks in darkness’. The leniencies of both of them, he is called wicked. Either following the words of the House of Shammai in their leniencies and stringencies, or following the words of the House of Hillel in their leniencies and stringencies.” That is, before there came the disembodied voice. But after the disembodied voice was heard, “practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” And any who transgress the words of the House of Hillel are deserving of death. It was stated: There came the disembodied voice and said: Both of them are the words of God, but practice follows the House of Hillel. Where was the disembodied voice heard? Rebbi Bebai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yabneh.

וְכַמָּה הִיא פְרוּטָה. אֶחָד מִשְּׁמוֹנֶה בְּאִסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. תַּנֵּי. הָאִיסָּר אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה בְּדֵינָר כֶּסֶף. דֵּינָר כֶּסֶף אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לְדֵינָר זָהָב. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. סִילְעָא אַרְבָּעָה דֵינָרִין. שֵׁשׁ מָעָה כֶסֶף דֵּינָר. שְׁנֵי פּוּנְדְיוֹנִין מָעָה. מָעָה שְׁנֵי אִיסָּרִין. פּוּנדְיוֹן שְׁנֵי מסֵומִיסִּין. אִיסָּר שְׁנֵי קָרְדּיונְטֵס. מסִומִס שְׁנֵי פְרוּטוֹת. קָרְדּיונְטֵס סָֽלְקִין אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם לְמַעֲלָה. “How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.” It was stated: ¹⁰⁰Babli Baba meṣia‘ 44b, Tosephta Baba batra 5:11. The as is¹/₂₄ of a silver denar; the silver denar is¹/₂₄ of a gold denar¹⁰¹In Imperial coinage, the gold denar was usually counted for 25 silver denarii.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A tetradrachma is four denarii. Six silver oboli are in a denar. Two dupondii are an obolus. An obolus¹⁰²This has to read: “a dupondius”. is two as. A pondius¹⁰³This has to read: “an as.” is two semisses. An as¹⁰⁴This has to read: “a semis”. is two quadrantes¹⁰⁵Greek κοδράντης, equivalent of Roman quadrans, ¼ of an as... A semis¹⁰⁶This has to read: “a quadrans”. The final list reads: 1 denar = 6 oboli = 12 dupondii = 24 as = 48 semisses = 96 quadrantes = 192 peruṭot (confirming the tannaïtic standard of the peruṭah as ¹/₈ of an as, Eduyot 4:7" href="/Mishnah_Eduyot.4.7">Mishnah Idiut 4:7). In the Roman system, the obolus appears as a weight, rather than a coin: one-sixth of a denar of 3.6 g. is two peruṭot. It turns out that a quadrans is¹/₃₂ of the above¹⁰⁷This has to read: “A peruṭah is ¹/₃₂ of an obolus.” In the entire list, the first entry in each sentence has to be replaced by the next smaller unit and למעלה by מעה..”

אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. בִּימֵי רִבִּי סִימַאי וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ עָשׂוּ אוֹתָם אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לְמַעֲלָה. וְתַנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹדְסִים מָעָה. שְׁנֵי בֵּיצִים דְּרוֹסָה. שְׁנֵי שֵׂמִין נותנין. שְׁנֵי פְרוּטוֹת שֵׂמִין. סָלְקוֹן אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לְמָעָה. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, in the days of Rebbi Simai¹⁰⁸Of the generation of transition between Tannaïm and Amoraïm. “Our teachers” therefore refers to Rebbi. and our teachers they made it¹⁰⁹The peruṭah.¹/₂₄ of an obolus, as it was stated: ¹⁰⁰Babli Baba meṣia‘ 44b, Tosephta Baba batra 5:11.“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, three dodrantes¹¹⁰Latin for ¾ of any measure. are an obolus, two besses¹¹¹Latin for ²/₃ of any measure. are a dodrans, two semisses are a bes, two peruṭot a semis. It results in¹/₂₄ of an obolus¹¹²D. Sperber, Roman Palestine200-400,Money and Prices, Ramat Gan 1974, pp. 78–80, conjectures that the change in computation of a peruṭah from ¹/₃₂ to ¹/₂₄ of an obolus was a rabbinic response to Caracalla’s monetary reform which increased the ratio of silver to gold from 12:1 to 9:1. The argument is purely theoretical since the peruṭah as a coin disappeared with the Jewish Commonwealth..”

רִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְרִבִּי מָנָא. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אוֹמֵר. נְחֻשָׁא בְאַתְרֵיהּ קַייָם. כַּסְפָּא זְלִיל. כַּסְפָּא יְקִיר. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. כַּסְפָּא בְאַתְרֵיהּ קַייָם. נְחֻשָׁא יְקִיר נְחֻשָׁא זְלִיל. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָה לְעוֹלָם שֶׁשׁ נָשִׁים מִתְקַדְּשׁוֹת בְּאִיסָּר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מָנָא פְּעָמִים שֵׁשׁ פְּעָמִים שְׁמוֹנֶה. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana¹¹³They probably are R. Ḥanania of Sepphoris and R. Mana II, of the last Amoraïm. After Diocletian’s reform, with the gold standard universally accepted, they discuss the legal standard in the inflationary period of the last Severans and the following military anarchy when the government paid its debt in adulterated silver coin but required taxes to be paid in genuine silver coin.. Rebbi Ḥanina says, bronze remained in its place¹¹⁴I. e., is the monetary standard., silver increased or decreased in value. Rebbi Mana said, silver remained in its place¹¹⁴I. e., is the monetary standard., bronze increased or decreased in value. In Rebbi Ḥanina’s opinion, with one as six women always can contract a preliminary marriage. In Rebbi Mana’s opinion, sometimes six, sometimes eight¹¹⁵It is assumed that a man can deliver a coin to a goup of women as payment for his preliminary marriage to all of them (Mishnah Qiddušin 2:6–7). In R. Mana’s opinion, the groom has to deliver merchandise (including copper coin considered as merchandise) in the actual value of a peruṭah. In terms of the silver as, not in circulation after Nero’s time, he can use one silver coin for as many women as the as can buy peruṭot. In R. Ḥanina’s opinion, since women cannot be expected to be cognizant of the current value of silver on the metals exchange, the women can be sure that the as represents the value promised them only at the historical minimum value of silver. (The explanations of the classical commentaries have to be rejected since they require a switching of the names in addition to emending the text. The relation of coins to the mint standard, whether they are treated as money or merchandise, is the topic of Baba meṣi‘a, Chapter 4.).

חִילְפַיי אָמַר. אַייתִיבוּנִי עַל גֵּיף נַהֲרָא. דְּלָא אֲפִיקִית מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי חִייָה רָבָא מִמַּתְנִיתִין זָרְקוּנִי לְנַהֲרָא. אָֽמְרִין לֵיהּ. וְהָא תַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. סִילְעָא אַרְבַּע דֵּינָרִין. אָמַר לוֹן. אוּף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָתָהּ. כַּמָּה תְּהֵא הַסֶּלַע חֲסֵירָה וְלֹא יְהֵא בָהּ הוֹנָייָה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. אַרְבַּע אִיסָּרוֹת מֵאִיסָּר לְדֵינָר. אָֽמְרִין לֵיהּ. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. שֵׁשׁ מָעָה כֶסֶף דֵּינָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אוּף אֲנָא תַנֵּינָתָא. הָאוֹנָאָה אַרְבַּע כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע כֶּסֶף לְסֶלַע שְׁתוּת לַמִּקַּח. אָֽמְרִין לֵיהּ. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. שְׁנֵי פּוֹנְדְּיוֹנִין מָעָה. אָמַר לוֹן. אוּף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָתָהּ. נוֹתֵן סֶלַע וּפוֹנְדְּיוֹן לַשָּׁנָה. אָֽמְרִין לֵיהּ. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. שְׁנֵי אִיסָּרִין פּוֹנְדְּיוֹן. אָמַר לוֹן. אוּף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָתָהּ. הַמֵּנִיחַ אִיסָּר וְאָכַל עָלָיו חֶצְיוֹ וְהָלַךְ לוֹ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וַהֲרֵי הוּא יוֹצֵא בְּפוֹנְדִּיּוֹן. מוֹסִיף עָלָיו עוֹד אִיסָּר. אָֽמְרִין לֵיהּ. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. שְׁנֵי מְסֵומִיסִּין אִיסָּר. שְׁנֵי קָרְדֵּינְטֵס מְסֵומִס. שְׁנֵי פְרוּטוֹת קָרְדֵּינְטֵס. אָמַר לוֹן. אוּף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָתָא. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְרוּטָה אֶחָד מִשְּׁמוֹנֶה בְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. Ḥilfai said¹¹⁶At many places, he is quoted as opposing the use of baraitot in talmudic discussions; cf. Ketubot 6:7:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.6.7.3">Ketubot 6:7, Note 113.: Bring me to the river’s edge. If I cannot derive Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder’s baraita¹¹⁷A paradigm for the later Tosephta, in the present case the two preceding baraitot. from the Mishnah, throw me into the river. They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “A tetradrachma are four denar.” He said to them, we also have stated¹¹⁸Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 4:4.: “By how much can a tetradrachma be deficient without being fraudulent? Rebbi Meïr said four as, one as per denar¹¹⁹He accepts a coin as of full weight if it deviates from the standard by no more than ¹/₂₄, i. e. 4.167%, in contrast to commercial contracts which are fraudulent only if the customer was overcharged by more than ¹/₆, 16.667%. In any case, the Mishnah states clearly that the deficiency admissible for a tetradrachma is four times that of a denar. {Cf. Trimalchio’s remark that the profession of banker is one of the most difficult since he must be able to recognize the inferior metal of a coin beneath its silver coating (E. G.)}.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Six silver obols are a denar.” He said to him, I also have stated it¹²⁰Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 4:3. Since “silver coin” means “smallest silver coin”, i. e., an obolus, and it was established that a denar was a quarter tetradrachma, it follows that a silver denar was 6 obols. These and smaller denominations had long disappeared from circulation in Ḥilfai’s time, towards the middle of the Third Century. (Cf. Kiddushin 1:1:20" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.20">Note 85.): “Fraud¹²¹Overcharging or underpaying in commercial contracts. is four silver coins for twenty-four silver coins, a tetradrachma, one sixth of the selling price.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two dupondii are an obolus.” He said to them, we also have stated thus¹²²Mishnah ‘Arakhin 7:1. If somebody dedicates his field to the Temple, Scripture prescribes that he redeem it proportional to the numbers of years to the next Jubilee. The full rate, for the entire 49 yars of a Jubilee cycle, is 50 šeqel for a field on which a ḥomer (or kur, 30 se’ah) of barley can be sown (75’000 square cubits). Talmudic theory identifies the biblical šeqel with the Roman tetradrachma, which is slightly more than the standard šeqel documented from First Kingdom times, 11.4 g. Since in the vernacular the zūz, the Babylonian half-šeqel, was identified with the Roman denarius, the “sheqel” was identified as two denar. This gave rise to the theory that the biblical “holy šeqel”, which simply was “the king’s weight” and still the Tyrian šeqel in Roman times, was twice the profane šeqel. The rate to be paid for the standard field per year therefore was ⁵⁰/₄₉ = 1 ¹/₄₉ tetradrachma. The rate stated in the Mishnah is 1 ¹/₄₈ tetradrachma. The small difference, ¹/₄₈ - ¹/₄₉ is qolbon (κόλλυβος, Latin collybus,collubus, “exchange of coins; rate of exchange”), the small coin paid as agio to the money-changer to convert the sum into actual coin. The Mishnah shows that a dupondius was ¹/₄₈ of a tetradrachma or half an obolus.: “He gives a tetradrachma and a dupondius per year.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two as are a dupondius”. He said to them, we also have stated thus¹²³Mishnah Ma‘aśer Šeni 4:8, Note 130.: “He who put aside an as and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two semisses are an as, two quadrantes are a semis, two peruṭot are a quadrans.” He said to them, we also have stated thus¹²⁴Kiddushin 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.1">Mishnah 1:1. While the Mishnah does not state anything about the intermediate denominations, it clearly defines the relation between peruṭah and as.: “How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.”

וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּגֵט. דִּכְתִיב וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת וגו׳. וּבְמִיתַת הַבַּעַל. דִּכְתִיב אוֹ כִי יָמוּת הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן. עַד כְּדוֹן מִיתָתוֹ שֶׁלָּאַחֲרוֹן. מִיתָתוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן. מָה אִם הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁאֵין הֵתֵירוֹ הֵיתֵר מְרוּבֶּה אַתְּ אוֹמֵר. מִיתָה מַתֶּרֶת. רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהֵתֵירוֹ הֵיתֵר מְרוּבֶּה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵא הַמִּיתָה מַתֶּרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָה. קִרְייָה אָמַר שֶׁהַמִּיתָה מַתֶּרֶת. דִּכְתִיב כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּיו וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בֵּן מִיתָה מַתֶּרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ שֶׁאֵין מִיתָה מַתֶּרֶת מְנָן אֲנָן מַשְׁכְּחִין אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בַּר מַרְייָה. תִּיפְתָּר בִּיבָמָה. ¹²⁵A parallel but different discussion is in the Kiddushin.13b">Babli, 13b.“She regains her autonomy by a bill of divorce,” as it is written¹²⁶Deuteronomy.24.1">Deut. 24:1. The part not quoted and v. 2 make it clear that the divorcee is free to contract another marriage.: “He shall write her a bill of divorce.” “Or the husband’s death,” as it is written: “Or if the latter husband dies.¹²⁷Deuteronomy.24.3">Deut. 24:3. Since the widow cannot remarry her first husband, it is clear that she can marry any other man.” So far, if the latter one dies, [what about] the death of the former¹²⁸Which is not mentioned in the verse.? Since the latter’s death releases her, even though his death does not cause a complete release¹²⁹The former husband becomes forbidden. He was permitted after his divorce and before her second marriage., it is only logical that the former’s death should release her since his death will cause a complete release¹³⁰The divorcee is free to marry any man not forbidden to her by incest or holiness prohibitions.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the verse implies that death releases, as it is written: “If brothers live together and one of them dies childless, etc.¹³¹Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5. Since the verse prohibits remarriage of the widow outside the family, it implies that the widow of a man who had children is free to marry according to her wishes.” Therefore, if he had a child, death releases. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if you would say that death does not release, how could we find a widow for a High priest, a divorcee or one who has received ḥalîṣah for a common priest¹³²The statement about the common priest implies that a widow is permitted to a common priest even if he is not of her first husband’s family.? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, explain it for a sister-in-law¹³³If a brother of a High Priest dies childless, his widow is forbidden to the High Priest. The prohibition has to be stated even if in general a widow were not permitted to remarry..

יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. זוֹ בִּיאָה. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. זוֹ הַמַּאֲמָר. יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַבִּיאָה גוֹמֶרֶת בָּהּ כָּךְ יְהֵא הַמַּאֲמָר גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ. תַּלמְוּד לוֹמַר וְיִבְּמָהּ. עִירָה כָּל־הַפָּרָשָׁה כּוּלָּהּ לְיִיבּוּם. הַבִּיאָה גוֹמֶרֶת בָּהּ וְאֵין הַמַּאֲמָר גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ. אִם כֵּן מַה מוֹעִיל בָּהּ מַאֲמָר. לְאוֹסְרָהּ עַל הָאַחִין. ¹³⁴The text is from Yevamot 2:1:2-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.2.1.2-6">Yebamot, Chapter 2:1 (ב), explained there in Kiddushin 1:1:3-8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.3-8">Notes 12–20, and Chapter 5:1 (ה).“Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as a wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “and take her in levirate.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to his brothers.

רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. הַמַּאֲמָר אוֹ קוֹנֶה אוֹ לֹא קוֹנֶה. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. זֶה הַבִּיאָה. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. זֶה הַמַּאֲמָר. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַבִּיאָה גוֹמֶרֶת בָּהּ כָּךְ יְהֵא הַמַּאֲמָר גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ. אוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ וַהֲרֵי הִיא לְקוּחָה לוֹ. וְהַמַּאֲמָר לֹא הוֹעִיל בָּהּ כְּלוּם. Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire. What is the argument of Rebbi Simeon? “Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. Just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final. Or “her levir shall come upon her”, then she has been acquired by him and “bespeaking” was of no use to her.

רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ אָמַר. הַמַּאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְייָן גָּמוּר בִּיבָמָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. הֲרֵי הוּא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה. מַה קִידּוּשֵּׁי אִשָּׁה קוֹנִין קִנְייָן גָּמוּר בִּיבָמָה. אַף הַמַּאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִינְייָן גָּמוּר בִּיבָמָה. אֵי זֶהוּ מַאֲמָר בִּיבָמָה. הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי בְּכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כֶסֶף. Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as a wife for himself”, the same expression is used as for the preliminary marriage of a woman¹⁹In Mekhilta dR.Simeon bar Ioḥai (p. 167) the argument is inverted: Since in general a woman may be acquired by a document, so Hebrew slave girls may be acquired by a document.. Just as preliminary marriage acquires completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.”

רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל. וְלָמָּה לֵי נָן אָֽמְרִין. בֵּין בַּחֲלִיצָתָהּ בֵּין בַּחֲלִיצַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ. חָזַר וְאָמַר. מַה תַנִּינָן. בַּחֲלִיצָתָהּ. לֹא חֲלִיצָתָהּ. וְהָכָא בֵּין בַּחֲלִיצָתָהּ בֵּין בַּחֲלִיצַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. בְּבִיאָה. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. בֵּין בְּבִיאָתָהּ בֵּין בְּבִיאַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ. מַתְנִיתָא בִּיבָמָה אַחַת. מַה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ בִּשְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. Rebbi Isaac asked: Why do we not say: “either by her own ḥalîṣah or that of her co-wife?”¹³⁵This refers to the last sentence in the Mishnah, that the widow of the childless man can regain her autonomy by ḥalîṣah. Yevamot 4:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.4.1.1">Mishnah Yebamot 4:1 states that for the House of Hillel the levirate marriage or ḥalîṣah of one wife of the deceased childless brother forbids all her co-wives to the levir’s brothers and, therefore, frees the co-wives to marry any other man. He turned around and said: Did we state “by her own ḥalîṣah”? Not “by her own ḥalîṣah”¹³⁶It is only stated “by ḥalîṣah,” not indicating who performs it; it could be a co-wife.! But here either by her own ḥalîṣah or that of her co-wife. But did we not state, “by intercourse”? Can you say, either by her own intercourse or the intercourse of her cowife¹³⁷One has to assume that the Mishnah is formulated in a uniform style. It is clear that a man cannot marry a group of women by sleeping with one of them, even though he could marry all women in the group by giving valuables to one of them if the others empower her to act for them (Kiddushin 1:1:25" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.25">Note 115). If “intercourse” in the first case means a personal act, then ḥalîṣah in the last case also means a personal act.? The Mishnah speaks of one sister-in-law; the problem arises for two sisters-in-law.

רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בְּעָא. שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה בַּמֶּה הִיא קוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ לְפוֹטְרָהּ מִן הַמַּלְקוּת וְלָבֹא עָלֶיהָ מִן הָאָשָׁם. פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בַּגֵּט. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין. קִידֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו. וְדִכְְװָתָה גֵּירַשׁ אִשָּׁה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְגֵירוּשָׁיו. פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה בַּגֵּט מִיהָא (דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חִיָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין וְקִידֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו. וְדִכְװָתָה גֵּירַשׁ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְגֵירוּשָׁיו. פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה בַּגֵּט מִיהָא) דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תִּירְגֵּם עֲקִילַס הַגֵּר לִפְנֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. וְהִיא שִׁפְחָה נֶחֱרֶפֶת לְאִישׁ. בִּכְתוּשָׁה לִפְנֵי אִישׁ. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר וַתִּשְׁטַח עָלָיו הָרִיפוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כֵּן פֵּירְשָׁהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים. וְהִיא שִׁפְחָה נֶחֱרֶפֶת לְאִישׁ. בִּכְתוּשָׁה לִפְנֵי אִישׁ. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר בְּתוֹךְ הָרִיפוֹת בָּעֱלִי. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: How can a ḥăruphah slave girl¹³⁸Cf. Leviticus.19.20-22">Lev. 19:20–22. The slave girl has a status approximating that of married woman but sleeps with another man. By rabbinic interpretation, the girl is whipped and the man has to bring a reparation sacrifice. The exact meaning of the root חרף is in doubt, in view of the multiple meanings of Arabic حرف or خرف; rabbinic interpretations are given at the end of this paragraph and the next. If she were an unattached slave, she could not marry and, therefore, could have guiltless sex with any man of her choosing. The Jewish man who slept with her would be guilty of violating Deuteronomy.23.18">Deut. 23:18 for which he could be whipped if the act was observed by two witnesses, but no sacrifice would be due. acquire her autonomy in such a way that she would be freed from flogging, and [free] the one who had intercourse with her from a reparation sacrifice? It is obvious that she cannot leave by a bill of divorce since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If a person who is half slave and half free entered a preliminary marriage, one does not consider his marriage¹³⁹Gittin 4:5:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.4.5.2">Giṭṭin 4:5, Notes 140–141. In this interpretation the girl is partially manumitted and engaged to be married by a free Jewish man after her complete manumission. Since in her present state she cannot be legally married, neither can she be divorced.. In parallel, if he divorced one does not consider his divorce. It is obvious that she can leave by a bill of divorce at least since (Rebbi Ḥiyya said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If a person who is half slave and half free entered a preliminary marriage, one does not consider his marriage. In parallel, if he divorced one does not consider his divorce. It is obvious that she can leave by a bill of divorce at least)¹⁴⁰The meaning of this sentence is unclear. The text in parentheses is dittography inserted by the corrector.. Rebbi Yose said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: Aquila the proselyte translated before Rebbi Aqiba “and she is a slave girl נֶחֱרֶפֶת to a man”¹⁴¹Leviticus.19.20">Lev. 19:20., by “one who was pounded before a man”¹⁴²She was betrothed by intercourse., as you say, “she spread morsels on it¹⁴³2S. 17:19. The identification of ה and ח is routine in rabbinic derivations but etymologically unfounded. Modern dictionaries treat הריפות, הרפות as derived from a hypothetical root ריף, not הרף..” Rebbi Ḥiyya said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: So Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon explained it before the Sages. “And she is a slave girl נֶחֱרֶפֶת to a man”, by “one who was pounded before a man”, as you say, “in morsels by a pestle.¹⁴⁴Proverbs.17.19">Pr. 17:19. Aquila translates בְּתוֹךְ הָרִיפוֹת by ἐν μέσῳ ἐμπτισσομένων “in the midst of pounded things”. Both verses are quoted in the same sense in the Keritot.11a">Babli, Keritut 11a, that a man who sleeps with a ḥaruphah slave girl is guilty only if the girl had previously slept with her assignee, not if she is a virgin. (This agrees with the derivation of נחרפת, accepted by Gesenius, from Accadic ẖarāpu, Arabic خرف “to pluck, to harvest”, that the slave girl “had been plucked by a man,” Leviticus.19.20">Lev. 19:20.) The tradent there is R. Isaac; Aquila is not mentioned [since in the Babli’s tradition he did not translate following R. Aqiba but R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, one generation earlier (Megillah.3a">Megillah 3a).] {One is tempted to find in ח̇רפ the root of Greek Χάρυβδις, a dangerous whirlpool between Italy and Sicily, personified as a dangerous female being who “plucks men” (E. G.).}”

מָהוּ שֶׁתִּקְנֶה עַצְמָהּ בְּמִיתַת רַבָּהּ וּבְהַשְׁלִים שֵׁשׁ. מַה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. בְּשֶׁחֶצְייָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְייָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין בִּמְאוֹרֶסֶת לְבֶן חוֹרִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית הַנְּשׂוּאָה לְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אִם נִישּׂוּאֵי תוֹרָה הֵן אִם אֲדוֹנָיו יִתֵּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה. לֹא צוֹרְכָה דְלֹא. מָהוּ שֶׁתִקְנֶה עַצְמָהּ בְּמִיתַת רַבָּהּ וּבְהִשְׁלִים שֵׁשׁ. וּכְמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי עוֹבֵד אֶת הַיּוֹרֵשׁ. Can she¹⁴⁵The ḥăruphah slave girl, to be able to sleep with whomever she pleases. regain her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years]? What is the problem? Following Rebbi Aqiba? But Rebbi Aqiba said that the verse speaks about a woman half slave and half free engaged to be married by a free man¹⁴⁶Keritot.11a">Babli Keritut 11a. Her situation can be remedied only by her full manumission, Gittin 4:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.4.5.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin 4:5.. Therefore, his problem is following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse speaks about a Canaanite¹⁴⁷Meaning: originally Gentile. slave girl married to a Hebrew slave, since this is marriage sanctioned by the Torah: “If his master give him a wife.¹⁴⁸Exodus.21.4">Ex. 21:4. Since the children born from this union are slaves, the woman cannot be a Hebrew slave girl. Since the woman is called “wife”, she is required to be faithful by biblical standards. The question is whether this kind of marriage is terminated automatically, without any formality, at the moment the Hebrew slave regains his freedom. At the same moment, the slave woman becomes forbidden to him since any sexual relations between people who could not legally be married is qualified as qādēš(Deuteronomy.23.18">Deut. 23:18).” But his problem is whether she regains her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years] for him who says that the Hebrew slave does not serve the heir¹⁴⁹As explained in the next Halakhah. The question is not answered since it can never arise in the future (Kiddushin 1:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.2.1">Note 152)..