peru

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah, he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is a decision of the verse (Lev. 22:14): “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,” where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Cahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe and one to the Sanctuary.

Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah, he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is a decision of the verse (Lev. 22:14): “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,” where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Cahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe and one to the Sanctuary.

Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah, he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is a decision of the verse (Lev. 22:14): “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,” where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Cahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe and one to the Sanctuary.

According to Rav, what is the difference between himself and his children? He is forbidden because he depends on muqẓeh. His children who do not depend on muqẓeh are permitted. We understand his children, but his wife? Does she not have a claim for food against him? Following him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah. Following what we have stated: “The court will not determine food for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.” Can she not be considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah? It implies that she is not considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah. Even according to him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah, does she not have a claim to a dwelling? Following what we stated: “If men participate with food without the knowledge of their wives, the participation is valid. But if wives participate without the knowledge of their husbands, the participation is invalid”.

According to Rav, what is the difference between himself and his children? He is forbidden because he depends on muqẓeh. His children who do not depend on muqẓeh are permitted. We understand his children, but his wife? Does she not have a claim for food against him? Following him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah. Following what we have stated: “The court will not determine food for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.” Can she not be considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah? It implies that she is not considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah. Even according to him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah, does she not have a claim to a dwelling? Following what we stated: “If men participate with food without the knowledge of their wives, the participation is valid. But if wives participate without the knowledge of their husbands, the participation is invalid”.

Rebbi Ulla ben Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah brought the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs. Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Ilaї saw them and said, look what the difference is between you and the earlier generations. Rebbi Aqiba bought three different kinds for a peruṭah in order to tithe every kind separately but you bring the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs! Why over the back of the roofs, even if he brings them into his courtyard with the intention to eat them on the roof! Is that not the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Because of Rebbi who was with him. An old man saw them and said to them, would you give me some of these? They said, yes. He said to them, you did not give to your father in Heaven, only to me!

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If someone steals someone else’s animal tithe, if it still exists he returns it as is, if he ate it, he ate what he ate. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Mana: He cannot ask him to give anything; if it is worth less than a peruṭah one cannot say that he should give. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that is, if it was worth less than a peruṭah from the start. But if it was worth a peruṭah from the start, one tells him to pay.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If someone steals someone else’s animal tithe, if it still exists he returns it as is, if he ate it, he ate what he ate. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Mana: He cannot ask him to give anything; if it is worth less than a peruṭah one cannot say that he should give. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that is, if it was worth less than a peruṭah from the start. But if it was worth a peruṭah from the start, one tells him to pay.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If someone steals someone else’s animal tithe, if it still exists he returns it as is, if he ate it, he ate what he ate. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Mana: He cannot ask him to give anything; if it is worth less than a peruṭah one cannot say that he should give. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that is, if it was worth less than a peruṭah from the start. But if it was worth a peruṭah from the start, one tells him to pay.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, one redeems Second Tithe only up to thirty six times [the coin’s] worth. And Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one who exchanges should not exchange for half a peruṭah so he should not be like one who exchanges for a blank; it must be worth a peruṭah.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, one redeems Second Tithe only up to thirty six times [the coin’s] worth. And Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one who exchanges should not exchange for half a peruṭah so he should not be like one who exchanges for a blank; it must be worth a peruṭah.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

How little? Should it come as what Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: real estate cannot be acquired with less than a peruṭa’s worth? The word of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa implies even a walnut, even a date.

“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 one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman 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 for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of 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 Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: 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 says 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, one said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

“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 one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman 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 for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of 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 Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: 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 says 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, one said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

It was stated: Just as the husband decides, so the father decides; only that the husband transfers rights in writing but the father only by speech, restricted to those things that can be acquired by speech. What is that? Gidul in the name of Rav: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. And how much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, Gidul found something large and said something small! But it is as follows: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. How much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters and the son among the sons. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, is that something small? Does he not acquire a wife on top of movables with one peruṭa’s worth? But nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth! But cannot a person acquire real estate and several movables with one peruṭa’s worth? For a person can acquire two pieces of real estate with one peruṭa’s worth, but nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth.

It was stated: Just as the husband decides, so the father decides; only that the husband transfers rights in writing but the father only by speech, restricted to those things that can be acquired by speech. What is that? Gidul in the name of Rav: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. And how much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, Gidul found something large and said something small! But it is as follows: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. How much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters and the son among the sons. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, is that something small? Does he not acquire a wife on top of movables with one peruṭa’s worth? But nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth! But cannot a person acquire real estate and several movables with one peruṭa’s worth? For a person can acquire two pieces of real estate with one peruṭa’s worth, but nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth.

It was stated: Just as the husband decides, so the father decides; only that the husband transfers rights in writing but the father only by speech, restricted to those things that can be acquired by speech. What is that? Gidul in the name of Rav: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. And how much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, Gidul found something large and said something small! But it is as follows: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. How much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters and the son among the sons. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, is that something small? Does he not acquire a wife on top of movables with one peruṭa’s worth? But nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth! But cannot a person acquire real estate and several movables with one peruṭa’s worth? For a person can acquire two pieces of real estate with one peruṭa’s worth, but nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth.

It was stated: Just as the husband decides, so the father decides; only that the husband transfers rights in writing but the father only by speech, restricted to those things that can be acquired by speech. What is that? Gidul in the name of Rav: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. And how much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, Gidul found something large and said something small! But it is as follows: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. How much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters and the son among the sons. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, is that something small? Does he not acquire a wife on top of movables with one peruṭa’s worth? But nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth! But cannot a person acquire real estate and several movables with one peruṭa’s worth? For a person can acquire two pieces of real estate with one peruṭa’s worth, but nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth.

It was stated: Just as the husband decides, so the father decides; only that the husband transfers rights in writing but the father only by speech, restricted to those things that can be acquired by speech. What is that? Gidul in the name of Rav: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. And how much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, Gidul found something large and said something small! But it is as follows: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. How much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters and the son among the sons. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, is that something small? Does he not acquire a wife on top of movables with one peruṭa’s worth? But nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth! But cannot a person acquire real estate and several movables with one peruṭa’s worth? For a person can acquire two pieces of real estate with one peruṭa’s worth, but nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody makes a vow that his wife should not have any usufruct from him,” etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody by a vow bars his wife from sexual intercourse,” and here you say so? There, he makes a vow to separate her from his body, but here he makes a vow to separate her from his property. But can anybody make a vow not to pay his debt? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, since in the future he will divorce her, pay her the ketubah, and stop her food supply, it is as if there was no debt. Why could she not sit there and wait; if he divorced her everything would be in order, otherwise let him provide her with food? It follows him who said that the wife’s food is not from words of the Torah, as it was stated: The court will not determine food for the wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s. Then should she not be considered as a worker not worth a peruṭah? This proves that she is not considered as a worker not worth a peruṭah.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody makes a vow that his wife should not have any usufruct from him,” etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody by a vow bars his wife from sexual intercourse,” and here you say so? There, he makes a vow to separate her from his body, but here he makes a vow to separate her from his property. But can anybody make a vow not to pay his debt? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, since in the future he will divorce her, pay her the ketubah, and stop her food supply, it is as if there was no debt. Why could she not sit there and wait; if he divorced her everything would be in order, otherwise let him provide her with food? It follows him who said that the wife’s food is not from words of the Torah, as it was stated: The court will not determine food for the wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s. Then should she not be considered as a worker not worth a peruṭah? This proves that she is not considered as a worker not worth a peruṭah.

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they have been cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he has divorced her, what is the situation?

MISHNAH: A wife may be acquired in three ways; she regains her autonomy in two ways. She is acquired by money, or by a document, or by intercourse. By money, the House of Shammai say, by a denar or a denar’s value; but the House of Hillel say, by a peruṭa or a peruṭa’s value. How much is a peruṭa? One eighth of an Italic assarius. She regains her autonomy by a bill of divorce or by the husband’s death. A sister-in-law is acquired by intercourse; she regains her autonomy by ḥaliṣah or by the brother-in-law’s death.

MISHNAH: A wife may be acquired in three ways; she regains her autonomy in two ways. She is acquired by money, or by a document, or by intercourse. By money, the House of Shammai say, by a denar or a denar’s value; but the House of Hillel say, by a peruṭa or a peruṭa’s value. How much is a peruṭa? One eighth of an Italic assarius. She regains her autonomy by a bill of divorce or by the husband’s death. A sister-in-law is acquired by intercourse; she regains her autonomy by ḥaliṣah or by the brother-in-law’s death.

MISHNAH: A wife may be acquired in three ways; she regains her autonomy in two ways. She is acquired by money, or by a document, or by intercourse. By money, the House of Shammai say, by a denar or a denar’s value; but the House of Hillel say, by a peruṭa or a peruṭa’s value. How much is a peruṭa? One eighth of an Italic assarius. She regains her autonomy by a bill of divorce or by the husband’s death. A sister-in-law is acquired by intercourse; she regains her autonomy by ḥaliṣah or by the brother-in-law’s death.

By a document. This means, by a document which is not worth a peruṭah, but a document which is worth a peruṭah is money’s worth. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in this respect: “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 papyrus and gave it to her, she is preliminarily married.”

By a document. This means, by a document which is not worth a peruṭah, but a document which is worth a peruṭah is money’s worth. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in this respect: “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 papyrus and gave it to her, she is preliminarily married.”

By a document. This means, by a document which is not worth a peruṭah, but a document which is worth a peruṭah is money’s worth. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in this respect: “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 papyrus and gave it to her, she is preliminarily married.”

By a document. This means, by a document which is not worth a peruṭah, but a document which is worth a peruṭah is money’s worth. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in this respect: “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 papyrus and gave it to her, she is preliminarily married.”

If he wrote it on material forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: A case came before Rebbi who said, she is divorced. Rebbi Eleazar said, she is not divorced. 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 divorced. 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 words. But he who says that she is not divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by words of the Torah. 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 noontime? There, he used the material for preliminary marriage, 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 Torah! 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 filler.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, 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 girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? 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 obolus. 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 leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? 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 peruṭah! 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.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written: “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”? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?) From there, that it should be more than silver. 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 obolus. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty. 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 worth. 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.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written: “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”? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?) From there, that it should be more than silver. 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 obolus. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty. 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 worth. 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.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written: “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”? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?) From there, that it should be more than silver. 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 obolus. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty. 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 worth. 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.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written: “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”? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?) From there, that it should be more than silver. 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 obolus. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty. 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 worth. 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.

“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.

“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.

“How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.” It was stated: The as is/24 of a silver denar; the silver denar is/24 of a gold denar. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A tetradrachma is four denarii. Six silver oboli are in a denar. Two dupondii are an obolus. An obolus is two as. A pondius is two semisses. An as is two quadrantes. A semis is two peruṭot. It turns out that a quadrans is/32 of the above.”

“How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.” It was stated: The as is/24 of a silver denar; the silver denar is/24 of a gold denar. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A tetradrachma is four denarii. Six silver oboli are in a denar. Two dupondii are an obolus. An obolus is two as. A pondius is two semisses. An as is two quadrantes. A semis is two peruṭot. It turns out that a quadrans is/32 of the above.”

Rebbi Ze‘ira said, in the days of Rebbi Simai and our teachers they made it/24 of an obolus, as it was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, three dodrantes are an obolus, two besses are a dodrans, two semisses are a bes, two peruṭot a semis. It results in/24 of an obolus.”

Ḥilfai said: Bring me to the river’s edge. If I cannot derive Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder’s baraita 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 stated: “By how much can a tetradrachma be deficient without being fraudulent? Rebbi Meïr said four as, one as per denar.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Six silver obols are a denar.” He said to him, I also have stated it: “Fraud 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 thus: “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 thus: “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 thus: “How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.”

Ḥilfai said: Bring me to the river’s edge. If I cannot derive Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder’s baraita 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 stated: “By how much can a tetradrachma be deficient without being fraudulent? Rebbi Meïr said four as, one as per denar.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Six silver obols are a denar.” He said to him, I also have stated it: “Fraud 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 thus: “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 thus: “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 thus: “How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.”

“If he did not allot her, he must let her be redeemed.” This teaches that he cannot allot her for himself unless there is time for her handywork to be worth a peruṭah and that a peruṭah be left to be deducted, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, he allots any time until sundown. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, everybody agrees that for a Hebrew slave only if a peruṭah’s worth is left. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says it correctly, what is the rabbis’ reason? There is no money left, there is no handiwork left? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he allots her by speech.

“If he did not allot her, he must let her be redeemed.” This teaches that he cannot allot her for himself unless there is time for her handywork to be worth a peruṭah and that a peruṭah be left to be deducted, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, he allots any time until sundown. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, everybody agrees that for a Hebrew slave only if a peruṭah’s worth is left. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says it correctly, what is the rabbis’ reason? There is no money left, there is no handiwork left? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he allots her by speech.

“If he did not allot her, he must let her be redeemed.” This teaches that he cannot allot her for himself unless there is time for her handywork to be worth a peruṭah and that a peruṭah be left to be deducted, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, he allots any time until sundown. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, everybody agrees that for a Hebrew slave only if a peruṭah’s worth is left. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says it correctly, what is the rabbis’ reason? There is no money left, there is no handiwork left? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he allots her by speech.

Is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah of the opinion that the “allotment” discussed here is preliminary marriage by biblical standards? Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebi Jehudah agrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. As it was stated: By the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. Just as Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon equates loan and deposit, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah equates “allotment” and loan.

Is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah of the opinion that the “allotment” discussed here is preliminary marriage by biblical standards? Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebi Jehudah agrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. As it was stated: By the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. Just as Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon equates loan and deposit, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah equates “allotment” and loan.

Is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah of the opinion that the “allotment” discussed here is preliminary marriage by biblical standards? Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebi Jehudah agrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. As it was stated: By the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. Just as Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon equates loan and deposit, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah equates “allotment” and loan.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Mana; Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be bought for less than a peruṭah. What is the reason? “Fields will be bought by money.” This disagrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said: Any šeqalim mentioned in the Torah are tetradrachmas, in the Prophets pounds, and in the Hagiographs centenarii. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, except for the šeqalim paid to Ephron, which were centenarii. What is the reason? “For full money he shall give it to me.” There is no comparison since here it is written “money” but there “šeqalim”. They objected, is there not the rapist, for whom “money” is written and you say “šeqalim”?

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be bought for less than a peruṭah. What is the reason? “Fields will be bought by money.” This disagrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said: All šeqalim mentioned in the Torah are tetradrachmas, in the Prophets pounds, and in the Hagiographs centenarii, except for the šeqalim paid to Ephron. What is the reason? “For full money he shall give it to me.” There is no comparison since here it is written “money” but there “šeqalim”. They objected, is there not the rapist, for whom “money” is written and you say “šeqalim”.

MISHNAH: A man may contract a premininary marriage either in person or through an agent, and a woman may be taken in preliminary marriage either in person or through an agent. A man may give away his adolescent daughter in preliminary marriage himself or through his agent. If a man say to a woman: Be married to me preliminarily by this date fruit, be preliminarily married by that one, she is preliminarily married if one of them was worth a peruṭah, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. By this and by that one, she is preliminarily married if together they are worth a peruṭah, but if she was eating immediately what she received, she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.

MISHNAH: A man may contract a premininary marriage either in person or through an agent, and a woman may be taken in preliminary marriage either in person or through an agent. A man may give away his adolescent daughter in preliminary marriage himself or through his agent. If a man say to a woman: Be married to me preliminarily by this date fruit, be preliminarily married by that one, she is preliminarily married if one of them was worth a peruṭah, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. By this and by that one, she is preliminarily married if together they are worth a peruṭah, but if she was eating immediately what she received, she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.

MISHNAH: A man may contract a premininary marriage either in person or through an agent, and a woman may be taken in preliminary marriage either in person or through an agent. A man may give away his adolescent daughter in preliminary marriage himself or through his agent. If a man say to a woman: Be married to me preliminarily by this date fruit, be preliminarily married by that one, she is preliminarily married if one of them was worth a peruṭah, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. By this and by that one, she is preliminarily married if together they are worth a peruṭah, but if she was eating immediately what she received, she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The baraita if he said to her, by the deposit you are holding for me. But if he said, by everything which I deposited with you, she is not preliminarily married unless all of it is available. What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was given to be spent; this was not given to be spent. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.” Then even if a peruṭah’ s worth was left, she should not be preliminarily married unless all of them were available! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Abun said, were we not of the opinion to say, who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Jehudah imply comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Just as he says there, comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices, so he says here, comprehensive one preliminary marriage, in detail three preliminary marriages.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The baraita if he said to her, by the deposit you are holding for me. But if he said, by everything which I deposited with you, she is not preliminarily married unless all of it is available. What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was given to be spent; this was not given to be spent. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.” Then even if a peruṭah’ s worth was left, she should not be preliminarily married unless all of them were available! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Abun said, were we not of the opinion to say, who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Jehudah imply comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Just as he says there, comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices, so he says here, comprehensive one preliminary marriage, in detail three preliminary marriages.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The baraita if he said to her, by the deposit you are holding for me. But if he said, by everything which I deposited with you, she is not preliminarily married unless all of it is available. What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was given to be spent; this was not given to be spent. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.” Then even if a peruṭah’ s worth was left, she should not be preliminarily married unless all of them were available! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Abun said, were we not of the opinion to say, who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Jehudah imply comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Just as he says there, comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices, so he says here, comprehensive one preliminary marriage, in detail three preliminary marriages.

HALAKHAH: “Be preliminarily married to me by this cup of wine,” etc. If this cup and its contents together have the value of a peruṭah, she is preliminarily married; otherwise she is not preliminarily married. “Acquire it and its contents,” if its contents are worth a peruṭah, she is preliminarily married; otherwise she is not preliminarily married; she acquired only its contents.

HALAKHAH: “Be preliminarily married to me by this cup of wine,” etc. If this cup and its contents together have the value of a peruṭah, she is preliminarily married; otherwise she is not preliminarily married. “Acquire it and its contents,” if its contents are worth a peruṭah, she is preliminarily married; otherwise she is not preliminarily married; she acquired only its contents.

MISHNAH: Somebody who preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah, or one woman with the value of half a peruṭah, is not preliminarily married even if afterwards he sent presents, since he sent them based on the earlier preliminary marriage. The same holds for an underage boy who contracted a preliminary marriage.

MISHNAH: Somebody who preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah, or one woman with the value of half a peruṭah, is not preliminarily married even if afterwards he sent presents, since he sent them based on the earlier preliminary marriage. The same holds for an underage boy who contracted a preliminary marriage.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah,” etc. It was stated: “In all these cases, if they had intercourse they acquired. Rebbi Simeon [ben] Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: In all these cases, if they had intercourse they did acquire since his intercourse was predicated on the preceding preliminary marriage.” What did they acquire? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They acquired for restrictions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: With any condition which refers to a preceding action, she is preliminarily married for restrictions. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Who is the Tanna who stated: “Any condition which refers to a preceding action is invalid”? This does not follow Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She is preliminarily married for restrictions. How is that: “I am marrying you preliminarily by intercourse on condition that rains should fall.” If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of a preliminary marriage by a loan for restrictions, for real estate it was not acquired, for movables one does not deliver him to “Him Who exacted retribution.” If [the buyer] insists on the deal? Let us hear from the following: “You have wine to get from me, when he had no wine.” Therefore, if he had wine he would be obligated to deliver. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if he has wine he is obligated to deliver. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac did (not) say there: You should know that Rebbi Ḥiyya instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan that a preliminary marriage by a loan is for restrictions. Rebbi Ze‘ira resented it. Why? Because they were restrictive in practice and he taught them leniency? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were lenient in practice and he taught them to be restrictive, that if another man came and married her preliminarily, his marriage would hold. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanan said, if there is a doubt between adultery and no adultery, decide on no adultery.

When Rebbi Meïr expired, Rebbi Jehudah decided and said, Rebbi Meïr’s students shall not enter here. Symmachos squeezed by and entered. He said, “Most holy sacrifices for preliminary marriage,” how could a woman enter the Temple courtyard? He said to him, if he contracts preliminary marriage through an agent. By what does he contract preliminary marriage? Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the goodwill created. Or we might say that they do not disagree. When Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body, [he meant] by the expected goodwill from it. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One may contract preliminary marriage with a peruṭah from Second Tithe.

The elder Rebbi Hoshaia and Rebbi Jehudah Neśia were sitting together. They said, let us say something on the subject of preliminary marriage. If somebody say to his wife, here you have a peruṭaḣ that you should be preliminarily married to me after I have divorced you, what is the rule? They laughed and got up. Rebbi Yose said, why did they laugh? Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say, “after you are freed”, she is made dependent on another person’s will; and here “after you are divorced,” she is made dependent on another’s will. If you want to find a difficulty. ask the following: A person went to preliminarily marry a woman. Another person overtook him and said to her, you should know that the man who is coming to preliminarily marry you has a bad mind. In the future he will abandon you. But here you have this peruṭah that you should be preliminarily married to me after he will have divorced you. What is the rule?

The elder Rebbi Hoshaia and Rebbi Jehudah Neśia were sitting together. They said, let us say something on the subject of preliminary marriage. If somebody say to his wife, here you have a peruṭaḣ that you should be preliminarily married to me after I have divorced you, what is the rule? They laughed and got up. Rebbi Yose said, why did they laugh? Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say, “after you are freed”, she is made dependent on another person’s will; and here “after you are divorced,” she is made dependent on another’s will. If you want to find a difficulty. ask the following: A person went to preliminarily marry a woman. Another person overtook him and said to her, you should know that the man who is coming to preliminarily marry you has a bad mind. In the future he will abandon you. But here you have this peruṭah that you should be preliminarily married to me after he will have divorced you. What is the rule?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to a woman, be preliminarily married to me,” etc. Rav said, we deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth. Rebbi Immi asked (before Rebbi): Do we not always deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth? But so it is: “By what I shall speak for you to the government; if he did speak for her to the government for a peruṭah’s worth she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” “By what I shall work for you as a worker; if he did work for her as a worker for a peruṭah’s worth, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Only if she set aside a tetradrachma in her chest for him. With what did he effectuate the preliminary marriage? As we have stated there: “If anything is bartered instead of money, if one party entered in possession, the other is obligated for its trade-in.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to a woman, be preliminarily married to me,” etc. Rav said, we deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth. Rebbi Immi asked (before Rebbi): Do we not always deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth? But so it is: “By what I shall speak for you to the government; if he did speak for her to the government for a peruṭah’s worth she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” “By what I shall work for you as a worker; if he did work for her as a worker for a peruṭah’s worth, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Only if she set aside a tetradrachma in her chest for him. With what did he effectuate the preliminary marriage? As we have stated there: “If anything is bartered instead of money, if one party entered in possession, the other is obligated for its trade-in.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to a woman, be preliminarily married to me,” etc. Rav said, we deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth. Rebbi Immi asked (before Rebbi): Do we not always deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth? But so it is: “By what I shall speak for you to the government; if he did speak for her to the government for a peruṭah’s worth she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” “By what I shall work for you as a worker; if he did work for her as a worker for a peruṭah’s worth, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Only if she set aside a tetradrachma in her chest for him. With what did he effectuate the preliminary marriage? As we have stated there: “If anything is bartered instead of money, if one party entered in possession, the other is obligated for its trade-in.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to a woman, be preliminarily married to me,” etc. Rav said, we deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth. Rebbi Immi asked (before Rebbi): Do we not always deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth? But so it is: “By what I shall speak for you to the government; if he did speak for her to the government for a peruṭah’s worth she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” “By what I shall work for you as a worker; if he did work for her as a worker for a peruṭah’s worth, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Only if she set aside a tetradrachma in her chest for him. With what did he effectuate the preliminary marriage? As we have stated there: “If anything is bartered instead of money, if one party entered in possession, the other is obligated for its trade-in.”