- חיישינן שמא שוה פרוטה במדי
The Gemara relates that a man once gave a woman a date for kiddushin, and Shmuel ruled that even if an entire kor of dates is only worth a dinar, and a single date is less than a perutah, she is considered married: חיישינן שמא שוה פרוטה במדי – we are concerned that perhaps it is worth a perutah in Madai (where dates are less available). Although Beis Hillel taught in the Mishnah that a perutah is required for kiddushin, which Shmuel’s ruling appears to make irrelevant (since there is always a concern that it is worth a perutah elsewhere), the Gemara explains: הא בקידושי ודאי – [the Mishnah’s] minimum requirement is relevant for definite kiddushin (to invalidate another man’s kiddushin), הא בקידושי ספק – and [Shmuel’s statement] pertains to doubtful kiddushin, i.e., a concern for possible kiddushin.
A man once married a woman with a blue stone, and another man married her afterwards. Rav Chisda evaluated the stone to see if it was worth a perutah, to determine if she was married to the first or second man. Since Shmuel says that even with an item worth less than a perutah, we are concerned that it is worth a perutah elsewhere, the Gemara explains that Rav Chisda disagrees with Shmuel.
- The concern of possible witnesses
After Rav Chisda determined that the stone was not worth a perutah (and she was married to the second man), the first man’s mother told Rav Chisda that the stone was worth a perutah on the day of the kiddushin. Rav Chisda responded: לאו כל כמינך דאסרת לה אבתרא – it is not within your ability to prohibit her to the second man through your testimony. He compared this to an incident where Yehudis, Rebbe Chiya’s wife, quoted her mother as saying her father accepted kiddushin for her when she was young, and she was forbidden to Rebbe Chiya. Rebbe Chiya responded that her mother’s testimony is not believed. Here, too, the mother’s testimony about the stone’s value is ignored. The Rabbis asked Rav Chisda that there were witnesses to the kiddushin in Iddis, who knew the stone was worth a perutah then!? He responded with a quote of Rebbe Chanina regarding a captive’s status for Kohanim: עידיה בצד אסתן ותיאסר – There are witnesses in the North, who are not present to testify, and she should be forbidden?! We are not concerned about witnesses who are absent. Abaye and Rava disagreed with the comparison (saying that a captive’s case allows for greater leniency), and the Rabbis did not marry this family’s descendants.
- שתיקותא דלאחר מתן מעות
A man once married a woman with a mat of hadasim. When he was told that it was worth less than a perutah, he responded, “Let her become married with the four zuz wrapped inside it.” She kept the money and was silent. Rava said: הוה שתיקותא דלאחר מתן מעות – This case is silence after money was given, וכל שתיקותא דלאחר מתן מעות לאו כלום היא – and any silence after money was given is meaningless and does not constitute consent. Rava brought a proof from a Baraisa which taught that if someone tells a woman to guard a sela of his, and afterwards tells her to accept it for kiddushin, בשעת מתן מעות מקודשת – if the kiddushin proposal was made at the time the money was given, she is married because she accepted it for kiddushin, לאחר מתן מעות – but if the proposal was made after the money was given, רצתה מקודשת לא רצתה אינה מקודשת – then if she consented to kiddushin, she is married, but if she did not consent, she is not married. The implication is that even a “lack of consent” is sufficient at the time money is given, which must mean silence, and yet is still insufficient after the money was already given. Some Amoraim objected to comparing the cases and were concerned for kiddushin in Rava’s case.
