עד שתכנס לחופה משום דעולא
until she enters the wedding canopy, due to the reason of Ulla, lest she feed her non-priestly family members the teruma that her husband has given her.
ובן בג בג סימפון בעבדים לית ליה אי מומין שבגלוי הוא הא קא חזי ליה אי משום מומין שבסתר מאי נפקא ליה מיניה למלאכה קא בעי ליה לא איכפת ליה
The Gemara asks: And ben Bag Bag, what does he say about this a fortiori inference? The Gemara answers that he maintains that this a fortiori inference is invalid because he does not accept that there can be a claim of simfon with regard to the acquisition of slaves. The reason is that if it is an exposed blemish that the master found on the slave, he saw the blemish and purchased him regardless. Therefore, he cannot later claim that the transaction was unfair. If it is due to hidden blemishes on his slave, what difference does that make to him? Why should it matter if a slave has hidden blemishes? He needs him only for labor, and he does not care if he has hidden blemishes that do not impair his ability to perform labor.
נמצא גנב או קוביוסטוס הגיעו מאי אמרת לסטים מזויין או נכתב למלכות הנהו קלא אית להו
And even if this slave is discovered to be a thief or a gambler [kuvyustus], which are considered hidden blemishes that affect his work, it has come to him, i.e., the slave is acquired by the one who purchased him and the transaction is non-refundable. The reason is that the buyer should have suspected behavior of this kind, which is common among slaves, and therefore he suffers the loss. What do you say? Perhaps he discovered that the slave is an armed bandit and subject to be killed by the government for this, or sentenced to death by the government for another reason, and is sought by the authorities. This is not a valid claim, since these matters generate publicity, and therefore he is assumed to have taken the risk into consideration.
מכדי בין למר ובין למר לא אכלה מאי בינייהו
The Gemara asks: Now, both according to the one Master, Yoḥanan ben Bag Bag, and according to the other Master, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may not partake of teruma by rabbinic decree. What, then, is the difference between them?
איכא בינייהו קיבל מסר והלך:
The Gemara answers: The difference between them involves three cases. The Gemara elaborates: If the husband initially accepted her blemishes, there is no concern that an annulling factor might lead to the nullification of the betrothal, but there is still concern that she might feed teruma to the members of her family. If her father transferred her to the betrothed husband’s agents, or if the father’s agents walked with the husband’s messenger, and therefore she is no longer in her father’s house, there is no concern that she might feed her family members teruma, but it remains possible that the betrothal will be nullified.
בכסף ב"ש אומרים בדינר וכו' : מאי טעמייהו דב"ש אמר רבי זירא שכן אשה מקפדת על עצמה ואין מתקדשת בפחות מדינר
§ The Gemara returns to the halakhot of the mishna. The mishna teaches that if one betroths a woman with money, Beit Shammai say he must betroth her with at least one dinar, whereas according to the opinion of Beit Hillel even one peruta is sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Beit Shammai? Rabbi Zeira says: Their reasoning is that a woman is particular about herself and considers it beneath her dignity to be acquired with a paltry sum, and therefore she will not agree to be betrothed with less than one dinar.
אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה כגון בנתיה דר' ינאי דקפדן אנפשייהו ולא מקדשי בפחות מתרקבא דדינרי הכי נמי דאי פשטה ידה וקבלה חד זוזא מאחר הכי נמי דלא הוו קדושין
Abaye said to him: If that is so, with regard to Rabbi Yannai’s daughters, for example, who are very particular about themselves and their honor, and they will not agree to be betrothed with less than a vessel [tarkeva] full of dinars due to their status, so too will you say that if she reaches out her hand and accepts one dinar from another man, so too, this is not a betrothal?
א"ל פשטה ידה וקבלה לא קאמינא כי קאמינא דקדשה בליליא אי נמי דשויה שליח
Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: I did not say that this halakha includes a case where she reached out her hand and accepted a betrothal. She has the right to willingly relinquish her dignity. When I said this halakha I was referring to a case where he betrothed her at night and she did not see what she was being given. Alternatively, where she appointed an agent to betroth her but did not explicitly tell him how much she wished to receive for her betrothal. In these cases it is assumed that she is particular about her honor and will not agree to be betrothed for less than one dinar.
רב יוסף אמר טעמייהו דבית שמאי כדרב יהודה אמר רב אסי דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי כל כסף האמור בתורה כסף צורי ושל דבריהם כסף מדינה :
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.
גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי כל כסף האמור בתורה כסף צורי ושל דבריהם כסף מדינה : וכללא הוא
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?