There is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Akiva about a woman who finds a lost item – does she get to keep it for herself or does it go to her husband? There are different opinions about who held by which opinion. Is finding a lost item more like extra salary a woman makes that she works hard to make or that comes easily to her? Is a woman who multi-tasks and can do several jobs at once – is that categorized as hard work or something that comes easily to her? The Mishna had a debate regarding whether the husband gets part of the humiliation of his wife. The Gemara compares it to other situations where one may be humiliated on account of embarrassment caused to someone/thing else and yet the other person does not receive the humiliation payment. Why is the law different regarding one’s wife? If the father promised a dowry to his daughter’s fiancé and he died, he does not have to commit to give the dowry to the yabam, brother of the deceased who now needs to marry the widow. The husband commits in the ketuba to give the woman 50% more than the cash that she brought into the marriage in her dowry. However, any moveable items she brings, he commits to 1/5 less than their assessed value. Why? The Mishna brings several examples illustrating this past ruling. Why were all of the cases necessary? For every 100 dinar (maneh) the wife brings into the marriage, the husband needs to give her ten dinar for perfume. It is unclear how often he needs to give this to her. A story is told of the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion, a very wealthy man, who went to court to receive this money. Another story of her is told in the aftermath of the destruction in which she is incredibly impoverished and begs Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai to help feed her. Why did Nakdimon lose all his wealth?
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Ketubot 66
דְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ הִיא, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְעַצְמָהּ — מְצִיאָתָהּ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
which is categorized as part of her earnings and to which the husband has rights, Rabbi Akiva says the surplus belongs to her, then with regard to lost objects that she found, which are unrelated to her handiwork, do they not all the more so belong to her?
דִּתְנַן: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי עוֹשָׂה לְפִיךָ״ — אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא תַּעֲדִיף עָלָיו יוֹתֵר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ! אֶלָּא אֵיפוֹךְ: מְצִיאַת הָאִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לְעַצְמָהּ.
That is Rabbi Akiva’s opinion with regard to surplus, as we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 85a): With regard to a woman who said to her husband: Anything that I produce will be konam, i.e., forbidden like an offering, to your mouth, he need not nullify the vow. The vow never took effect at all because a woman cannot prohibit her husband from items produced by actions that she is obligated to perform for him. Rabbi Akiva says: He should nullify the vow, lest she produce surplus that is more than the amount that is fitting for him, and the vow will take effect on the surplus, which she is not obligated to provide him. According to Rabbi Akiva, any surplus belongs to her. The Gemara answers: Rather, reverse the opinions: Lost objects found by a wife belong to her husband; Rabbi Akiva says: They belong to her.
וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבַעַל הָוֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לְבַעְלָהּ, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר לְעַצְמָהּ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מְצִיאָתָהּ כְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק דָּמֵי. פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, didn’t he say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to surplus that is not produced through extraordinary effort, everyone agrees that it is the husband’s. Where they disagree is in a case of surplus that is produced through extraordinary effort. The first tanna holds that the surplus belongs to her husband, and Rabbi Akiva holds that the surplus belongs to her. Apparently, there is no need to reverse the opinions, as Rabbi Akiva acknowledges that there are instances in which surplus belongs to the husband (Rid). The Gemara responds: Rav Pappa said: A lost object found by a wife is comparable to surplus that is produced through extraordinary effort, as this is not a regular occurrence. Therefore, lost objects are subject to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis.
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: עָשְׂתָה לוֹ שְׁתַּיִם בְּבַת אַחַת, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי רָבִינָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ אַרְבָּעָה בְּבַת אַחַת, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: In a case where she performed two tasks for him simultaneously, what is the halakha; is the status of the earnings the same as surplus produced through exertion? Similarly, Ravina raises a dilemma: In a case where she performed three or four tasks simultaneously, what is the halakha? The dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
בּוֹשְׁתָּהּ וּפְגָמָהּ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בִּיֵּישׁ סוּסָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתַּן לֵיהּ בּוֹשֶׁת? וְסוּס בַּר בּוֹשֶׁת הוּא?! אֶלָּא: רָקַק בְּבִגְדוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתַּן לֵיהּ בּוֹשֶׁת?
§ The mishna states that payments for her humiliation and for her degradation belong to her, but that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira holds that the husband receives a portion of the compensation. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan strongly objects to this: If that is so according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, then if one humiliated another’s horse, is it then the halakha that also such an offender is required to give him payment for humiliation? The Gemara asks: And is a horse subject to humiliation? How is a horse, who suffers no humiliation, comparable to a person, who does suffer from humiliation? Rather, the question is: According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, if one spat on another’s clothing, is the halakha that also such an offender be required to give him payment for humiliation?
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי — וְהָתְנַן: רָקַק וְהִגִּיעַ בּוֹ הָרוֹק, וּפָרַע רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה, וְהֶעֱבִיר טַלִּיתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ — חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז. וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בּוֹ, אֲבָל בְּבִגְדּוֹ — פָּטוּר! בְּבִגְדּוֹ — לֵית לֵיהּ זִילוּתָא, אִשְׁתּוֹ — אִית לַהּ זִילוּתָא.
And if you would say that indeed he would be required to pay, but didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bava Kamma 90a): If he spat at another person and the saliva reached him, or if he uncovered a woman’s head, or if he removed his garment from another, he is obligated to give him a payment of four hundred dinars, because of the extreme humiliation that he caused. And Rav Pappa said: They taught that he must pay four hundred dinars only when the spit reached his person. However, if the saliva reached his garment, the one who spat is exempt. Why, then, is one who humiliates a woman required to pay compensation to her husband? The Gemara rejects the comparison: When a person spits on one’s garment, he does not suffer dishonor, but if one’s wife is humiliated, she suffers dishonor, which causes him humiliation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בִּיֵּישׁ עָנִי בֶּן טוֹבִים, דְּאִית לְהוּ זִילוּתָא לְכוּלְּהוּ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתַּן לְהוּ בּוֹשֶׁת לְכׇל בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם — לָאו גּוּפַיְיהוּ, הָכָא — אִשְׁתּוֹ גּוּפֵיהּ הִיא.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: However, if that is so, if one humiliated a poor person of noble descent, where there is dishonor for all members of the family, is the halakha also that he is required to give payment for humiliation to all members of the family? Rav Ashi said to him that there is a distinction between one’s wife and one’s relatives. There, where a relative was humiliated, it is not as if they themselves had suffered the humiliation. Here, since one’s wife is considered his own self, it is as if he himself were humiliated.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפּוֹסֵק מָעוֹת לַחֲתָנוֹ, וּמֵת חֲתָנוֹ, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: יָכוֹל הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר: לְאָחִיךָ הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן, וְלָךְ אִי אֶפְשִׁי לִיתֵּן.
MISHNA: In the case of one who pledges to set aside a sum of money for his son-in-law as part of a dowry, and his son-in-law dies before receiving the money, the terms of the dowry do not transfer to the brother, who is now the yavam of the widow. The Sages said: The father-in-law can say to the yavam: To your brother, I wanted to give this money, but to you I do not want to give it.
פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ אֶלֶף דִּינָר — הוּא פּוֹסֵק כְּנֶגְדָּן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מָנֶה, וּכְנֶגֶד הַשּׁוּם הוּא פּוֹסֵק פָּחוֹת חוֹמֶשׁ.
The mishna addresses another matter. If the woman had pledged to bring in for him one thousand dinars in cash as a dowry, he then pledges, in the marriage contract, that he will give her fifteen hundred dinars against them. That is, he writes in the marriage document that in the event of divorce or his death, he will pay her that greater amount. And against the appraisal of goods such as utensils and other movable items that are included in the dowry, he pledges one-fifth less than the amount of the evaluation. This is because movable property is generally assessed at a value one-fifth higher than the actual value, and he cannot earn any money from these items.
שׁוּם בְּמָנֶה וְשָׁוֶה מָנֶה — אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה. שׁוּם בְּמָנֶה, הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד סֶלַע וְדִינָר. וּבְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת. מַה
If the appraisal is set at one hundred dinars and the property is actually worth one hundred dinars, then since the appraisal is conducted at market value he has a claim to property worth only one hundred dinars. Likewise, he may not record a decreased sum of property. His recorded appraisal of the movable property that she brings into the marriage is one hundred dinars only when she is giving thirty-one sela and one dinar, equal to 125 dinars. This is because the actual value is one-fifth less than the inflated evaluation, as explained. And similarly, he pledges four hundred dinars against her assets only when she is giving five hundred, based on the inflated assessment of their worth, such that the real value is four hundred dinars. In contrast, what
שֶּׁחָתָן פּוֹסֵק — הוּא פּוֹסֵק פָּחוֹת חוֹמֶשׁ.
the son-in-law pledges according to the amount of the dowry that the bride brings, he pledges one-fifth less in the marriage contract, which is the actual value of the property.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר רִאשׁוֹן תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וְשֵׁנִי עַם הָאָרֶץ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹן עַם הָאָרֶץ וְשֵׁנִי תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: לְאָחִיךְ הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן, לְךָ אִי אֶפְשִׁי לִיתֵּן.
GEMARA: The Gemara cites a baraita to expand upon the mishna’s statement that the father is not required to give the second son-in-law the gift that he promised the first son-in-law, as follows. The Sages taught: Needless to say, this ruling applies when the first is a Torah scholar and the second is an ignoramus, since the father-in-law has a reason to refuse to give the second a dowry like the first. But even if the first is an ignoramus and the second is a Torah scholar, the father-in-law may say: To your brother, I wanted to give this dowry, but to you I do not want to give it, since the obligation incurred was to a specific individual.
פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ אֶלֶף דִּינָר כּוּ׳. הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא! תְּנָא שׁוּמָא רַבָּה וְקָתָנֵי שׁוּמָא זוּטָא. תְּנָא שׁוּמָא דִּידֵיהּ, וְקָתָנֵי שׁוּמָא דִּידַהּ.
The mishna discusses the relationship between the value of the dowry the bride brings in and the amount of money the groom records in the marriage contract, and various examples are illustrated, e.g., if the woman pledged to bring him one thousand dinars. The Gemara asks: These latter examples in the mishna are the same as the first clause of the mishna, and they all illustrate the same financial conditions. Why was it not sufficient to mention only the case of the thousand dinars? The Gemara explains: The tanna teaches about a large appraisal of her substantial property, and he also teaches about a small appraisal in a case where she has minimal property, to illustrate that there is no halakhic difference between them. Similarly, the tanna teaches about the husband’s own appraisal of how to assess how much she must provide, and he also teaches about the wife’s own initial appraisal that she did and the corresponding amount that he must write.
מַתְנִי׳ פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ כְּסָפִים — סַלְעָהּ נַעֲשֶׂה שִׁשָּׁה דִּינָרִין. הֶחָתָן מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִים לַקּוּפָּה לְכׇל מָנֶה וּמָנֶה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה.
MISHNA: If she pledged to bring him money and not articles to serve as a dowry, her sela, i.e., four dinars, becomes six dinars with respect to the husband’s obligation in the marriage contract. This follows the standard outlined in the previous mishna: The groom increases his obligation by one half since he will profit from this money. Additionally, the groom accepts upon himself to give ten dinars to the account for her needs, for each and every hundred dinars that she brings. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is in accordance with the regional custom.
גְּמָ׳ הַיְינוּ פּוֹסֵק כְּנֶגְדָּם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר מָנֶה!
GEMARA: Concerning the first clause, that her sela becomes six dinars, the Gemara asks: This is identical to that which was taught in the previous mishna, that if she brings one thousand dinars in her dowry, he pledges against them fifteen hundred dinars. Why does the mishna cite another example to demonstrate the same principle?
תְּנָא עִסְקָא רַבָּה, וּתְנָא עִסְקָא זוּטָא. וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא עִסְקָא רַבָּה — דִּנְפִישׁ רַוְוחָא, אֲבָל עִסְקָא זוּטָא, דְּזוּטַר רַוְוחָא — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עִסְקָא זוּטָא — דְּזוּטַר זִיּוּנָא, אֲבָל עִסְקָא רַבָּה, דִּנְפִישׁ זִיּוּנָא — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara responds: The tanna taught about large investment capital and taught about small investment capital. And it is necessary to relate to both situations, because if he taught only the case of large capital, which has abundant profit, you might think that only then does the husband add one-half. However, for small capital, which has small profit, you could say that this is not the case. Therefore, it is necessary to also state the principle in this mishna. And conversely, if the tanna had taught us only about small capital, then you might think that because it has little expense, one must add a half. However, with regard to large capital, for which there is abundant expense, you could say that the husband need not add as much. Therefore, it is necessary to state both cases to teach that the husband adds one-half to the sum in any case.
הֶחָתָן מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָר לַקּוּפָּה. מַאי קוּפָּה? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קוּפָּה שֶׁל בְּשָׂמִים. וְאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֶלָּא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
The mishna states that the son-in-law accepts upon himself to give ten dinars to the account. The Gemara asks: What is this account? Rav Ashi said: It is an account for expenses of perfumes and cosmetics. And Rav Ashi said: This statement was said only for women in Jerusalem, where the women are accustomed to using an abundance of perfume.
בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּמָנֶה הַנִּישּׁוֹם, אוֹ בְּמָנֶה הַמִּתְקַבֵּל?
According to the mishna, the husband must give ten dinars for each and every hundred dinars that she brings. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Does this speak of each hundred dinars that are appraised in her dowry, or of each hundred dinars that are accepted by the husband in the marriage contract, which is the appraisal reduced by one-fifth?
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר מָנֶה הַמִּתְקַבֵּל: יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ כׇּל יוֹם וָיוֹם? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כׇּל יוֹם וָיוֹם: שַׁבָּת רִאשׁוֹנָה, אוֹ כׇּל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כׇּל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת: חֹדֶשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ כׇּל חֹדֶשׁ וָחֹדֶשׁ? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כׇּל חֹדֶשׁ וָחֹדֶשׁ: שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, אוֹ כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה? תֵּיקוּ.
If you say that the mishna speaks of each hundred dinars that is accepted, is the intent that he gives a one-time sum only on the first day or on each day? If you say that he gives it every day, does he give it only the first week of marriage or each week? If you say he gives it each week, does he give it only the first month or each month? If you say he gives it each month, does he give it only the first year of marriage or each year? The Gemara does not determine how the calculation must be rendered and with what frequency the husband is required to provide for her cosmetics, and the dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבִתּוֹ שֶׁל נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן שֶׁפָּסְקוּ לָהּ חֲכָמִים אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זְהוּבִים לַקּוּפָּה שֶׁל בְּשָׂמִים לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם. אָמְרָה לָהֶם: כָּךְ תִּפְסְקוּ לִבְנוֹתֵיכֶם, וְעָנוּ אַחֲרֶיהָ אָמֵן.
§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. When the Sages designated for her four hundred gold coins for her account of perfumes, from her late husband’s estate, for use on that same day, she blessed them and said to them: This is how you should also pledge for your own daughters, and they answered after her: Amen.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁהָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל הַחֲמוֹר וְהָיָה יוֹצֵא מִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְהָיוּ תַּלְמִידָיו מְהַלְּכִין אַחֲרָיו. רָאָה רִיבָה אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה מְלַקֶּטֶת שְׂעוֹרִים מִבֵּין גֶּלְלֵי בְהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל עַרְבִיִּים. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאֲתָה אוֹתוֹ, נִתְעַטְּפָה בִּשְׂעָרָהּ וְעָמְדָה לְפָנָיו.
Apropos the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon, the Gemara relates what later became of her: The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. When he was riding on a donkey and leaving Jerusalem, and his students were walking after him to learn from him, he saw a certain young woman who was gathering barley from among the dung of the animals of Arabs. She was so poor that she subsisted on the undigested barley within the dung. When she saw him, she wrapped herself in her hair, as she had nothing else with which to cover herself, and stood before him.
אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, פַּרְנְסֵנִי. אָמַר לָהּ: בִּתִּי, מִי אַתְּ? אָמְרָה לוֹ: בַּת נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן אֲנִי. אֲמַר לַהּ: בִּתִּי, מָמוֹן שֶׁל בֵּית אָבִיךָ הֵיכָן הָלַךְ? אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, לָא כְּדֵין מָתְלִין מַתְלָא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם: ״מֶלַח מָמוֹן — חֶסֶר״? וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: ״חֶסֶד״. וְשֶׁל בֵּית חָמִיךְ הֵיכָן הוּא? אָמְרָה לוֹ: בָּא זֶה וְאִיבֵּד אֶת זֶה.
She said to him: My teacher, sustain me. He did not recognize her, so he said to her: My daughter, who are you? She said to him: I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. He said to her: My daughter, the money of your father’s household, where did it go? How did you become so poor? She said to him: My teacher, is it not that they say such a proverb in Jerusalem: Salt for money is lacking [ḥaser]? There is nothing with which to preserve it and prevent it from being lost. And some say the proverb asserts that kindness [ḥesed] is salt for money, i.e., using money for acts of kindness preserves it. He continued to ask her: And the money of your father-in-law’s house, which was used properly, for benevolent acts, where is it? She said to him: This one came and destroyed that one; all the money was combined, and it was all lost together.
אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, זָכוּר אַתָּה כְּשֶׁחָתַמְתָּ עַל כְּתוּבָּתִי? אָמַר לָהֶן לְתַלְמִידָיו: זָכוּר אֲנִי כְּשֶׁחָתַמְתִּי עַל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ, וְהָיִיתִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ: אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים דִּינְרֵי זָהָב מִבֵּית אָבִיהָ, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל חָמִיהָ. בָּכָה רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי וְאָמַר: אַשְׁרֵיכֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל, בִּזְמַן שֶׁעוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם אֵין כׇּל אוּמָּה וְלָשׁוֹן שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶם, וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, מוֹסְרָן בְּיַד אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה. וְלֹא בְּיַד אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה, אֶלָּא בְּיַד בְּהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה.
She said to him: My teacher, do you remember when you signed on my marriage contract? He said to his students: I remember that when I signed on the marriage contract of this woman, and I read in it, it listed a thousand thousands, i.e., one million gold dinars as a dowry from her father’s house, aside from that which was promised her from her father-in-law. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai cried and said: How fortunate are you, Israel, for when Israel performs the will of the Omnipresent, no nation or tongue can rule over them; and when Israel does not perform the will of the Omnipresent, He delivers them into the hand of a lowly nation. Not only are they delivered into the hand of a lowly nation, but even into the hand of the animals of a lowly nation, as in the pitiful instance of Nakdimon’s daughter.
וְנַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן לָא עֲבַד צְדָקָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן כְּשֶׁהָיָה יוֹצֵא מִבֵּיתוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, כְּלֵי מֵילָת הָיוּ
The recorded incident implies that Nakdimon lost all of his wealth after having failed to use it for acts of kindness. The Gemara asks: And did not Nakdimon ben Guryon perform charity? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: They said about Nakdimon ben Guryon that when he would leave his home to go to the study hall, there were fine woolen garments his attendants would
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Bronx, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Los Angeles, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
Ketubot 66
דְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ הִיא, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְעַצְמָהּ — מְצִיאָתָהּ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
which is categorized as part of her earnings and to which the husband has rights, Rabbi Akiva says the surplus belongs to her, then with regard to lost objects that she found, which are unrelated to her handiwork, do they not all the more so belong to her?
דִּתְנַן: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי עוֹשָׂה לְפִיךָ״ — אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא תַּעֲדִיף עָלָיו יוֹתֵר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ! אֶלָּא אֵיפוֹךְ: מְצִיאַת הָאִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לְעַצְמָהּ.
That is Rabbi Akiva’s opinion with regard to surplus, as we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 85a): With regard to a woman who said to her husband: Anything that I produce will be konam, i.e., forbidden like an offering, to your mouth, he need not nullify the vow. The vow never took effect at all because a woman cannot prohibit her husband from items produced by actions that she is obligated to perform for him. Rabbi Akiva says: He should nullify the vow, lest she produce surplus that is more than the amount that is fitting for him, and the vow will take effect on the surplus, which she is not obligated to provide him. According to Rabbi Akiva, any surplus belongs to her. The Gemara answers: Rather, reverse the opinions: Lost objects found by a wife belong to her husband; Rabbi Akiva says: They belong to her.
וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבַעַל הָוֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לְבַעְלָהּ, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר לְעַצְמָהּ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מְצִיאָתָהּ כְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק דָּמֵי. פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, didn’t he say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to surplus that is not produced through extraordinary effort, everyone agrees that it is the husband’s. Where they disagree is in a case of surplus that is produced through extraordinary effort. The first tanna holds that the surplus belongs to her husband, and Rabbi Akiva holds that the surplus belongs to her. Apparently, there is no need to reverse the opinions, as Rabbi Akiva acknowledges that there are instances in which surplus belongs to the husband (Rid). The Gemara responds: Rav Pappa said: A lost object found by a wife is comparable to surplus that is produced through extraordinary effort, as this is not a regular occurrence. Therefore, lost objects are subject to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis.
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: עָשְׂתָה לוֹ שְׁתַּיִם בְּבַת אַחַת, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי רָבִינָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ אַרְבָּעָה בְּבַת אַחַת, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: In a case where she performed two tasks for him simultaneously, what is the halakha; is the status of the earnings the same as surplus produced through exertion? Similarly, Ravina raises a dilemma: In a case where she performed three or four tasks simultaneously, what is the halakha? The dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
בּוֹשְׁתָּהּ וּפְגָמָהּ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בִּיֵּישׁ סוּסָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתַּן לֵיהּ בּוֹשֶׁת? וְסוּס בַּר בּוֹשֶׁת הוּא?! אֶלָּא: רָקַק בְּבִגְדוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתַּן לֵיהּ בּוֹשֶׁת?
§ The mishna states that payments for her humiliation and for her degradation belong to her, but that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira holds that the husband receives a portion of the compensation. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan strongly objects to this: If that is so according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, then if one humiliated another’s horse, is it then the halakha that also such an offender is required to give him payment for humiliation? The Gemara asks: And is a horse subject to humiliation? How is a horse, who suffers no humiliation, comparable to a person, who does suffer from humiliation? Rather, the question is: According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, if one spat on another’s clothing, is the halakha that also such an offender be required to give him payment for humiliation?
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי — וְהָתְנַן: רָקַק וְהִגִּיעַ בּוֹ הָרוֹק, וּפָרַע רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה, וְהֶעֱבִיר טַלִּיתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ — חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז. וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בּוֹ, אֲבָל בְּבִגְדּוֹ — פָּטוּר! בְּבִגְדּוֹ — לֵית לֵיהּ זִילוּתָא, אִשְׁתּוֹ — אִית לַהּ זִילוּתָא.
And if you would say that indeed he would be required to pay, but didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bava Kamma 90a): If he spat at another person and the saliva reached him, or if he uncovered a woman’s head, or if he removed his garment from another, he is obligated to give him a payment of four hundred dinars, because of the extreme humiliation that he caused. And Rav Pappa said: They taught that he must pay four hundred dinars only when the spit reached his person. However, if the saliva reached his garment, the one who spat is exempt. Why, then, is one who humiliates a woman required to pay compensation to her husband? The Gemara rejects the comparison: When a person spits on one’s garment, he does not suffer dishonor, but if one’s wife is humiliated, she suffers dishonor, which causes him humiliation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בִּיֵּישׁ עָנִי בֶּן טוֹבִים, דְּאִית לְהוּ זִילוּתָא לְכוּלְּהוּ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתַּן לְהוּ בּוֹשֶׁת לְכׇל בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם — לָאו גּוּפַיְיהוּ, הָכָא — אִשְׁתּוֹ גּוּפֵיהּ הִיא.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: However, if that is so, if one humiliated a poor person of noble descent, where there is dishonor for all members of the family, is the halakha also that he is required to give payment for humiliation to all members of the family? Rav Ashi said to him that there is a distinction between one’s wife and one’s relatives. There, where a relative was humiliated, it is not as if they themselves had suffered the humiliation. Here, since one’s wife is considered his own self, it is as if he himself were humiliated.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפּוֹסֵק מָעוֹת לַחֲתָנוֹ, וּמֵת חֲתָנוֹ, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: יָכוֹל הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר: לְאָחִיךָ הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן, וְלָךְ אִי אֶפְשִׁי לִיתֵּן.
MISHNA: In the case of one who pledges to set aside a sum of money for his son-in-law as part of a dowry, and his son-in-law dies before receiving the money, the terms of the dowry do not transfer to the brother, who is now the yavam of the widow. The Sages said: The father-in-law can say to the yavam: To your brother, I wanted to give this money, but to you I do not want to give it.
פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ אֶלֶף דִּינָר — הוּא פּוֹסֵק כְּנֶגְדָּן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מָנֶה, וּכְנֶגֶד הַשּׁוּם הוּא פּוֹסֵק פָּחוֹת חוֹמֶשׁ.
The mishna addresses another matter. If the woman had pledged to bring in for him one thousand dinars in cash as a dowry, he then pledges, in the marriage contract, that he will give her fifteen hundred dinars against them. That is, he writes in the marriage document that in the event of divorce or his death, he will pay her that greater amount. And against the appraisal of goods such as utensils and other movable items that are included in the dowry, he pledges one-fifth less than the amount of the evaluation. This is because movable property is generally assessed at a value one-fifth higher than the actual value, and he cannot earn any money from these items.
שׁוּם בְּמָנֶה וְשָׁוֶה מָנֶה — אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה. שׁוּם בְּמָנֶה, הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד סֶלַע וְדִינָר. וּבְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת. מַה
If the appraisal is set at one hundred dinars and the property is actually worth one hundred dinars, then since the appraisal is conducted at market value he has a claim to property worth only one hundred dinars. Likewise, he may not record a decreased sum of property. His recorded appraisal of the movable property that she brings into the marriage is one hundred dinars only when she is giving thirty-one sela and one dinar, equal to 125 dinars. This is because the actual value is one-fifth less than the inflated evaluation, as explained. And similarly, he pledges four hundred dinars against her assets only when she is giving five hundred, based on the inflated assessment of their worth, such that the real value is four hundred dinars. In contrast, what
שֶּׁחָתָן פּוֹסֵק — הוּא פּוֹסֵק פָּחוֹת חוֹמֶשׁ.
the son-in-law pledges according to the amount of the dowry that the bride brings, he pledges one-fifth less in the marriage contract, which is the actual value of the property.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר רִאשׁוֹן תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וְשֵׁנִי עַם הָאָרֶץ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹן עַם הָאָרֶץ וְשֵׁנִי תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: לְאָחִיךְ הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן, לְךָ אִי אֶפְשִׁי לִיתֵּן.
GEMARA: The Gemara cites a baraita to expand upon the mishna’s statement that the father is not required to give the second son-in-law the gift that he promised the first son-in-law, as follows. The Sages taught: Needless to say, this ruling applies when the first is a Torah scholar and the second is an ignoramus, since the father-in-law has a reason to refuse to give the second a dowry like the first. But even if the first is an ignoramus and the second is a Torah scholar, the father-in-law may say: To your brother, I wanted to give this dowry, but to you I do not want to give it, since the obligation incurred was to a specific individual.
פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ אֶלֶף דִּינָר כּוּ׳. הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא! תְּנָא שׁוּמָא רַבָּה וְקָתָנֵי שׁוּמָא זוּטָא. תְּנָא שׁוּמָא דִּידֵיהּ, וְקָתָנֵי שׁוּמָא דִּידַהּ.
The mishna discusses the relationship between the value of the dowry the bride brings in and the amount of money the groom records in the marriage contract, and various examples are illustrated, e.g., if the woman pledged to bring him one thousand dinars. The Gemara asks: These latter examples in the mishna are the same as the first clause of the mishna, and they all illustrate the same financial conditions. Why was it not sufficient to mention only the case of the thousand dinars? The Gemara explains: The tanna teaches about a large appraisal of her substantial property, and he also teaches about a small appraisal in a case where she has minimal property, to illustrate that there is no halakhic difference between them. Similarly, the tanna teaches about the husband’s own appraisal of how to assess how much she must provide, and he also teaches about the wife’s own initial appraisal that she did and the corresponding amount that he must write.
מַתְנִי׳ פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ כְּסָפִים — סַלְעָהּ נַעֲשֶׂה שִׁשָּׁה דִּינָרִין. הֶחָתָן מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִים לַקּוּפָּה לְכׇל מָנֶה וּמָנֶה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה.
MISHNA: If she pledged to bring him money and not articles to serve as a dowry, her sela, i.e., four dinars, becomes six dinars with respect to the husband’s obligation in the marriage contract. This follows the standard outlined in the previous mishna: The groom increases his obligation by one half since he will profit from this money. Additionally, the groom accepts upon himself to give ten dinars to the account for her needs, for each and every hundred dinars that she brings. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is in accordance with the regional custom.
גְּמָ׳ הַיְינוּ פּוֹסֵק כְּנֶגְדָּם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר מָנֶה!
GEMARA: Concerning the first clause, that her sela becomes six dinars, the Gemara asks: This is identical to that which was taught in the previous mishna, that if she brings one thousand dinars in her dowry, he pledges against them fifteen hundred dinars. Why does the mishna cite another example to demonstrate the same principle?
תְּנָא עִסְקָא רַבָּה, וּתְנָא עִסְקָא זוּטָא. וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא עִסְקָא רַבָּה — דִּנְפִישׁ רַוְוחָא, אֲבָל עִסְקָא זוּטָא, דְּזוּטַר רַוְוחָא — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עִסְקָא זוּטָא — דְּזוּטַר זִיּוּנָא, אֲבָל עִסְקָא רַבָּה, דִּנְפִישׁ זִיּוּנָא — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara responds: The tanna taught about large investment capital and taught about small investment capital. And it is necessary to relate to both situations, because if he taught only the case of large capital, which has abundant profit, you might think that only then does the husband add one-half. However, for small capital, which has small profit, you could say that this is not the case. Therefore, it is necessary to also state the principle in this mishna. And conversely, if the tanna had taught us only about small capital, then you might think that because it has little expense, one must add a half. However, with regard to large capital, for which there is abundant expense, you could say that the husband need not add as much. Therefore, it is necessary to state both cases to teach that the husband adds one-half to the sum in any case.
הֶחָתָן מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָר לַקּוּפָּה. מַאי קוּפָּה? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קוּפָּה שֶׁל בְּשָׂמִים. וְאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֶלָּא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
The mishna states that the son-in-law accepts upon himself to give ten dinars to the account. The Gemara asks: What is this account? Rav Ashi said: It is an account for expenses of perfumes and cosmetics. And Rav Ashi said: This statement was said only for women in Jerusalem, where the women are accustomed to using an abundance of perfume.
בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּמָנֶה הַנִּישּׁוֹם, אוֹ בְּמָנֶה הַמִּתְקַבֵּל?
According to the mishna, the husband must give ten dinars for each and every hundred dinars that she brings. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Does this speak of each hundred dinars that are appraised in her dowry, or of each hundred dinars that are accepted by the husband in the marriage contract, which is the appraisal reduced by one-fifth?
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר מָנֶה הַמִּתְקַבֵּל: יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ כׇּל יוֹם וָיוֹם? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כׇּל יוֹם וָיוֹם: שַׁבָּת רִאשׁוֹנָה, אוֹ כׇּל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כׇּל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת: חֹדֶשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ כׇּל חֹדֶשׁ וָחֹדֶשׁ? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כׇּל חֹדֶשׁ וָחֹדֶשׁ: שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, אוֹ כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה? תֵּיקוּ.
If you say that the mishna speaks of each hundred dinars that is accepted, is the intent that he gives a one-time sum only on the first day or on each day? If you say that he gives it every day, does he give it only the first week of marriage or each week? If you say he gives it each week, does he give it only the first month or each month? If you say he gives it each month, does he give it only the first year of marriage or each year? The Gemara does not determine how the calculation must be rendered and with what frequency the husband is required to provide for her cosmetics, and the dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבִתּוֹ שֶׁל נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן שֶׁפָּסְקוּ לָהּ חֲכָמִים אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זְהוּבִים לַקּוּפָּה שֶׁל בְּשָׂמִים לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם. אָמְרָה לָהֶם: כָּךְ תִּפְסְקוּ לִבְנוֹתֵיכֶם, וְעָנוּ אַחֲרֶיהָ אָמֵן.
§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. When the Sages designated for her four hundred gold coins for her account of perfumes, from her late husband’s estate, for use on that same day, she blessed them and said to them: This is how you should also pledge for your own daughters, and they answered after her: Amen.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁהָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל הַחֲמוֹר וְהָיָה יוֹצֵא מִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְהָיוּ תַּלְמִידָיו מְהַלְּכִין אַחֲרָיו. רָאָה רִיבָה אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה מְלַקֶּטֶת שְׂעוֹרִים מִבֵּין גֶּלְלֵי בְהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל עַרְבִיִּים. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאֲתָה אוֹתוֹ, נִתְעַטְּפָה בִּשְׂעָרָהּ וְעָמְדָה לְפָנָיו.
Apropos the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon, the Gemara relates what later became of her: The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. When he was riding on a donkey and leaving Jerusalem, and his students were walking after him to learn from him, he saw a certain young woman who was gathering barley from among the dung of the animals of Arabs. She was so poor that she subsisted on the undigested barley within the dung. When she saw him, she wrapped herself in her hair, as she had nothing else with which to cover herself, and stood before him.
אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, פַּרְנְסֵנִי. אָמַר לָהּ: בִּתִּי, מִי אַתְּ? אָמְרָה לוֹ: בַּת נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן אֲנִי. אֲמַר לַהּ: בִּתִּי, מָמוֹן שֶׁל בֵּית אָבִיךָ הֵיכָן הָלַךְ? אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, לָא כְּדֵין מָתְלִין מַתְלָא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם: ״מֶלַח מָמוֹן — חֶסֶר״? וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: ״חֶסֶד״. וְשֶׁל בֵּית חָמִיךְ הֵיכָן הוּא? אָמְרָה לוֹ: בָּא זֶה וְאִיבֵּד אֶת זֶה.
She said to him: My teacher, sustain me. He did not recognize her, so he said to her: My daughter, who are you? She said to him: I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. He said to her: My daughter, the money of your father’s household, where did it go? How did you become so poor? She said to him: My teacher, is it not that they say such a proverb in Jerusalem: Salt for money is lacking [ḥaser]? There is nothing with which to preserve it and prevent it from being lost. And some say the proverb asserts that kindness [ḥesed] is salt for money, i.e., using money for acts of kindness preserves it. He continued to ask her: And the money of your father-in-law’s house, which was used properly, for benevolent acts, where is it? She said to him: This one came and destroyed that one; all the money was combined, and it was all lost together.
אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, זָכוּר אַתָּה כְּשֶׁחָתַמְתָּ עַל כְּתוּבָּתִי? אָמַר לָהֶן לְתַלְמִידָיו: זָכוּר אֲנִי כְּשֶׁחָתַמְתִּי עַל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ, וְהָיִיתִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ: אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים דִּינְרֵי זָהָב מִבֵּית אָבִיהָ, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל חָמִיהָ. בָּכָה רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי וְאָמַר: אַשְׁרֵיכֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל, בִּזְמַן שֶׁעוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם אֵין כׇּל אוּמָּה וְלָשׁוֹן שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶם, וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, מוֹסְרָן בְּיַד אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה. וְלֹא בְּיַד אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה, אֶלָּא בְּיַד בְּהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה.
She said to him: My teacher, do you remember when you signed on my marriage contract? He said to his students: I remember that when I signed on the marriage contract of this woman, and I read in it, it listed a thousand thousands, i.e., one million gold dinars as a dowry from her father’s house, aside from that which was promised her from her father-in-law. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai cried and said: How fortunate are you, Israel, for when Israel performs the will of the Omnipresent, no nation or tongue can rule over them; and when Israel does not perform the will of the Omnipresent, He delivers them into the hand of a lowly nation. Not only are they delivered into the hand of a lowly nation, but even into the hand of the animals of a lowly nation, as in the pitiful instance of Nakdimon’s daughter.
וְנַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן לָא עֲבַד צְדָקָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן כְּשֶׁהָיָה יוֹצֵא מִבֵּיתוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, כְּלֵי מֵילָת הָיוּ
The recorded incident implies that Nakdimon lost all of his wealth after having failed to use it for acts of kindness. The Gemara asks: And did not Nakdimon ben Guryon perform charity? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: They said about Nakdimon ben Guryon that when he would leave his home to go to the study hall, there were fine woolen garments his attendants would
