050b - יש בכור פרק שמיני בכורות דף נ, ע"ב

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav Assi: All “kesef” (silver) stated in the Torah without qualification means Tyrian silver, and that of the Rabbis means provincial silver.^[1]

כסף צורי - Where the Torah writes “shekel,” it means a Tyrian sela, which is four dinarim, as Rabbi Yochanan established above;^[2] and where it does not write “shekel” but only “kesef,” it means a Tyrian dinar.

כסף מדינה - One eighth of Tyrian silver; that is the “istera sevasriasa” we mentioned above.^[3]

Is that a rule?

But there is the claim, as it is written: “If a man gives his neighbor money or vessels to keep”,

טענה - That a person claims from his fellow: “I gave such-and-such into your keeping.”

and we learned in a Mishnah: “The oath of the judges – the claim must be two silver [ma’ah]”!^[4]

שבועת הדיינין - The oath that comes because of admitting part of the claim; he does not swear unless the claim was worth two ma’ah,^[5] which are a third of a dinar – even though it is written “If a man gives his neighbor kesef.”

There it is different, since it is written “money or vessels”: just as “vessels” means two, so too “money” means two; and just as money is something significant, so too vessels must be something significant.^[6]

שאני התם - For the Merciful One compared money to vessels: “vessels” means any two at all, even if they are not worth a dinar; so too money means two.

ומה כסף דבר חשוב - And a silver ma’ah counts as significant; so too vessels must be something significant, and not literally anything at all.

But there is maaser, as it is written: “And bind up the money in your hand”,

and we learned: “One who changes a sela from [coins of] maaser sheni”!^[7]

הפורט סלע - Who had perutos from the redemption money of maaser sheni and wants to exchange them for silver sela’im because of the burden of the journey. There the dispute concludes, “Beis Shammai say: for the whole sela, coins,” etc. In any case we learn from it that he sold the maaser for perutos, and yet it is written “and you shall give the money (kesef).”

“Kesef,” “kesef” – it includes.^[8]

הכסף כסף ריבה - “Kesef” is written there three times: “and you shall turn it into money,” “and bind up the money,” “and you shall give the money” – and it includes everything.

But there is hekdesh, as it is written: “Then he shall give the money, and it shall be assured to him”,

and Shmuel said: “Hekdesh worth a maneh that was redeemed on a perutah’s worth is redeemed”!^[9]

ש"פ - That is, copper.^[10]

Hekdesh, too, learns “kodesh,” “kodesh” from maaser.^[11]

[קדש קדש ממעשר] - Of maaser sheni “kodesh” is written: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes [under the rod],” etc.; and of hekdesh it is written: “And when a man sanctifies his house as holy (kodesh).”

But there is the betrothal of a woman, as it is written: “She shall go out free, without money”,

ויצאה חנם אין כסף - And from there we derive kiddushin, for we say: “without money” to this master, but with money to another master.^[12]

and we learned: “Beis Shammai say: with a dinar or a dinar’s worth; and Beis Hillel say: with a perutah or a perutah’s worth”,^[13]

shall we say that Rav Assi spoke like Beis Shammai?

Rather, if it was said, it was said thus: Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav Assi: All fixed kesef stated in the Torah is Tyrian silver, and that of the Rabbis is provincial silver.^[14]

קצוב - Where there is [a fixed sum such as] thirty or fifty; but in all those cases we challenged from, there is no fixed amount.

What does he teach us?

We already learned it: “Five sela’im of a son,” etc.!^[15]

“And that of the Rabbis is provincial silver” is what he needed, for we learned: “One who blows into his fellow’s ear gives him a sela”,^[16]

התוקע - Who strikes his fellow on the ear – so my teacher explained in Bava Kamma; but here I heard “toke’a” literally, that he blew from his mouth into his ear. And a proof for my teacher’s explanation in Bava Kamma, and here I heard, is “Do not be among those who strike hands” – who strike their palm on their fellows’ palm to become guarantors for others. And Rav Ashi teaches us that you should not say he must give him a Tyrian sela, which is four zuz, but a provincial sela, which is half a zuz, an eighth of a Tyrian sela.

and do not say a sela of four zuz, but half a zuz, for people call half a zuz a “sela.”^[17]

Chanan the Wicked blew into a certain man’s ear; he came before Rav Huna,^[18]

he said to him: Give him half a zuz.

He had…^[19]

Tosfos

כל כסף האמור בתורה כסף צורי - In the first chapter of Kiddushin (11a) the Kuntres^[20] explained in the name of his teachers that the dinar is the smallest Tyrian coin. He brings it there on Beis Shammai’s statement that a woman is betrothed with a dinar, and explains Beis Shammai’s reason as following Rav Assi, that all kesef stated in the Torah is Tyrian silver. And although it is written “twenty gerah is the shekel,” and we translate “twenty ma’in is the sela” – that is not because there was a ma’ah in the days of Moshe; rather, there was a weight in Moshe’s day worth the ma’ah that was made afterward, in the days of Onkelos. And [the Gemara] challenges: “But there is the claim,” for [the Mishnah] teaches “two kesef,” which are ma’os – since it says shtei and not shnei. And it answers that there we need something significant, like vessels, and a ma’ah is something significant; so now the verse comes to reduce, that a ma’ah suffices and we do not need a dinar. But according to the conclusion, which says “fixed kesef,” “something significant” comes to add: that we need a ma’ah, and a perutah does not suffice. Rabbeinu Shmuel challenged this explanation: if all kesef stated in the Torah is a dinar, how does the hekesh come and take it out of that? The hekesh only comes to teach us: just as vessels are two, so too money is two! And it seems there is no difficulty at all, for there is no hekesh by halves. And according to Rav, who disagrees with Shmuel in Perek Shevuas HaDayanin (Shevuos 39b), one must say so, for both expositions – two, and something significant – come from “vessels,” and “kesef” comes for the denial. He further challenged: how can we say “just as vessels are something significant” – is a needle something significant? Yet it says there: “for this reason vessels were stated, [to include them] whatever they are,” showing that needles are not considered significant. This too is no difficulty, for even a needle has significance, since it is fit to do important and great work with it. He further challenged: in Shevuos it says explicitly the reverse, “just as money is something significant, so too vessels are something significant,” and “kesef” comes for that exposition. This too is no difficulty, for that is according to Shmuel; but according to Rav it says explicitly there that both “two” and “something significant” come from “vessels,” and “kesef” comes for the denial. Moreover, even in Shmuel’s statement some texts read there as here: “and when the verse is examined, it supports Shmuel.” And what it says afterward according to Shmuel – “had ‘vessels’ been written and not ‘kesef,’ I would have said: just as vessels are two, but something significant we do not require” – he did not say that because we derive “something significant” from “kesef”; rather, because without “kesef” we would derive from “vessels” only “two”; therefore it wrote “kesef,” to compare it to vessels and require something significant in them. One can further say: from “kesef,” which implies the significance of money – a perutah at least – we find that significance is required in vessels, to exclude a worthless vessel such as a potsherd (marooka), as it says in Perek HaZahav (Bava Metzia 47a), “a fit vessel” – to exclude a marooka; or else to exclude a vessel worth less than a perutah, so that you should not say it is a scriptural decree for every vessel even if it is not worth a perutah – as the Yerushalmi says that “he claimed two needles” refers to ones worth two perutos, so that the denial is a perutah and the admission a perutah. And then we compare money to vessels, to require significance in money beyond a perutah: just as a vessel is not anything at all but a significant vessel, so too money is not anything at all but significant money – and that is a ma’ah, which has significance. Rashi reads there: “and when the verse is examined it supports Shmuel: just as money is something significant,” etc., and emended “so too anything significant,” not reading “so too vessels,” because Shmuel holds “vessels were stated [to include them] whatever they are.” But he strained needlessly, for with vessels too it comes to exclude a marooka, or a vessel not worth a perutah, as I explained. Rashi gave another explanation in Kiddushin: “All kesef stated in the Torah is Tyrian silver” – if it specified shekalim, it is a Tyrian shekel; if unspecified, it is the smallest Tyrian coin. Therefore you cannot say a perutah, for it was of copper, and among Tyrian coins there is no copper coin. And in kiddushin “kesef” is written, since “taking” is learned by tradition; and since you have taken it out of a perutah, it evidently requires something of significance – establish it on a dinar, as below in our sugya. “But there is the claim,” etc.: this is puzzling – let us say, granted that a ma’ah is the smallest Tyrian coin, but from where does he know “two”? And it answers: “just as vessels are two,” etc., “and just as money is something significant, so too vessels must be something significant” – that they be worth two kesef; to exclude the one who said there, “if he claimed two needles, he is liable for admitting one of them; for this reason vessels were stated, whatever they are,” meaning that he becomes liable for them for any amount. Thus far the words of the Kuntres. We find his explanation difficult: according to his approach in Shevuos he should have emended here too, “so too anything,” as he emends in Shevuos, for this exposition, “just as money is something significant,” exists only according to Shmuel, while Rav holds that “kesef” comes for the denial. And it is further difficult for the Ri: since the smallest Tyrian coin is the ma’ah, how can one say at all “since you have taken it out of a perutah, establish it on a dinar”? He should have said: on a ma’ah, which is the smallest Tyrian coin. Granted, according to the one who says “since you have taken it out of a perutah, establish it on a dinar,” that is after we found that a perutah counts as kesef regarding the Hebrew maidservant; and since you have taken it out of a perutah, which is kesef, establish it on a dinar, which is something significant. But now that we hold that unspecified kesef is a ma’ah, as with the claim, why establish it on a dinar? And one cannot say “since you have taken it out of a perutah,” for nowhere is unspecified kesef a perutah, but a ma’ah. Furthermore, just as regarding kiddushin it says “since you have taken it out of a perutah, establish it on a dinar,” regarding the claim too let us say: since you have taken it out of two perutos, establish it on two dinarim.

מה כלים שנים כו' - In Shevuos (39b) Rashi asked: from where does Shmuel expound “for this reason vessels were stated, whatever they are,” when [“vessels”] is needed to teach us “just as vessels are two”? He answered that [the Torah] could have written “kesafim” (plural), which implies two and something significant. But it is puzzling: if so, from where does he know “something significant”? I could say two perutos, as he said above. One can answer that [then] it should have written “kesef or chafatzim (articles).”

כל כסף קצוב האמור בתורה כסף צורי ושל דבריהם כסף מדינה - It is puzzling: in Perek HaChovel (Bava Kamma 90a) we learned, regarding one who blows into his fellow’s ear, “Rabbi Yose HaGelili says: a maneh,” and the Gemara concludes that this means a Tyrian maneh. And in Kesubos, Perek Af Al Pi (64b), we learned “he gives them clothing worth fifty zuz,” and in Perek Metzias HaIshah (Kesubos 67a), “he may not give her less than fifty zuz,” and the Gemara infers that it means fifty simple [provincial] zuz – and it makes no inference at all from Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav Assi. And the kesubah of a virgin is two hundred Tyrian [zuz], both according to the one who holds it is from the Torah and according to the one who holds it is Rabbinic; and even the kesubah of a widow, which according to all is Rabbinic, is a Tyrian maneh. It seems to the Ri that [Rav Assi] speaks here only of sela’im, like the “fixed kesef stated in the Torah,” for in the Torah only shekalim are written.

Notes

1. 1. Kesef tzuri (“Tyrian silver”) is the full-standard silver coinage of Tyre, in which the Torah’s sums are reckoned; kesef medinah (“provincial silver”) is the local currency, worth one eighth as much. The question is whether every “kesef” in the Torah is measured in the more valuable coin.
2. 2. Rashi refers to Rabbi Yochanan’s statement on the previous amud about the coin used for redeeming the firstborn [Bechoros 50a].
3. 3. Rashi refers to Rabbi Chanina’s “istera,” a coin eight of which make a dinar [Bechoros 49b].
4. 4. Mishnah, Shevuos 38b. One who admits part of a claim and denies the rest (modeh bemiktzas) must swear by Torah law. The Mishnah sets the minimum claim at “two kesef” – two silver ma’ah – far less than a Tyrian coin, although the verse says “kesef” (Shemos 22:6).
5. 5. A ma’ah is a small silver coin, one sixth of a dinar (zuz).
6. 6. A hekesh compares two things placed side by side in one verse, so that each takes on the other’s rules. Here “money” learns “two” from “vessels,” and vessels learn “significant” from money.
7. 7. Maaser sheni, the second tithe, may be redeemed for money that is spent on food in Yerushalayim (Devarim 14:25). The Mishnah (Maaser Sheni 2:9) speaks of exchanging small coins of maaser money for a silver sela, showing that maaser could be redeemed even with copper perutos.
8. 8. The word “kesef,” repeated in the passage (Devarim 14:25–26), is read as an inclusion: any coin, even copper, may redeem maaser.
9. 9. Hekdesh is property consecrated to the Temple; it is redeemed by paying its value (Vayikra 27:19). Shmuel rules that even if it was redeemed for a perutah, far below its value, the redemption takes effect – so a perutah counts as “kesef” there.
10. 10. The perutah, the smallest coin, was made of copper – not silver at all, let alone Tyrian silver.
11. 11. A gezeirah shavah links two passages that share a word, so that a law of one applies to the other. “Kodesh” appears by maaser and by hekdesh, so hekdesh shares maaser’s inclusion of any money.
12. 12. The Hebrew maidservant goes free “without money” (Shemos 21:11) – implying that another “master,” a husband, acquires a woman with money. This is one source for kiddushin with money.
13. 13. Mishnah, Kiddushin 2a [Kiddushin 2a]: the minimum value for betrothal with money. Beis Shammai’s dinar seems to follow Rav Assi’s Tyrian standard, while the halachah follows Beis Hillel.
14. 14. “Fixed” sums are the specific amounts the Torah sets: five sela’im for pidyon haben, thirty for a slave, fifty for the violator or seducer, and so on (the Mishnah on 49b). Where the Torah says only “kesef” with no amount, no Tyrian standard is implied.
15. 15. The Mishnah earlier in this chapter [Bechoros 49b]: “Five sela’im of a son – in Tyrian maneh,” which already states that the Torah’s fixed sums are Tyrian.
16. 16. Mishnah, Bava Kamma 90a [Bava Kamma 90a]: one who humiliates another by blowing into (or striking) his ear pays a sela – a fine fixed by the Rabbis for embarrassment.
17. 17. A Tyrian sela is four zuz (dinarim); the provincial sela, one eighth of it, is half a zuz.
18. 18. The same story is told in Bava Kamma 37a [Bava Kamma 37a].
19. 19. The sentence continues on the next amud [Bechoros 51a].
20. 20. “The Kuntres” (“the notebook”) is how Tosfos refer to Rashi’s commentary.