Undermining Rav Yosef's Premise
The other day, I posted the following question on Facebook:
I had an answer or two in mind, but wanted to give folks a chance to think about it. Let’s expand on the question.
Beit Shammai require a dinar for betrothal while Beit Hillel require only a perutah. Different Amoraim weigh in about why Beit Shammai would take their position. One answer is put forth by Rav Yosef, on Kiddushin 11:
רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: טַעְמַיְהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: כׇּל כֶּסֶף הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה – כֶּסֶף צוֹרִי, וְשֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם – כֶּסֶף מְדִינָה.
Rav Yosef said a different explanation: The reasoning of Beit Shammai is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every sum of money mentioned in the Torah is in Tyrian coinage, i.e., dinars from Tyre, which have a high value. And any amount of money set by rabbinic law is measured by provincial coinage. Local currency, i.e., that which existed at the time of the Sages of the Mishna, was worth about one-eighth of the value of Tyrian coinage. Beit Shammai follow the standard sum of the Torah, and the smallest possible amount in Tyrian currency is the silver coin, which is worth one dinar.
The next Amora to suggest a Beit Shammai reason is Reish Lakish, towards the end of 11b, and shortly thereafter, Rava on 12a. Before we reach Reish Lakish, though, the gemara deeply analyzed second-generation Rav Yehuda of Pumbedita citing first-generation Rav Asi of Hutzal. This begins with:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: כׇּל כֶּסֶף הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה – כֶּסֶף צוֹרִי, וְשֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם – כֶּסֶף מְדִינָה. וּכְלָלָא הוּא?
The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every sum of money mentioned in the Torah is Tyrian coinage, and any amount of money set by rabbinic law is measured by provincial coinage. The Gemara asks: And is it an established principle that any mention of money in the Torah is referring to a silver coin worth at least one dinar?
and there are anonymous attacks by the Talmudic Narrator from various sources, and anonymous responses. Eventually, we reach this attack:
וַהֲרֵי קִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ״, וְגָמַר ״קִיחָה״ ״קִיחָה״ מִשְּׂדֵה עֶפְרוֹן, וּתְנַן: בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. נֵימָא רַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי?!
The Gemara asks: But there is the case of the betrothal of a woman, as it is written: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and one derives betrothal through money by a verbal analogy of the term “taking” used here and “taking” from the case of the field of Ephron. And yet we learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel say one can betroth a woman with one peruta or with any item that is worth one peruta. If so, shall we say that Rav Asi, who claims that all sums of money mentioned in the Torah are in Tyrian coinage, stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai?
That is, how could we align Rav Asi with Beit Shammai, when we all know that we hold like Beit Hillel? Which was kind-of, though not exactly, Rav Yosef’s original intent. Rather than responding to bolster the position, the Talmudic Narrator chooses to reinterpret Rav Asi. He only refers to kesef accompanied by a fixed amount.
אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: כׇּל כֶּסֶף קָצוּב הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה – כֶּסֶף צוֹרִי, וְשֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם – כֶּסֶף מְדִינָה.
Rather, the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: If this was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every set amount of money stated in the Torah, i.e., when a specific amount is mentioned, is referring to Tyrian coinage, and any amount of money set by rabbinic law is in provincial coinage.
For instance, the fine of 50 shekel kesef of Devarim 22:29. This is then so utterly obvious, and covered explicitly by a Mishnah in Bechorot 49b, so the Talmudic Narrator explains it is necessary for the second half of the remarks, that rabbinic is about kesef medina.
Fine. But at the end of the day, Rav Yosef’s whole purpose in invoking this was about kesef kiddushin for Beit Shammai, which is clear as an unfixed amount. So the gemara seems to be implicitly or explicitly rejecting Rav Yosef.
What is going on here?
I have two answers.
First, aligning Beit Shammai to Rav Asi is not the same as aligning Rav Asi to Beit Shammai. Rav Yosef could be saying that they had his (eventually stated) position in mind. But Rav Asi, appearing much later, after we generally rule against Beit Shammai, cannot.
This still doesn’t work, because if A = B, then B = C. If Rav Yosef intended something — and he was a brilliant man with a mastery of sources, Sinai — then what did he intend? We could say that he meant that Beit Shammai had the hava amina version of Rav Asi, even if Rav Asi himself did not maintain that version. Or, maybe that Rav Asi did hold in this like Beit Shammai. Or that Rav Asi was trying to explain Beit Shammai’s position, much as other Amoraim explained his position.
(Note that without the explanation of the alignment or lack thereof, Rav Asi might still maintain all Biblical kesef is Tyrian. Just that he doesn’t apply the silver kesef requirement to betrothal. After all, while kesef had been mentioned by Ephron’s field, all mentioned by betrothal is yikach. The interpretation as monetary acquisition is kicha kicha, but see meforshim that this might be a gezeira shava, or it might just be a definition. A definition need not carry along the specific type of currency.)
But second, the real answer is that this is all a haavara. The primary sugya is in Bechorot. That sugya begins in Bechorot 49b, right after the aforementioned Mishnah:
גמ׳ מנה צורי אמר רבי אסי מנה של צורי רבי אמי אמר דינרא ערבא רבי חנינא אומר איסתרא סרסיא דמיזדבנא תמניא בדינרא חמש מינייהו לפדיון הבן
GEMARA: The mishna stated that the five sela coins of the redemption of the son are calculated using a Tyrian maneh. In explanation of this, Rabbi Asi says: One must give five sela of the maneh used in Tyre. Rabbi Ami says: The five sela coins are equal to a golden Arabian dinar. Rabbi Ḥanina says: There is a Syrian sela [istera], eight of which are sold for a large golden dinar. One must give five of these for the redemption of the son.
To elaborate on this point, a bit later in the gemara, at the top of Bechorot 50b, Rav Yehuda expands on Rav Asi’s position:
רב יהודה אמר רב אסי כל כסף האמור בתורה סתם כסף צורי ושל דבריהם כסף מדינה
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every sum of money stated in the Torah without specifying that it is in shekels is referring to silver dinars of Tyrian coinage, which have a high value. And every mention of coins in statements of the Sages is referring to provincial coinage, which was worth roughly one-eighth of Tyrian coinage.
So much of our local gemara in Kiddushin is either the Stamma (the Talmudic Narrator) or a borrowing from elsewhere to expand on points. It borrows from Ketubot sugyot about deriving means of marrying, which is why there’s a focus on the father receiving. It borrows sugyot from Yevamot for the yevama nikneit portion. So, after Rav Yosef invoked Rav Asi, the gemara in Kiddushin borrowed wholesale the sugya in Bechorot. And it does so as an aside, in between one Amora explaining Beit Shammai and the next.
Now, the Talmudic Narrator in Bechorot has no idea about Rav Yosef, who doesn’t appear among the Amoraim there. He just reacts to the the idea in the proto-sugya and further analyzes it.
Then, this whole sugya is transferred, and the Talmudic Narrator from there ends up contradicting an Amora there. That’s why we end up with such a jarring experience.
Now, I like to say that the Talmudic Narrator is bold but humble. Simply arguing with an Amora is out of character. But sometimes, when there are several Amoraim arguing with each other in a row, the Narrator will explain why the next Amora in line disagrees with what the previous Amora had said. And in doing so, maybe, maybe, puts the objection into the mouth of the Amora. And then, that Amora will say in introducing his own position, ela amar Ploni. That doesn’t happen here because it is a result of a ha’avara, a transfer of sugya to a new location.