Ketubot 66

דמעשה ידיה היא אמר רבי עקיבא לעצמה מציאתה לא כל שכן

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?

דתנן קונם שאני עושה לפיך אינו צריך להפר רבי עקיבא אומר יפר שמא תעדיף עליו יותר מן הראוי לו אלא איפוך מציאת האשה לבעלה רבי עקיבא אומר לעצמה

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.

והא כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן בהעדפה שלא על ידי הדחק כולי עלמא לא פליגי דבעל הוי כי פליגי בהעדפה שעל ידי הדחק תנא קמא סבר לבעלה ורבי עקיבא סבר לעצמה אמר רב פפא מציאתה כהעדפה שעל ידי הדחק דמי פלוגתא דרבי עקיבא ורבנן

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.

בעי רב פפא עשתה לו שתים בבת אחת מהו בעי רבינא שלשה או ארבעה בבת אחת מהו תיקו:

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.

בושתה ופגמה: מתקיף לה רבא בר רב חנן אלא מעתה בייש סוסתו של חבירו הכי נמי דבעי למיתן ליה בושת וסוס בר בושת הוא אלא רקק בבגדו של חבירו הכי נמי דבעי למיתן ליה בושת

§ 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?

וכי תימא הכי נמי והתנן רקק והגיע בו הרוק ופרע ראש האשה והעביר טליתו ממנו חייב ליתן לו ארבע מאות זוז ואמר רב פפא לא שנו אלא בו אבל בבגדו פטור בבגדו לית ליה זילותא אשתו אית לה זילותא

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.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי אלא מעתה בייש עני בן טובים דאית להו זילותא לכולהו בני משפחה הכי נמי דבעי למיתן להו בושת לכל בני משפחה אמר ליה התם לאו גופייהו הכא אשתו גופיה הואי:

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.

מתני׳ הפוסק מעות לחתנו ומת חתנו אמרו חכמים יכול הוא שיאמר לאחיך הייתי רוצה ליתן ולך אי אפשי ליתן

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.

פסקה להכניס לו אלף דינר הוא פוסק כנגדן חמש עשרה מנה וכנגד השום הוא פוסק פחות חומש

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.

שום במנה ושוה מנה אין לו אלא מנה שום במנה היא נותנת שלשים ואחד סלע ודינר ובארבע מאות היא נותנת חמש מאות מה

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

שחתן פוסק הוא פוסק פחות חומש:

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן אין צריך לומר ראשון תלמיד חכם ושני עם הארץ אלא אפילו ראשון עם הארץ ושני תלמיד חכם יכול לומר לאחיך הייתי רוצה ליתן לך אי אפשי ליתן:

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.

פסקה להכניס לו אלף דינר כו׳: היינו רישא תנא שומא רבה וקתני שומא זוטא תנא שומא דידיה וקתני שומא דידה:

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.

מתני׳ פסקה להכניס לו כספים סלעה נעשה ששה דינרין החתן מקבל עליו עשרה דינרים לקופה לכל מנה ומנה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר הכל כמנהג המדינה:

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.

גמ׳ היינו פוסק כנגדם חמשה עשר מנה

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?

תנא עסקא רבה ותנא עסקא זוטא וצריכא דאי תנא עסקא רבה דנפיש רווחא אבל עסקא זוטא דזוטר רווחא אימא לא צריכא ואי אשמעינן עסקא זוטא דזוטר זיונא אבל עסקא רבה דנפיש זיונא אימא לא צריכא:

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.

החתן מקבל עליו עשרה דינר לקופה: מאי קופה אמר רב אשי קופה של בשמים ואמר רב אשי לא נאמרו דברים הללו אלא בירושלים

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.

בעי רב אשי במנה הנישום או במנה המתקבל

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?

אם תמצא לומר מנה המתקבל יום ראשון או כל יום ויום אם תמצא לומר כל יום ויום שבת ראשונה או כל שבת ושבת אם תמצא לומר כל שבת ושבת חדש ראשון או כל חדש וחדש אם תמצא לומר כל חדש וחדש שנה ראשונה או כל שנה ושנה תיקו

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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה בבתו של נקדימון בן גוריון שפסקו לה חכמים ארבע מאות זהובים לקופה של בשמים לבו ביום אמרה להם כך תפסקו לבנותיכם וענו אחריה אמן:

§ 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.

תנו רבנן מעשה ברבן יוחנן בן זכאי שהיה רוכב על החמור והיה יוצא מירושלים והיו תלמידיו מהלכין אחריו ראה ריבה אחת שהיתה מלקטת שעורים מבין גללי בהמתן של ערביים כיון שראתה אותו נתעטפה בשערה ועמדה לפניו

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.

אמרה לו רבי פרנסני אמר לה בתי מי את אמרה לו בת נקדימון בן גוריון אני אמר לה בתי ממון של בית אביך היכן הלך אמרה לו רבי לא כדין מתלין מתלא בירושלים מלח ממון חסר ואמרי לה חסד ושל בית חמיך היכן הוא אמרה לו בא זה ואיבד את זה

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.

אמרה לו רבי זכור אתה כשחתמת על כתובתי אמר להן לתלמידיו זכור אני כשחתמתי על כתובתה של זו והייתי קורא בה אלף אלפים דינרי זהב מבית אביה חוץ משל חמיה בכה רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ואמר אשריכם ישראל בזמן שעושין רצונו של מקום אין כל אומה ולשון שולטת בהם ובזמן שאין עושין רצונו של מקום מוסרן ביד אומה שפלה ולא ביד אומה שפלה אלא ביד בהמתן של אומה שפלה

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.

ונקדימון בן גוריון לא עבד צדקה והתניא אמרו עליו על נקדימון בן גוריון כשהיה יוצא מביתו לבית המדרש כלי מילת היו

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