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?
Ketubot 66
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
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.
Ketubot 66: Why a Wife’s Humiliation Shames Her Husband
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.
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 began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
Bronx, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, 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 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
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Jerusalem, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
Raanana, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
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
