8

The Mishna in Kiddushin (1:1) outlines a machlokes regarding the minimum amount of money necessary to effect kiddushin (i.e. create a marriage).

According to Beis Hillel, the amount of money (or equivalent goods or services) required is a perutah. A perutah is the smallest amount of money with buying power; so I understand philosophically that the Torah is saying one way to execute a marriage is with a symbolic transaction that minimally looks like a valid business one. The one-perutah requirement is similar to people with salaries (or rents) of "one dollar per year."

Beis Shammai, however, requires a dinar (or equivalent goods or services), which is quite a bit more. What's the source for the dinar requirement (once it's not "anything with buying power", where do we set the bar?), and do we know how Beis Shammai may have viewed kiddushin accordingly?

Improve this question
4
  • @DoubleAA taamei-mitzvot-reasons?
    – msh210 ♦
    Commented Jun 19, 2012 at 0:08
  • @msh210 Well, he asking for the reason behind Beis Shammai. I agree it's weak, but I didn't like hashkafah-philosophy either. Perhaps lomdus?
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Jun 19, 2012 at 0:15
  • @DoubleAA, I don't know. We've got lots of "what's the reason for this halacha/minhag" questions. Most have no special tag therefor.
    – msh210 ♦
    Commented Jun 19, 2012 at 5:41
  • @msh210 Reason for a minhag is different than svara of a machloket. I'm starting to like the idea of lomdus. We never really gave it a good definition though (meta post somewhere...)
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Jun 19, 2012 at 5:43

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
13

The Talmud searches for Beit Shammai's reason on Kiddushin 11a.

The first suggestion, that of Rav Zera, is that an average woman thinks she is important enough to not accept anything less an dinar for kiddushin. The gemara asks, according to this, it should be completely subjective based on the individual girl. The answer is that this rule applies in a case where she couldn't tell how much money was being offered (eg. she sent a messenger to accept the money) and we assume that a dinar is enough.

The second suggestion, that of Rav Yosef, is that all explicit Biblical references to money are to be evaluated on the Tyrian coinage scale, as opposed to the regular money scale. A dinar is the smallest value of this fancier set of coins. (Other things in this category are Pidyon HaBen and the Ketubah.)

Improve this answer
2
  • A minor point: I don't know that the gemara means that a (generic) woman thinks she is worth that much. It just says that they won't accept marriage for less than that.
    – YDK
    Commented Jun 20, 2012 at 18:07
  • @YDK I guess it depends what you mean exactly by "worth that much" but I hear what you are saying. I'll try to think of an alternate wording.
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Jun 20, 2012 at 18:24
3

The gemara in Kiddushin 11b and 12a provides 2 additional reasons.

Reish Lakish says that we learn it from Chizkiyah, who holds the minimum sale price of an amah Ivriyah is a dinar, (because one must have option of prorating her redemption, and once we see the price must be choshuv (respectable?), we set it at a dinar). And we learn Kiddushin from from amah Ivriyah.

The other answer is given by Rava, who says that it is mid'Rabbanan so B'nos Yisroel shouldn't be a free-for-all

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .