Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 10, 2022 | ื™ืดื“ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 66 – Shabbat September 10

This is Shabbatโ€™s daf. For Fridayโ€™s daf please click here.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark Ziering in loving memory of Lea Ziering.

There is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Akiva about a woman who finds a lost item โ€“ 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 โ€“ 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 oneโ€™s wife? If the father promised a dowry to his daughterโ€™s fiancรฉ 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?

ื“ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืขืฆืžื” ืžืฆื™ืืชื” ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

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?

ื“ืชื ืŸ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ืขื•ืฉื” ืœืคื™ืš ืื™ื ื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื”ืคืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคืจ ืฉืžื ืชืขื“ื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืจืื•ื™ ืœื• ืืœื ืื™ืคื•ืš ืžืฆื™ืืช ื”ืืฉื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœืขืฆืžื”

That is Rabbi Akivaโ€™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.

ื•ื”ื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืขื“ืคื” ืฉืœื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื•ื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื”ืขื“ืคื” ืฉืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœืขืฆืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžืฆื™ืืชื” ื›ื”ืขื“ืคื” ืฉืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ื“ืžื™ ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, didnโ€™t he say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: With regard to surplus that is not produced through extraordinary effort, everyone agrees that it is the husbandโ€™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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืขืฉืชื” ืœื• ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืฉืœืฉื” ืื• ืืจื‘ืขื” ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ืชื™ืงื•

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.

ื‘ื•ืฉืชื” ื•ืคื’ืžื” ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ืกื•ืกืชื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชืŸ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืกื•ืก ื‘ืจ ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืจืงืง ื‘ื‘ื’ื“ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชืŸ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื•ืฉืช

ยง 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 แธคanan strongly objects to this: If that is so according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, then if one humiliated anotherโ€™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 anotherโ€™s clothing, is the halakha that also such an offender be required to give him payment for humiliation?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืจืงืง ื•ื”ื’ื™ืข ื‘ื• ื”ืจื•ืง ื•ืคืจืข ืจืืฉ ื”ืืฉื” ื•ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื˜ืœื™ืชื• ืžืžื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื–ื•ื– ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื• ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื‘ื’ื“ื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื‘ื‘ื’ื“ื• ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ืืฉืชื• ืื™ืช ืœื” ื–ื™ืœื•ืชื

And if you would say that indeed he would be required to pay, but didnโ€™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 womanโ€™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 oneโ€™s garment, he does not suffer dishonor, but if oneโ€™s wife is humiliated, she suffers dishonor, which causes him humiliation.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ืขื ื™ ื‘ืŸ ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ื ื™ ืžืฉืคื—ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ื• ื‘ื•ืฉืช ืœื›ืœ ื‘ื ื™ ืžืฉืคื—ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื ืœืื• ื’ื•ืคื™ื™ื”ื• ื”ื›ื ืืฉืชื• ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™

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 oneโ€™s wife and oneโ€™s relatives. There, where a relative was humiliated, it is not as if they themselves had suffered the humiliation. Here, since oneโ€™s wife is considered his own self, it is as if he himself were humiliated.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืคื•ืกืง ืžืขื•ืช ืœื—ืชื ื• ื•ืžืช ื—ืชื ื• ืืžืจื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื”ื•ื ืฉื™ืืžืจ ืœืื—ื™ืš ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ื•ืœืš ืื™ ืืคืฉื™ ืœื™ืชืŸ

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.

ืคืกืงื” ืœื”ื›ื ื™ืก ืœื• ืืœืฃ ื“ื™ื ืจ ื”ื•ื ืคื•ืกืง ื›ื ื’ื“ืŸ ื—ืžืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืžื ื” ื•ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ืฉื•ื ื”ื•ื ืคื•ืกืง ืคื—ื•ืช ื—ื•ืžืฉ

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.

ืฉื•ื ื‘ืžื ื” ื•ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ืžื ื” ืฉื•ื ื‘ืžื ื” ื”ื™ื ื ื•ืชื ืช ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืกืœืข ื•ื“ื™ื ืจ ื•ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื”ื™ื ื ื•ืชื ืช ื—ืžืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืžื”

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

ืฉื—ืชืŸ ืคื•ืกืง ื”ื•ื ืคื•ืกืง ืคื—ื•ืช ื—ื•ืžืฉ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ื•ืฉื ื™ ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืื—ื™ืš ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœืš ืื™ ืืคืฉื™ ืœื™ืชืŸ

GEMARA: The Gemara cites a baraita to expand upon the mishnaโ€™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.

ืคืกืงื” ืœื”ื›ื ื™ืก ืœื• ืืœืฃ ื“ื™ื ืจ ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื™ืฉื ืชื ื ืฉื•ืžื ืจื‘ื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื•ืžื ื–ื•ื˜ื ืชื ื ืฉื•ืžื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื•ืžื ื“ื™ื“ื”

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 husbandโ€™s own appraisal of how to assess how much she must provide, and he also teaches about the wifeโ€™s own initial appraisal that she did and the corresponding amount that he must write.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืคืกืงื” ืœื”ื›ื ื™ืก ืœื• ื›ืกืคื™ื ืกืœืขื” ื ืขืฉื” ืฉืฉื” ื“ื™ื ืจื™ืŸ ื”ื—ืชืŸ ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืฉืจื” ื“ื™ื ืจื™ื ืœืงื•ืคื” ืœื›ืœ ืžื ื” ื•ืžื ื” ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืžื ื”ื’ ื”ืžื“ื™ื ื”

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 husbandโ€™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.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืคื•ืกืง ื›ื ื’ื“ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ืžื ื”

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?

ืชื ื ืขืกืงื ืจื‘ื” ื•ืชื ื ืขืกืงื ื–ื•ื˜ื ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืชื ื ืขืกืงื ืจื‘ื” ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ืจื•ื•ื—ื ืื‘ืœ ืขืกืงื ื–ื•ื˜ื ื“ื–ื•ื˜ืจ ืจื•ื•ื—ื ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืขืกืงื ื–ื•ื˜ื ื“ื–ื•ื˜ืจ ื–ื™ื•ื ื ืื‘ืœ ืขืกืงื ืจื‘ื” ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ื–ื™ื•ื ื ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

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.

ื”ื—ืชืŸ ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืฉืจื” ื“ื™ื ืจ ืœืงื•ืคื” ืžืื™ ืงื•ืคื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืงื•ืคื” ืฉืœ ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื ื ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืœืœื• ืืœื ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื

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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื‘ืžื ื” ื”ื ื™ืฉื•ื ืื• ื‘ืžื ื” ื”ืžืชืงื‘ืœ

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?

ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื ื” ื”ืžืชืงื‘ืœ ื™ื•ื ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื• ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉื‘ืช ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืื• ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื• ื›ืœ ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ื—ื“ืฉ ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ื—ื“ืฉ ืฉื ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืื• ื›ืœ ืฉื ื” ื•ืฉื ื” ืชื™ืงื•

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื‘ืชื• ืฉืœ ื ืงื“ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืคืกืงื• ืœื” ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื–ื”ื•ื‘ื™ื ืœืงื•ืคื” ืฉืœ ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ืœื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืžืจื” ืœื”ื ื›ืš ืชืคืกืงื• ืœื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื›ื ื•ืขื ื• ืื—ืจื™ื” ืืžืŸ

ยง 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 husbandโ€™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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื–ื›ืื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืจื•ื›ื‘ ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ื”ื™ื• ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื• ืžื”ืœื›ื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื• ืจืื” ืจื™ื‘ื” ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืžืœืงื˜ืช ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ืœืœื™ ื‘ื”ืžืชืŸ ืฉืœ ืขืจื‘ื™ื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืจืืชื” ืื•ืชื• ื ืชืขื˜ืคื” ื‘ืฉืขืจื” ื•ืขืžื“ื” ืœืคื ื™ื•

Apropos the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon, the Gemara relates what later became of her: The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabban Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืคืจื ืกื ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื” ื‘ืชื™ ืžื™ ืืช ืืžืจื” ืœื• ื‘ืช ื ืงื“ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ ืื ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื” ื‘ืชื™ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ืš ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœืš ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืชืœื™ืŸ ืžืชืœื ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžืœื— ืžืžื•ืŸ ื—ืกืจ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื—ืกื“ ื•ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื—ืžื™ืš ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจื” ืœื• ื‘ื ื–ื” ื•ืื™ื‘ื“ ืืช ื–ื”

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 fatherโ€™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 [แธฅaser]? There is nothing with which to preserve it and prevent it from being lost. And some say the proverb asserts that kindness [แธฅesed] 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-lawโ€™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.

ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื›ื•ืจ ืืชื” ื›ืฉื—ืชืžืช ืขืœ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื• ื–ื›ื•ืจ ืื ื™ ื›ืฉื—ืชืžืชื™ ืขืœ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืฉืœ ื–ื• ื•ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืงื•ืจื ื‘ื” ืืœืฃ ืืœืคื™ื ื“ื™ื ืจื™ ื–ื”ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืฉืœ ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ื›ื” ืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื–ื›ืื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืืฉืจื™ื›ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืจืฆื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืงื•ื ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืื•ืžื” ื•ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื•ืœื˜ืช ื‘ื”ื ื•ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืจืฆื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืงื•ื ืžื•ืกืจืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ ืื•ืžื” ืฉืคืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ื“ ืื•ืžื” ืฉืคืœื” ืืœื ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื”ืžืชืŸ ืฉืœ ืื•ืžื” ืฉืคืœื”

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 fatherโ€™s house, aside from that which was promised her from her father-in-law. Rabban Yoแธฅanan 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 Nakdimonโ€™s daughter.

ื•ื ืงื“ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ืฆื“ืงื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ืขืœ ื ืงื“ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ ื›ืฉื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžื‘ื™ืชื• ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ ื›ืœื™ ืžื™ืœืช ื”ื™ื•

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? Isnโ€™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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 63-69 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn about the โ€œrebellious wifeโ€, why she is called rebellious and what are the...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 66: Why a Wife’s Humiliation Shames Her Husband

A new chapter! A new mishnah! Which provides the text of the "equation" for what each spouse owes the other,...

Ketubot 66 – Shabbat September 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 66 – Shabbat September 10

ื“ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืขืฆืžื” ืžืฆื™ืืชื” ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

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?

ื“ืชื ืŸ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ืขื•ืฉื” ืœืคื™ืš ืื™ื ื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื”ืคืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคืจ ืฉืžื ืชืขื“ื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืจืื•ื™ ืœื• ืืœื ืื™ืคื•ืš ืžืฆื™ืืช ื”ืืฉื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœืขืฆืžื”

That is Rabbi Akivaโ€™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.

ื•ื”ื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืขื“ืคื” ืฉืœื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื•ื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื”ืขื“ืคื” ืฉืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœืขืฆืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžืฆื™ืืชื” ื›ื”ืขื“ืคื” ืฉืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ื“ืžื™ ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, didnโ€™t he say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: With regard to surplus that is not produced through extraordinary effort, everyone agrees that it is the husbandโ€™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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืขืฉืชื” ืœื• ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืฉืœืฉื” ืื• ืืจื‘ืขื” ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ืชื™ืงื•

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.

ื‘ื•ืฉืชื” ื•ืคื’ืžื” ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ืกื•ืกืชื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชืŸ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืกื•ืก ื‘ืจ ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืจืงืง ื‘ื‘ื’ื“ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชืŸ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื•ืฉืช

ยง 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 แธคanan strongly objects to this: If that is so according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, then if one humiliated anotherโ€™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 anotherโ€™s clothing, is the halakha that also such an offender be required to give him payment for humiliation?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืจืงืง ื•ื”ื’ื™ืข ื‘ื• ื”ืจื•ืง ื•ืคืจืข ืจืืฉ ื”ืืฉื” ื•ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื˜ืœื™ืชื• ืžืžื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื–ื•ื– ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื• ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื‘ื’ื“ื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื‘ื‘ื’ื“ื• ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ืืฉืชื• ืื™ืช ืœื” ื–ื™ืœื•ืชื

And if you would say that indeed he would be required to pay, but didnโ€™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 womanโ€™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 oneโ€™s garment, he does not suffer dishonor, but if oneโ€™s wife is humiliated, she suffers dishonor, which causes him humiliation.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ืขื ื™ ื‘ืŸ ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ื ื™ ืžืฉืคื—ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ื• ื‘ื•ืฉืช ืœื›ืœ ื‘ื ื™ ืžืฉืคื—ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื ืœืื• ื’ื•ืคื™ื™ื”ื• ื”ื›ื ืืฉืชื• ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™

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 oneโ€™s wife and oneโ€™s relatives. There, where a relative was humiliated, it is not as if they themselves had suffered the humiliation. Here, since oneโ€™s wife is considered his own self, it is as if he himself were humiliated.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืคื•ืกืง ืžืขื•ืช ืœื—ืชื ื• ื•ืžืช ื—ืชื ื• ืืžืจื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื”ื•ื ืฉื™ืืžืจ ืœืื—ื™ืš ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ื•ืœืš ืื™ ืืคืฉื™ ืœื™ืชืŸ

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.

ืคืกืงื” ืœื”ื›ื ื™ืก ืœื• ืืœืฃ ื“ื™ื ืจ ื”ื•ื ืคื•ืกืง ื›ื ื’ื“ืŸ ื—ืžืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืžื ื” ื•ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ืฉื•ื ื”ื•ื ืคื•ืกืง ืคื—ื•ืช ื—ื•ืžืฉ

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.

ืฉื•ื ื‘ืžื ื” ื•ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ืžื ื” ืฉื•ื ื‘ืžื ื” ื”ื™ื ื ื•ืชื ืช ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืกืœืข ื•ื“ื™ื ืจ ื•ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื”ื™ื ื ื•ืชื ืช ื—ืžืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืžื”

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

ืฉื—ืชืŸ ืคื•ืกืง ื”ื•ื ืคื•ืกืง ืคื—ื•ืช ื—ื•ืžืฉ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ื•ืฉื ื™ ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืื—ื™ืš ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœืš ืื™ ืืคืฉื™ ืœื™ืชืŸ

GEMARA: The Gemara cites a baraita to expand upon the mishnaโ€™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.

ืคืกืงื” ืœื”ื›ื ื™ืก ืœื• ืืœืฃ ื“ื™ื ืจ ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื™ืฉื ืชื ื ืฉื•ืžื ืจื‘ื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื•ืžื ื–ื•ื˜ื ืชื ื ืฉื•ืžื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื•ืžื ื“ื™ื“ื”

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 husbandโ€™s own appraisal of how to assess how much she must provide, and he also teaches about the wifeโ€™s own initial appraisal that she did and the corresponding amount that he must write.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืคืกืงื” ืœื”ื›ื ื™ืก ืœื• ื›ืกืคื™ื ืกืœืขื” ื ืขืฉื” ืฉืฉื” ื“ื™ื ืจื™ืŸ ื”ื—ืชืŸ ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืฉืจื” ื“ื™ื ืจื™ื ืœืงื•ืคื” ืœื›ืœ ืžื ื” ื•ืžื ื” ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืžื ื”ื’ ื”ืžื“ื™ื ื”

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 husbandโ€™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.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืคื•ืกืง ื›ื ื’ื“ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ืžื ื”

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?

ืชื ื ืขืกืงื ืจื‘ื” ื•ืชื ื ืขืกืงื ื–ื•ื˜ื ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืชื ื ืขืกืงื ืจื‘ื” ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ืจื•ื•ื—ื ืื‘ืœ ืขืกืงื ื–ื•ื˜ื ื“ื–ื•ื˜ืจ ืจื•ื•ื—ื ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืขืกืงื ื–ื•ื˜ื ื“ื–ื•ื˜ืจ ื–ื™ื•ื ื ืื‘ืœ ืขืกืงื ืจื‘ื” ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ื–ื™ื•ื ื ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

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.

ื”ื—ืชืŸ ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืฉืจื” ื“ื™ื ืจ ืœืงื•ืคื” ืžืื™ ืงื•ืคื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืงื•ืคื” ืฉืœ ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื ื ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืœืœื• ืืœื ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื

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.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื‘ืžื ื” ื”ื ื™ืฉื•ื ืื• ื‘ืžื ื” ื”ืžืชืงื‘ืœ

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?

ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื ื” ื”ืžืชืงื‘ืœ ื™ื•ื ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื• ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืฉื‘ืช ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืื• ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื• ื›ืœ ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ื—ื“ืฉ ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ื—ื“ืฉ ืฉื ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืื• ื›ืœ ืฉื ื” ื•ืฉื ื” ืชื™ืงื•

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื‘ืชื• ืฉืœ ื ืงื“ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืคืกืงื• ืœื” ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื–ื”ื•ื‘ื™ื ืœืงื•ืคื” ืฉืœ ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ืœื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืžืจื” ืœื”ื ื›ืš ืชืคืกืงื• ืœื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื›ื ื•ืขื ื• ืื—ืจื™ื” ืืžืŸ

ยง 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 husbandโ€™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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื–ื›ืื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืจื•ื›ื‘ ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ื”ื™ื• ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื• ืžื”ืœื›ื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื• ืจืื” ืจื™ื‘ื” ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืžืœืงื˜ืช ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ืœืœื™ ื‘ื”ืžืชืŸ ืฉืœ ืขืจื‘ื™ื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืจืืชื” ืื•ืชื• ื ืชืขื˜ืคื” ื‘ืฉืขืจื” ื•ืขืžื“ื” ืœืคื ื™ื•

Apropos the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon, the Gemara relates what later became of her: The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabban Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืคืจื ืกื ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื” ื‘ืชื™ ืžื™ ืืช ืืžืจื” ืœื• ื‘ืช ื ืงื“ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ ืื ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื” ื‘ืชื™ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ืš ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœืš ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืชืœื™ืŸ ืžืชืœื ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžืœื— ืžืžื•ืŸ ื—ืกืจ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื—ืกื“ ื•ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื—ืžื™ืš ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจื” ืœื• ื‘ื ื–ื” ื•ืื™ื‘ื“ ืืช ื–ื”

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 fatherโ€™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 [แธฅaser]? There is nothing with which to preserve it and prevent it from being lost. And some say the proverb asserts that kindness [แธฅesed] 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-lawโ€™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.

ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื›ื•ืจ ืืชื” ื›ืฉื—ืชืžืช ืขืœ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื• ื–ื›ื•ืจ ืื ื™ ื›ืฉื—ืชืžืชื™ ืขืœ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืฉืœ ื–ื• ื•ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืงื•ืจื ื‘ื” ืืœืฃ ืืœืคื™ื ื“ื™ื ืจื™ ื–ื”ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืฉืœ ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ื›ื” ืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื–ื›ืื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืืฉืจื™ื›ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืจืฆื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืงื•ื ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืื•ืžื” ื•ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื•ืœื˜ืช ื‘ื”ื ื•ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืจืฆื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืงื•ื ืžื•ืกืจืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ ืื•ืžื” ืฉืคืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ื“ ืื•ืžื” ืฉืคืœื” ืืœื ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื”ืžืชืŸ ืฉืœ ืื•ืžื” ืฉืคืœื”

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 fatherโ€™s house, aside from that which was promised her from her father-in-law. Rabban Yoแธฅanan 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 Nakdimonโ€™s daughter.

ื•ื ืงื“ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ืฆื“ืงื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ืขืœ ื ืงื“ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื•ืจื™ื•ืŸ ื›ืฉื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžื‘ื™ืชื• ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ ื›ืœื™ ืžื™ืœืช ื”ื™ื•

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? Isnโ€™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

Scroll To Top