What was wrong with the way that Nakdimon ben Gurion fulfilled the mitzva of tzedaka? If a woman brings gold bricks into her dowry, at what value does she get them back? Rabbi Yochanan says at their exact value. However, a braita is brought to contradict. How is it resolved? How much is the minimum amount for a dowry? What about if it is being paid for by charity? Who gets taken care of first, a male or female orphan? Rabbi Yochanan ruled If an orphan needs tzedakah to get married, what do we provide him with? Tzedaka is given according to what the person was used to before they became poor. What is the best way to give tzedaka? How do you give tzedakah to someone who doesn’t want to take tzedaka? What do you do with someone who has money but wants to take tzedaka anyway? Several stories are brought highlighting these different issues.
Ketubot 67
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
Ketubot 67
מַצִּיעִין תַּחְתָּיו, וּבָאִין עֲנִיִּים וּמְקַפְּלִין אוֹתָן מֵאַחֲרָיו! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לִכְבוֹדוֹ הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּדְבָעֵי לֵיהּ לְמִיעְבַּד לָא עֲבַד. כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: לְפוּם גַּמְלָא שִׁיחְנָא.
spread underneath him to walk on, and with his blessing, the poor would come and fold them up from behind him for themselves? Clearly he gave abundant charity. The Gemara offers two possible explanations: If you wish, say that he acted that way for his own honor, to demonstrate that he considered the exorbitant expense trivial. And if you wish, say that as he should have done, he did not do. As people say, according to the camel is the burden. The stronger the camel, the heavier the load it must bear. Even if he gave altruistically, Nakdimon ben Guryon did not give as much as he was expected to give.
תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק: אֶרְאֶה בְּנֶחָמָה, אִם לֹא רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְלַקֶּטֶת שְׂעוֹרִים מִבֵּין טַלְפֵי סוּסִים בְּעַכּוֹ. קָרָאתִי עָלֶיהָ מִקְרָא זֶה: ״אִם לֹא תֵדְעִי לָךְ הַיָּפָה בַּנָּשִׁים צְאִי לָךְ בְּעִקְבֵי הַצֹּאן וּרְעִי אֶת גְּדִיּוֹתַיִךְ״. אַל תִּקְרֵי ״גְּדִיּוֹתַיִךְ״, אֶלָּא ״גְּוִיּוֹתַיִךְ״.
It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:8) with regard to the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said in the form of an oath: I pray that I will not see the consolation of the Jewish people if I did not see her gathering barley kernels from between the hooves of horses in Akko. I recited this verse about her: “If you know not, O you fairest among women, go your way forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed your kids, beside the shepherds’ tents” (Song of Songs 1:8). Do not read it as “your kids [gediyotayikh]” but rather read it as your bodies [geviyotayikh]. This woman is compelled to follow the sheep to the pastures in order to sustain her own body from the leftovers of their food.
אָמַר רַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ זָהָב — שָׁמִין אוֹתוֹ, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּשׇׁוְויוֹ. מֵיתִיבִי: הַזָּהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים. מַאי לָאו: כְּכֵלִים שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, דְּפָחֲתִי! לָא, כְּכֵלִים שֶׁל זָהָב, דְּלָא פָּחֲתִי. אִם כֵּן, כְּכֵלָיו מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
§ The Gemara returns to the topic of how the groom records the bride’s dowry in the marriage contract: Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If she brings him gold in her dowry, the court appraises it, and it is recorded in the marriage contract according to its value, without additions or subtractions. The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: The halakha is that the gold is like utensils and not like cash for purposes of the dowry. The Gemara qualifies its objection: What, is it not that gold is like silver vessels, which diminish, so that they resemble all other goods in the dowry whose values are reduced in the marriage contract? The Gemara responds: No, the intent is that gold is like utensils of gold, which do not diminish. The Gemara asks: If so, the baraita should have stated that gold is like its own utensils, which would demonstrate that gold is appraised according to its true value. Evidently, then, this is not true of gold.
וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: זָהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים. דִּינְרֵי זָהָב, הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְסָפִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן — שָׁמִין אוֹתָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּשׇׁוְויֵהֶן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן? הָא לָא נָפְקִי!
And moreover, one can ask: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:2) that the halakha is that gold is like utensils and that gold dinars are like silver coins. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where people were accustomed not to exchange them, the court appraises them, and they are recorded at their appraised worth, no more or less. The Gemara clarifies: To which clause is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel referring, when he comments that they are not exchanged? If we say he is commenting on the latter clause concerning the gold dinars, by inference it may be understood that the first tanna holds that gold dinars have the same status as cash, even in a place where people were accustomed not to exchange them. But they are not used and do not function as liquid money in a place where they are not exchanged. Why, then, does the husband need to raise the value as though they were functional cash?
אֶלָּא לָאו אַרֵישָׁא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: זָהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים, מַאי כֵּלִים — כֵּלִים שֶׁל כֶּסֶף. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא כְּדִינָרִין שֶׁל זָהָב, בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן!
Rather, is it not that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commented on the first clause of the baraita, and this is what the baraita is saying: The halakha is that gold is like utensils. What is meant by the ambiguous term utensils? Utensils of silver. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel qualifies this ruling and says: The halakha is that it is like gold dinars, whose value remains constant, in a place where they are accustomed not to exchange it or use it for business. In any event, the opinion of the first tanna in this baraita, that gold is treated like silver utensils, contradicts the previous assertion that gold must have the status of gold utensils, not silver utensils.
לָא, לְעוֹלָם אַסֵּיפָא, וּדְנָפְקִי עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק. וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקִי, מַשְׁבְּחִינַן לַהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא נָפְקִי אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק, לָא מַשְׁבְּחִינַן לַהּ.
The Gemara responds: No, actually it must be that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commented on the latter clause of the baraita, which deals with gold dinars, and they are not exchanged because they are used as cash only with difficulty. They are not typically used for business, but they could be used when necessary. And consequently, they disagree about this: One Sage, the first tanna, holds since they are used when necessary, we increase the value of gold dinars for the wife in the dowry, and the husband writes an increased sum in the marriage contract. And one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds since they are used for commerce only with difficulty, we do not increase the value of gold dinars for her. According to this interpretation, the first opinion can still subscribe to the notion that gold pieces, like gold utensils, are appraised at their actual value.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כּוּלַּהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: זָהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים, דִּינְרֵי זָהָב הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְסָפִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְפוֹרְטָן. אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן — שָׁמִין אוֹתָם וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּשׇׁוְויֵהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. שֶׁרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן, שָׁמִין אוֹתָם וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּשׇׁוְויֵהֶן.
If you wish, say instead that the entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The halakha is that a piece of gold is like utensils and gold dinars are like money. In what case is this statement said? In a place where the people were accustomed to exchange the dinars. However, in a place where the people were accustomed not to exchange the dinars, the court appraises their worth, and they are recorded at their appraised worth. This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where the people were accustomed not to exchange them, the court appraises their worth, and they are recorded at their appraised worth.
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״כְּכֵלָיו״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּדַהֲבָא פְּרִיכָא. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּמַמְלָא.
The contradiction from this baraita has been resolved, but in any case, a difficulty remains: If the status of gold is similar to that of gold utensils and it is appraised at its actual value, the baraita should have stated that gold is like its own utensils and not simply like any utensils. The Gemara answers: The language is difficult. If you wish, say the following answer instead: With what are we dealing here? With smashed gold fragments. Rav Ashi said: We are dealing with granules of gold. Certainly, then, they are not treated as gold utensils, but the novel element of the baraita is that they have the status of regular utensils and not of gold dinars.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל אַנְטוֹכְיָא — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְסָפִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גְּמַלִּים שֶׁל עַרְבִיָּא — אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶם.
§ Apropos the preceding discussion concerning the appraisal of objects used for commerce, the Gemara cites a series of related comments. Rabbi Yannai said: With regard to spices in Antioch, they are like money. Since in Antioch they would conduct business with spices, they should be treated like cash when a woman brings them in her dowry. Similarly, Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Concerning camels in Arabia, a woman may collect the amount of her marriage settlement from them. Since they conduct business using camels in Arabia, the camels are consequently given the status that money has in other places.
אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי: הָנֵי תּוֹתְבֵי דְּבֵי מִכְסֵי, אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶם. וְאָמַר רַב פַּפִּי: הָנֵי שַׂקֵּי דְרוּדְיָא וְאַשְׁלֵי דְקִמְחוֹנְיָא — אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶן. אָמַר רָבָא, מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי אַרְנְקֵי דְמָחוֹזָא — אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אַסְמַכְתַּיְיהוּ עֲלַיְיהוּ. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזַאי דְּשָׁקְלִי לְהוּ וְנָפְקִי, וְכִי מַשְׁכְּחִי אַרְעָא זָבְנִי בְּהוּ, אָמֵינָא: אַסְמַכְתַּיְיהוּ אַאַרְעָא הוּא.
Similarly, Rav Pappi said: With regard to those robes in Bei Mikhsei, a woman may collect her marriage settlement from them because they use dresses for commerce. And Rav Pappi said: With regard to these sacks in Rodya and ropes in Kimḥonya, a woman may collect her marriage settlement from them. Rava said: Initially, I would have said that concerning those money pouches [arnakei] in Meḥoza, a woman may collect her marriage settlement from them. What is the reason? They rely on them, and they serve the commercial function served by real estate in other places. Once I saw that they take them and the pouches are used, and when they find land they buy it with them and do not retain them, I said that they too rely on land. The money pouches are used in a fluid manner, but these pouches do not serve the same role served by real estate.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת בִּתּוֹ סְתָם — לֹא יִפְחוֹת לָהּ מֵחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. פָּסַק לְהַכְנִיסָהּ עֲרוּמָּה — לֹא יֹאמַר הַבַּעַל ״כְּשֶׁאַכְנִיסֶנָּה לְבֵיתִי אֲכַסֶּנָּה בִּכְסוּתִי״, אֶלָּא מְכַסָּהּ וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. וְכֵן הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת הַיְּתוֹמָה — לֹא יִפְחוֹת לָהּ מֵחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. אִם יֵשׁ בַּכִּיס — מְפַרְנְסִין אוֹתָהּ לְפִי כְּבוֹדָהּ.
MISHNA: With regard to one who marries off his daughter with the terms of the dowry unspecified, he must not give her less than fifty dinars. If the bride’s father pledged to bring her into the marriage bare, by saying that he refuses to give her anything, the husband should not say: When I bring her into my house, I will clothe her with my clothing, but not beforehand. Rather, he must clothe her while she is yet in her father’s house, and she enters the marriage with the clothing in hand. And similarly, with regard to a charity administrator who marries off an orphan girl, he must not give her less than fifty dinars. If there are sufficient resources in the charity fund, the charities provide even more for her, furnishing a dowry and her other needs according to her dignity.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חֲמִשִּׁים זוּזֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי. מִמַּאי — מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם יֵשׁ בַּכִּיס — מְפַרְנְסִין אוֹתָהּ לְפִי כְּבוֹדָהּ, וְאָמְרִינַן מַאי כִּיס? אָמַר רַחֲבָה: אַרְנְקִי שֶׁל צְדָקָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין חֲמִשִּׁים זוּזֵי מַמָּשׁ, אִם יֵשׁ בַּכִּיס כַּמָּה יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּזֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי.
GEMARA: Abaye said: The fifty dinars mentioned in the mishna is referring to fifty provincial dinars, each of which is worth one-eighth the amount of a standard dinar. From where do I know that this is so? From the fact that the latter clause teaches: If there are sufficient resources in the charity fund, the charities provide more for her, furnishing a dowry and her other needs according to her dignity. And we say: What is this fund? Raḥava said: The charity fund. And if it enters our minds to say that the mishna is referring to fifty actual, i.e., standard, dinars, if there are sufficient resources in the fund, how many standard dinars do we give him? Fifty standard dinars is already a sizable sum to distribute as charity. Rather, conclude from this comment that the mishna is referring to fifty provincial dinars.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה שֶׁבָּאוּ לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — מְפַרְנְסִין אֶת הַיְּתוֹמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְפַרְנְסִין אֶת הַיָּתוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאִישׁ דַּרְכּוֹ לַחְזוֹר עַל הַפְּתָחִים, וְאֵין אִשָּׁה דַּרְכָּהּ לַחְזוֹר. יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה
The Sages taught: Concerning an orphan boy and an orphan girl who have come and appealed to be supported by the charity fund, the distributors provide for the orphan girl first and afterward they provide for the orphan boy. This is because it is the way of a man to circulate about the entryways to ask for charity, and it is not a woman’s way to circulate for charity. Therefore, her need is greater. Concerning an orphan boy and orphan girl
שֶׁבָּאוּ לִינָּשֵׂא — מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת הַיְּתוֹמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת הַיָּתוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבּוֹשְׁתָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה מְרוּבָּה מִשֶּׁל אִישׁ.
who have come to appeal to the charity fund to be married off, the administrators marry off the orphan girl first and afterward they marry off the orphan boy, because the humiliation of a woman who is not married is greater than that of an unmarried man.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָתוֹם שֶׁבָּא לִישָּׂא — שׂוֹכְרִין לוֹ בַּיִת, וּמַצִּיעִין לוֹ מִטָּה וְכׇל כְּלֵי תַשְׁמִישׁוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשִּׂיאִין לוֹ אִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דֵּי מַחְסוֹרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ״. ״דֵּי מַחְסוֹרוֹ״ — זֶה הַבַּיִת, ״אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר״ — זֶה מִטָּה וְשֻׁלְחָן, ״לוֹ״ — זוֹ אִשָּׁה. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אֶעֱשֶׂה לּוֹ עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ״.
The Sages taught: Concerning an orphan boy who has come to marry, the community tries its utmost to provide for all of his needs. The charities rent a house for him, arrange for him a bed and all his utensils, and thereafter they marry him a wife, as it is stated: “But you shall surely open your hand to him, and shall surely lend him sufficient for his deficiency in that which is deficient for him” (Deuteronomy 15:8). With regard to the phrase “sufficient for his deficiency,” this is referring to the house. “Which is deficient”; this is referring to a bed and table. “For him [lo]”; this is referring to a wife. And similarly the verse states: “I will make him [lo] a helpmate for him” (Genesis 2:18), when God created a wife for Adam.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״דֵּי מַחְסוֹרוֹ״ — אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עָלָיו לְפַרְנְסוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עָלָיו לְעַשְּׁרוֹ. ״אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ״ — אֲפִילּוּ סוּס לִרְכּוֹב עָלָיו וְעֶבֶד לָרוּץ לְפָנָיו. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלָּקַח לְעָנִי בֶּן טוֹבִים אֶחָד סוּס לִרְכּוֹב עָלָיו וְעֶבֶד לָרוּץ לְפָנָיו. פַּעַם אַחַת לֹא מָצָא עֶבֶד לָרוּץ לְפָנָיו, וְרָץ לְפָנָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה מִילִין.
Concerning this issue, the Sages taught: “Sufficient for his deficiency”; this teaches that you are commanded with respect to the pauper to support him, but you are not commanded with respect to him to make him wealthy, as the obligation encompasses only that which he lacks, as indicated by the word deficient. However, the verse also states: “Which is deficient for him”; this includes even a horse upon which to ride and a servant to run in front of him for the sake of his stature, if necessary. For someone accustomed to these advantages, their absences constitute a true deficiency, not an extravagant indulgence. The Gemara relates: They said about Hillel the Elder that he obtained for a poor person of noble descent a horse upon which to ride and a servant to run in front of him. One time he did not find a servant to run in front of him, and Hillel himself ran in front of him for three mil, to fulfill the dictate “which is deficient for him.”
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַנְשֵׁי גָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁלָּקְחוּ לְעָנִי בֶּן טוֹבִים אֶחָד מִצִּיפּוֹרִי לִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר בְּכׇל יוֹם. לִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר מַאי רְבוּתָא? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר מִשֶּׁל עוֹפוֹת. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּלִיטְרָא, בָּשָׂר מַמָּשׁ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הָתָם כְּפָר קָטָן הָיָה, בְּכׇל יוֹמָא הֲוָה מַפְסְדִי חֵיוְתָא אַמְּטוּלְתֵּיהּ.
The Sages taught: There was an incident involving the people of the Upper Galilee, who bought for a poor person of noble descent from the city of Tzippori a litra of meat every day. The Gemara asks: If they provided him with the reasonable ration of a litra of meat, what is the novelty in this incident? Why does it bear repeating? Rav Huna said: It was a litra of meat of poultry, which is very expensive. And if you wish, say instead that for the weight of a litra of coins, they bought him actual red meat. The price of ordinary meat was so expensive that they had to pay the exorbitant price of a litra of coins. Rav Ashi said they did not spend a litra of coins for him. Rather, there, in the Galilee, it was a small village, and every day they would lose an entire animal just for him. They would slaughter an animal daily, simply to provide him with fresh meat, although there was otherwise no market for such a plentiful supply of meat in the village.
הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, אָמַר לֵיהּ: בַּמָּה אַתָּה סוֹעֵד? אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּבָשָׂר שָׁמֵן וְיַיִן יָשָׁן. רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתְּגַלְגֵּל עִמִּי בַּעֲדָשִׁים? גִּלְגֵּל עִמּוֹ בַּעֲדָשִׁים וָמֵת. אָמַר: אוֹי לוֹ לְזֶה שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ נְחֶמְיָה. אַדְּרַבָּה, ״אוֹי לוֹ לִנְחֶמְיָה שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזֶה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא: אִיהוּ הוּא דְּלָא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפַנּוֹקֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ כּוּלֵּי הַאי.
The Gemara relates another incident concerning charity. A certain person came before Rabbi Neḥemya to request charity. He said to him: On what do you normally dine? He said to him: I usually dine on fatty meat and aged wine. Rabbi Neḥemya asked him: Is it your wish to belittle yourself and partake together with me in a meal of lentils, which is my regular food? He partook with him of lentils, and he died, since he was not accustomed to this food. Rabbi Neḥemya said: Woe to this one who was killed by Neḥemya. The Gemara wonders: On the contrary, Rabbi Neḥemya should have said: Woe to Neḥemya who killed this one. The Gemara responds: Rather, Rabbi Neḥemya meant that it was he, the pauper, who should not have pampered himself so much. The poor man was to blame for his own death. His excessive indulgence rendered him incapable of digesting simple foods such as lentils.
הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אָמַר לוֹ: בַּמָּה אַתָּה סוֹעֵד? אָמַר לוֹ: בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת פְּטוּמָה וְיַיִן יָשָׁן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָא חָיְישַׁתְּ לְדוּחְקָא דְּצִיבּוּרָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ מִדִּידְהוּ קָאָכֵילְנָא? מִדְּרַחְמָנָא קָאָכֵילְנָא! דְּתָנֵינָא: ״עֵינֵי כֹל אֵלֶיךָ יְשַׂבֵּרוּ וְאַתָּה נוֹתֵן לָהֶם אֶת אׇכְלָם בְּעִתּוֹ״. ״בְּעִתָּם״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״בְּעִתּוֹ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא פַּרְנָסָתוֹ בְּעִתּוֹ.
The Gemara relates another story. A certain person came before Rava to request charity. He said to him: On what do you normally dine? He said to him: On a fattened hen and aged wine. He said to him: And were you not concerned for causing a burden to the community by expecting such opulent foods? He said to him: Is that to say that it is from their funds that I eat? I eat from the support of the Merciful One. This would seem to be a reasonable argument, as we already learned that in the verse “the eyes of all wait for You, and You give them their food in its time” (Psalms 145:15), the phrase: At their time, is not stated, rather “in its time.” This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, gives each and every one his personally appropriate sustenance at its proper time, and the community is merely His agent in discharging His will. Therefore, the man is justified in maintaining his standard.
אַדְּהָכִי, אֲתַאי אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא דְּלָא חָזְיָא לֵיהּ תְּלֵיסְרֵי שְׁנֵי, וְאַתְיָא לֵיהּ תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת פְּטוּמָה וְיַיִן יָשָׁן. אָמַר: מַאי דְּקַמָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נַעֲנֵתִי לְךָ, קוּם אֱכוֹל.
In the meantime, while they were talking, Rava’s sister, who had not seen him for thirteen years, came. And as a gift, she brought him a fattened hen and aged wine. Rava said to himself: What is this that happened in front of me that suddenly I am brought food that I do not usually eat? He then understood that this was a providential response to what he had earlier said to the man. Rava said to him: I have responded [na’aneti] to your contention. Arise and eat.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם הַלְוָאָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם הַלְוָאָה. לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה? הָא לָא שָׁקֵיל! אָמַר רָבָא: לִפְתּוֹחַ לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה.
§ The Sages taught: If an individual does not have sufficient means of support and does not want to be supported from charity funds, the charities provide him funds as a loan in a dignified manner, and then they go back and give the funds to him as a gift; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They give him funds as a gift, and then they go back and give the funds to him as a loan. The Gemara wonders about the Rabbis’ ruling: How can we give it as a gift? After all, he does not want to take it as a gift. The Gemara answers that Rava said: The Rabbis’ instruction is to begin discussions with him by offering the assistance as a gift. If he refuses, the charities give it to him as a loan, but they treat it as a gift and refrain from attempting to collect a debt.
יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנִפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ. חוֹזְרִין וְנִפְרָעִין הֵימֶנּוּ, תּוּ לָא שָׁקֵיל! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְאַחַר מִיתָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. אֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: הָבֵא מַשְׁכּוֹן וָטוֹל, כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּזוּחַ דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו.
If he has sufficient funds of his own but does not want to support himself by his own funds without the assistance of charity, the charities give him aid as a gift, and then they go back and collect the debt from him. The Gemara asks: How can the administrators of the fund go back and collect from him? Would their efforts not be in vain, as subsequently he would not take their support, knowing that he would still have to pay for it? Rav Pappa said: The charities collect the accrued debt from his estate only after his death. The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says, disputing the opinion of the Rabbis: If he has sufficient funds and does not want to be supported by his own means, they do not get involved with him, as the community is not obligated to support him. If he does not have and does not want to be supported from charity, the charities say to him: Bring collateral and take a loan, so that his mindset should be raised for him, with the false impression that he is not receiving a handout.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַעֲבֵט״, זֶה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס, שֶׁנּוֹתְנִים לוֹ לְשׁוּם הַלְוָאָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה. ״תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״, זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס, שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנִפְרָעִין הֵימֶנּוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara cites a dispute related to the previous discussions. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the double expression in the Torah: “You shall open your hand to him [ha’avet ta’avitenu]” (Deuteronomy 15:8). “Ha’avet”; this is referring to one who does not have funds and does not want to be supported by charity. The policy is that the charities provide him funds as a loan and go back and give the funds to him as a gift. “Ta’avitenu”; this is referring to one who has means and does not want to support himself. The policy is that the charities provide money as a gift, and then they go back and collect from his estate after his death. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. וְאֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״? דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say: If he has money and does not want to support himself, they do not get involved with him. The baraita asks: How then do I uphold the double expression “ha’avet ta’avitenu”? The baraita answers: The Torah spoke in the language of men, and the double form does not have halakhic significance.
מָר עוּקְבָא הֲוָה עַנְיָא בְּשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל כׇּל יוֹמָא דְּשָׁדֵי לֵיהּ אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי בְּצִינּוֹרָא דְּדַשָּׁא. (יוֹם אֶחָד) [יוֹמָא חַד] אֲמַר: אֵיזִיל אִיחְזֵי מַאן קָעָבֵיד בִּי הָהוּא טֵיבוּתָא. הָהוּא יוֹמָא נְגַהָא לֵיהּ לְמָר עוּקְבָא לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא, אָתְיָא דְּבֵיתְהוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ.
The Gemara recounts another incident related to charity. Mar Ukva had a pauper in his neighborhood, and Mar Ukva was accustomed every day to toss four dinars for him into the slot adjacent to the hinge of the door. One day the poor person said: I will go and see who is doing this service for me. That day Mar Ukva was delayed in the study hall, and his wife came with him to distribute the charity.
כֵּיוָן דְּחַזְיֵוהּ דְּקָא מַצְלֵי לֵיהּ לְדַשָּׁא, נְפַק בָּתְרַיְיהוּ. רְהוּט מִקַּמֵּיהּ, עָיְילִי לְהָהוּא אַתּוּנָא דַּהֲוָה גְּרִופָה נוּרָא, הֲוָה קָא מִיקַּלְיָין כַּרְעֵיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ דְּבֵיתְהוּ: שְׁקוֹל כַּרְעָיךְ אוֹתֵיב אַכַּרְעַאי. חֲלַשׁ דַּעְתֵּיהּ, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אֲנָא שְׁכִיחָנָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ דְּבֵיתָא וּמְקָרְבָא אַהֲנָיָיתִי.
When the people in the poor man’s house saw that someone was turning the door, the pauper went out after them to see who it was. Mar Ukva and his wife ran away from before him so that he would not determine their identity, and they entered a certain furnace whose fire was already raked over and tempered but was still burning. Mar Ukva’s legs were being singed, and his wife said to him: Raise your legs and set them on my legs, which are not burned. Understanding that only his wife was spared from burns, because she was more worthy, Mar Ukva became distraught. By way of explanation, she said to him: I am normally found inside the house, and when I give charity, my assistance is ready and immediate, insofar as I distribute actual food items. Since you distribute money, which is not as readily helpful, my aid is greater than yours.
וּמַאי כּוּלֵּי הַאי? דְּאָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: נוֹחַ לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר עַצְמוֹ לְתוֹךְ כִּבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ, וְאַל יַלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ בָּרַבִּים. מְנָא לַן — מִתָּמָר, דִּכְתִיב: ״הִיא מוּצֵאת״.
The Gemara asks: And what is all this? Why did they go to such extreme lengths to avoid being discovered? The Gemara answers: It is as Mar Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said, and some say that Rav Huna bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said, and some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is preferable for a person to deliver himself into a fiery furnace so that he not whiten the face of, i.e., embarrass, his friend in public. From where do we derive this? From the conduct of Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man, whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:24–25). Although Tamar was taken to be executed by burning, she privately and directly appealed to Judah, rather than publicly identifying him as the father of her unborn children and causing him embarrassment.
מָר עוּקְבָא הֲוָה עַנְיָא בְּשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל לְשַׁדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ אַרְבַּע מְאָה זוּזֵי כׇּל מַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְּכִיפּוּרָא. יוֹמָא חַד שַׁדְּרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּיַד בְּרֵיהּ. אֲתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיךְ. אָמַר מַאי חֲזֵית? חֲזַאי דְּקָא מְזַלְּפִי לֵיהּ יַיִן יָשָׁן. אָמַר: מְפַנַּק כּוּלֵּי הַאי! עַיְיפִינְהוּ וְשַׁדְּרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates another incident involving Mar Ukva. Mar Ukva had another pauper in his neighborhood, and Mar Ukva was accustomed to send to him four hundred dinars every year on the eve of Yom Kippur. One day he sent the money to him by the hand of his son. The son returned and said to him: The poor individual does not need the charity. Mar Ukva said: What did you see that prompted you to say this? He said to him: I saw them spilling old wine on the ground for him, to give the room a pleasant smell. Mar Ukva said: If he is pampered this much and requires even this luxury, then he needs even more money. He doubled the funds and sent them to him.
כִּי קָא נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אֲמַר: אַיְיתוֹ לִי חוּשְׁבְּנַאי דִּצְדָקָה. אַשְׁכַּח דַּהֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ שִׁבְעַת אַלְפֵי דִּינָרֵי סְיָאנְקֵי. אֲמַר: זַוְודַאי קַלִּילֵי וְאוֹרְחָא רַחִיקְתָּא. קָם בַּזְבְּזֵיהּ לְפַלְגֵיהּ מָמוֹנֵיהּ. הֵיכִי עֲבַד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַאי, בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ: הַמְבַזְבֵּז — אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ! הָנֵי מִילֵּי מֵחַיִּים, שֶׁמָּא יֵרֵד מִנְּכָסָיו. אֲבָל לְאַחַר מִיתָה לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
When Mar Ukva was dying, he said: Bring me my charity records. He found that it was written there that he had given seven thousand fine, siankei, i.e., gold, dinars, to charity. He said: My provisions are light, and the way is far. This meager sum is insufficient for me to merit the World-to-Come. He got up and spent half of his remaining money on charity. The Gemara asks: How did he do this? But didn’t Rabbi Ilai say: In Usha they instituted: One who spends money on charity, he should not spend more than one-fifth of his money for this purpose. The Gemara answers: This restriction on giving too much charity applies only while he is alive, because perhaps he will descend from his holdings and become destitute. Therefore, for his own financial security, he should never distribute more than one-fifth. But after death, we have no problem with it. One need not save money in his estate anymore.
רַבִּי אַבָּא הֲוָה צָיַיר זוּזֵי בְּסוּדָרֵיהּ, וְשָׁדֵי לֵיהּ לַאֲחוֹרֵיהּ, וּמַמְצֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ לְבֵי עַנְיֵי, וּמַצְלֵי עֵינֵיהּ מֵרַמָּאֵי.
The Gemara recounts more stories related to charity. Rabbi Abba would wrap coins in his scarf and toss the money behind him over his shoulder. And he would place himself at the homes of the poor without being seen, so the poor could receive the aid without being embarrassed. And he would incline his eyes just enough so he could safeguard the handouts from swindlers who might take the money dishonestly.
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא הֲוָה הָהוּא עַנְיָא דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל לְשַׁדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי כׇּל מַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא. יוֹמָא חַד שַׁדְּרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּיַד דְּבֵיתְהוּ, אֲתַאי אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיךְ. מַאי חֲזֵית? שְׁמַעִי דַּהֲוֹה קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: בַּמָּה אַתָּה סוֹעֵד,
Rabbi Ḥanina knew a certain pauper and was accustomed to send to him four dinars on every Shabbat eve. One day he sent it in the hand of his wife. She came back home and said to him: The man does not need charity. Rabbi Ḥanina asked her: What did you see that prompted you to say this? She said to him: I heard them saying to him inside the house: With what do you normally dine:
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 67: Buffet’s Giving Pledge and Talmudic Tzedakah
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 started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, 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
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
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, 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
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
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
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
Ketubot 67
מַצִּיעִין תַּחְתָּיו, וּבָאִין עֲנִיִּים וּמְקַפְּלִין אוֹתָן מֵאַחֲרָיו! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לִכְבוֹדוֹ הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּדְבָעֵי לֵיהּ לְמִיעְבַּד לָא עֲבַד. כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: לְפוּם גַּמְלָא שִׁיחְנָא.
spread underneath him to walk on, and with his blessing, the poor would come and fold them up from behind him for themselves? Clearly he gave abundant charity. The Gemara offers two possible explanations: If you wish, say that he acted that way for his own honor, to demonstrate that he considered the exorbitant expense trivial. And if you wish, say that as he should have done, he did not do. As people say, according to the camel is the burden. The stronger the camel, the heavier the load it must bear. Even if he gave altruistically, Nakdimon ben Guryon did not give as much as he was expected to give.
תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק: אֶרְאֶה בְּנֶחָמָה, אִם לֹא רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְלַקֶּטֶת שְׂעוֹרִים מִבֵּין טַלְפֵי סוּסִים בְּעַכּוֹ. קָרָאתִי עָלֶיהָ מִקְרָא זֶה: ״אִם לֹא תֵדְעִי לָךְ הַיָּפָה בַּנָּשִׁים צְאִי לָךְ בְּעִקְבֵי הַצֹּאן וּרְעִי אֶת גְּדִיּוֹתַיִךְ״. אַל תִּקְרֵי ״גְּדִיּוֹתַיִךְ״, אֶלָּא ״גְּוִיּוֹתַיִךְ״.
It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:8) with regard to the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said in the form of an oath: I pray that I will not see the consolation of the Jewish people if I did not see her gathering barley kernels from between the hooves of horses in Akko. I recited this verse about her: “If you know not, O you fairest among women, go your way forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed your kids, beside the shepherds’ tents” (Song of Songs 1:8). Do not read it as “your kids [gediyotayikh]” but rather read it as your bodies [geviyotayikh]. This woman is compelled to follow the sheep to the pastures in order to sustain her own body from the leftovers of their food.
אָמַר רַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ זָהָב — שָׁמִין אוֹתוֹ, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּשׇׁוְויוֹ. מֵיתִיבִי: הַזָּהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים. מַאי לָאו: כְּכֵלִים שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, דְּפָחֲתִי! לָא, כְּכֵלִים שֶׁל זָהָב, דְּלָא פָּחֲתִי. אִם כֵּן, כְּכֵלָיו מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
§ The Gemara returns to the topic of how the groom records the bride’s dowry in the marriage contract: Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If she brings him gold in her dowry, the court appraises it, and it is recorded in the marriage contract according to its value, without additions or subtractions. The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: The halakha is that the gold is like utensils and not like cash for purposes of the dowry. The Gemara qualifies its objection: What, is it not that gold is like silver vessels, which diminish, so that they resemble all other goods in the dowry whose values are reduced in the marriage contract? The Gemara responds: No, the intent is that gold is like utensils of gold, which do not diminish. The Gemara asks: If so, the baraita should have stated that gold is like its own utensils, which would demonstrate that gold is appraised according to its true value. Evidently, then, this is not true of gold.
וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: זָהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים. דִּינְרֵי זָהָב, הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְסָפִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן — שָׁמִין אוֹתָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּשׇׁוְויֵהֶן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן? הָא לָא נָפְקִי!
And moreover, one can ask: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:2) that the halakha is that gold is like utensils and that gold dinars are like silver coins. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where people were accustomed not to exchange them, the court appraises them, and they are recorded at their appraised worth, no more or less. The Gemara clarifies: To which clause is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel referring, when he comments that they are not exchanged? If we say he is commenting on the latter clause concerning the gold dinars, by inference it may be understood that the first tanna holds that gold dinars have the same status as cash, even in a place where people were accustomed not to exchange them. But they are not used and do not function as liquid money in a place where they are not exchanged. Why, then, does the husband need to raise the value as though they were functional cash?
אֶלָּא לָאו אַרֵישָׁא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: זָהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים, מַאי כֵּלִים — כֵּלִים שֶׁל כֶּסֶף. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא כְּדִינָרִין שֶׁל זָהָב, בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן!
Rather, is it not that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commented on the first clause of the baraita, and this is what the baraita is saying: The halakha is that gold is like utensils. What is meant by the ambiguous term utensils? Utensils of silver. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel qualifies this ruling and says: The halakha is that it is like gold dinars, whose value remains constant, in a place where they are accustomed not to exchange it or use it for business. In any event, the opinion of the first tanna in this baraita, that gold is treated like silver utensils, contradicts the previous assertion that gold must have the status of gold utensils, not silver utensils.
לָא, לְעוֹלָם אַסֵּיפָא, וּדְנָפְקִי עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק. וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקִי, מַשְׁבְּחִינַן לַהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא נָפְקִי אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק, לָא מַשְׁבְּחִינַן לַהּ.
The Gemara responds: No, actually it must be that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commented on the latter clause of the baraita, which deals with gold dinars, and they are not exchanged because they are used as cash only with difficulty. They are not typically used for business, but they could be used when necessary. And consequently, they disagree about this: One Sage, the first tanna, holds since they are used when necessary, we increase the value of gold dinars for the wife in the dowry, and the husband writes an increased sum in the marriage contract. And one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds since they are used for commerce only with difficulty, we do not increase the value of gold dinars for her. According to this interpretation, the first opinion can still subscribe to the notion that gold pieces, like gold utensils, are appraised at their actual value.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כּוּלַּהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: זָהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים, דִּינְרֵי זָהָב הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְסָפִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְפוֹרְטָן. אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן — שָׁמִין אוֹתָם וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּשׇׁוְויֵהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. שֶׁרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן, שָׁמִין אוֹתָם וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּשׇׁוְויֵהֶן.
If you wish, say instead that the entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The halakha is that a piece of gold is like utensils and gold dinars are like money. In what case is this statement said? In a place where the people were accustomed to exchange the dinars. However, in a place where the people were accustomed not to exchange the dinars, the court appraises their worth, and they are recorded at their appraised worth. This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where the people were accustomed not to exchange them, the court appraises their worth, and they are recorded at their appraised worth.
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״כְּכֵלָיו״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּדַהֲבָא פְּרִיכָא. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּמַמְלָא.
The contradiction from this baraita has been resolved, but in any case, a difficulty remains: If the status of gold is similar to that of gold utensils and it is appraised at its actual value, the baraita should have stated that gold is like its own utensils and not simply like any utensils. The Gemara answers: The language is difficult. If you wish, say the following answer instead: With what are we dealing here? With smashed gold fragments. Rav Ashi said: We are dealing with granules of gold. Certainly, then, they are not treated as gold utensils, but the novel element of the baraita is that they have the status of regular utensils and not of gold dinars.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל אַנְטוֹכְיָא — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְסָפִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גְּמַלִּים שֶׁל עַרְבִיָּא — אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶם.
§ Apropos the preceding discussion concerning the appraisal of objects used for commerce, the Gemara cites a series of related comments. Rabbi Yannai said: With regard to spices in Antioch, they are like money. Since in Antioch they would conduct business with spices, they should be treated like cash when a woman brings them in her dowry. Similarly, Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Concerning camels in Arabia, a woman may collect the amount of her marriage settlement from them. Since they conduct business using camels in Arabia, the camels are consequently given the status that money has in other places.
אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי: הָנֵי תּוֹתְבֵי דְּבֵי מִכְסֵי, אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶם. וְאָמַר רַב פַּפִּי: הָנֵי שַׂקֵּי דְרוּדְיָא וְאַשְׁלֵי דְקִמְחוֹנְיָא — אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶן. אָמַר רָבָא, מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי אַרְנְקֵי דְמָחוֹזָא — אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אַסְמַכְתַּיְיהוּ עֲלַיְיהוּ. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזַאי דְּשָׁקְלִי לְהוּ וְנָפְקִי, וְכִי מַשְׁכְּחִי אַרְעָא זָבְנִי בְּהוּ, אָמֵינָא: אַסְמַכְתַּיְיהוּ אַאַרְעָא הוּא.
Similarly, Rav Pappi said: With regard to those robes in Bei Mikhsei, a woman may collect her marriage settlement from them because they use dresses for commerce. And Rav Pappi said: With regard to these sacks in Rodya and ropes in Kimḥonya, a woman may collect her marriage settlement from them. Rava said: Initially, I would have said that concerning those money pouches [arnakei] in Meḥoza, a woman may collect her marriage settlement from them. What is the reason? They rely on them, and they serve the commercial function served by real estate in other places. Once I saw that they take them and the pouches are used, and when they find land they buy it with them and do not retain them, I said that they too rely on land. The money pouches are used in a fluid manner, but these pouches do not serve the same role served by real estate.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת בִּתּוֹ סְתָם — לֹא יִפְחוֹת לָהּ מֵחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. פָּסַק לְהַכְנִיסָהּ עֲרוּמָּה — לֹא יֹאמַר הַבַּעַל ״כְּשֶׁאַכְנִיסֶנָּה לְבֵיתִי אֲכַסֶּנָּה בִּכְסוּתִי״, אֶלָּא מְכַסָּהּ וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. וְכֵן הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת הַיְּתוֹמָה — לֹא יִפְחוֹת לָהּ מֵחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. אִם יֵשׁ בַּכִּיס — מְפַרְנְסִין אוֹתָהּ לְפִי כְּבוֹדָהּ.
MISHNA: With regard to one who marries off his daughter with the terms of the dowry unspecified, he must not give her less than fifty dinars. If the bride’s father pledged to bring her into the marriage bare, by saying that he refuses to give her anything, the husband should not say: When I bring her into my house, I will clothe her with my clothing, but not beforehand. Rather, he must clothe her while she is yet in her father’s house, and she enters the marriage with the clothing in hand. And similarly, with regard to a charity administrator who marries off an orphan girl, he must not give her less than fifty dinars. If there are sufficient resources in the charity fund, the charities provide even more for her, furnishing a dowry and her other needs according to her dignity.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חֲמִשִּׁים זוּזֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי. מִמַּאי — מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם יֵשׁ בַּכִּיס — מְפַרְנְסִין אוֹתָהּ לְפִי כְּבוֹדָהּ, וְאָמְרִינַן מַאי כִּיס? אָמַר רַחֲבָה: אַרְנְקִי שֶׁל צְדָקָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין חֲמִשִּׁים זוּזֵי מַמָּשׁ, אִם יֵשׁ בַּכִּיס כַּמָּה יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּזֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי.
GEMARA: Abaye said: The fifty dinars mentioned in the mishna is referring to fifty provincial dinars, each of which is worth one-eighth the amount of a standard dinar. From where do I know that this is so? From the fact that the latter clause teaches: If there are sufficient resources in the charity fund, the charities provide more for her, furnishing a dowry and her other needs according to her dignity. And we say: What is this fund? Raḥava said: The charity fund. And if it enters our minds to say that the mishna is referring to fifty actual, i.e., standard, dinars, if there are sufficient resources in the fund, how many standard dinars do we give him? Fifty standard dinars is already a sizable sum to distribute as charity. Rather, conclude from this comment that the mishna is referring to fifty provincial dinars.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה שֶׁבָּאוּ לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — מְפַרְנְסִין אֶת הַיְּתוֹמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְפַרְנְסִין אֶת הַיָּתוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאִישׁ דַּרְכּוֹ לַחְזוֹר עַל הַפְּתָחִים, וְאֵין אִשָּׁה דַּרְכָּהּ לַחְזוֹר. יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה
The Sages taught: Concerning an orphan boy and an orphan girl who have come and appealed to be supported by the charity fund, the distributors provide for the orphan girl first and afterward they provide for the orphan boy. This is because it is the way of a man to circulate about the entryways to ask for charity, and it is not a woman’s way to circulate for charity. Therefore, her need is greater. Concerning an orphan boy and orphan girl
שֶׁבָּאוּ לִינָּשֵׂא — מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת הַיְּתוֹמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת הַיָּתוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבּוֹשְׁתָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה מְרוּבָּה מִשֶּׁל אִישׁ.
who have come to appeal to the charity fund to be married off, the administrators marry off the orphan girl first and afterward they marry off the orphan boy, because the humiliation of a woman who is not married is greater than that of an unmarried man.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָתוֹם שֶׁבָּא לִישָּׂא — שׂוֹכְרִין לוֹ בַּיִת, וּמַצִּיעִין לוֹ מִטָּה וְכׇל כְּלֵי תַשְׁמִישׁוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשִּׂיאִין לוֹ אִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דֵּי מַחְסוֹרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ״. ״דֵּי מַחְסוֹרוֹ״ — זֶה הַבַּיִת, ״אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר״ — זֶה מִטָּה וְשֻׁלְחָן, ״לוֹ״ — זוֹ אִשָּׁה. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אֶעֱשֶׂה לּוֹ עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ״.
The Sages taught: Concerning an orphan boy who has come to marry, the community tries its utmost to provide for all of his needs. The charities rent a house for him, arrange for him a bed and all his utensils, and thereafter they marry him a wife, as it is stated: “But you shall surely open your hand to him, and shall surely lend him sufficient for his deficiency in that which is deficient for him” (Deuteronomy 15:8). With regard to the phrase “sufficient for his deficiency,” this is referring to the house. “Which is deficient”; this is referring to a bed and table. “For him [lo]”; this is referring to a wife. And similarly the verse states: “I will make him [lo] a helpmate for him” (Genesis 2:18), when God created a wife for Adam.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״דֵּי מַחְסוֹרוֹ״ — אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עָלָיו לְפַרְנְסוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עָלָיו לְעַשְּׁרוֹ. ״אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ״ — אֲפִילּוּ סוּס לִרְכּוֹב עָלָיו וְעֶבֶד לָרוּץ לְפָנָיו. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלָּקַח לְעָנִי בֶּן טוֹבִים אֶחָד סוּס לִרְכּוֹב עָלָיו וְעֶבֶד לָרוּץ לְפָנָיו. פַּעַם אַחַת לֹא מָצָא עֶבֶד לָרוּץ לְפָנָיו, וְרָץ לְפָנָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה מִילִין.
Concerning this issue, the Sages taught: “Sufficient for his deficiency”; this teaches that you are commanded with respect to the pauper to support him, but you are not commanded with respect to him to make him wealthy, as the obligation encompasses only that which he lacks, as indicated by the word deficient. However, the verse also states: “Which is deficient for him”; this includes even a horse upon which to ride and a servant to run in front of him for the sake of his stature, if necessary. For someone accustomed to these advantages, their absences constitute a true deficiency, not an extravagant indulgence. The Gemara relates: They said about Hillel the Elder that he obtained for a poor person of noble descent a horse upon which to ride and a servant to run in front of him. One time he did not find a servant to run in front of him, and Hillel himself ran in front of him for three mil, to fulfill the dictate “which is deficient for him.”
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַנְשֵׁי גָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁלָּקְחוּ לְעָנִי בֶּן טוֹבִים אֶחָד מִצִּיפּוֹרִי לִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר בְּכׇל יוֹם. לִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר מַאי רְבוּתָא? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר מִשֶּׁל עוֹפוֹת. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּלִיטְרָא, בָּשָׂר מַמָּשׁ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הָתָם כְּפָר קָטָן הָיָה, בְּכׇל יוֹמָא הֲוָה מַפְסְדִי חֵיוְתָא אַמְּטוּלְתֵּיהּ.
The Sages taught: There was an incident involving the people of the Upper Galilee, who bought for a poor person of noble descent from the city of Tzippori a litra of meat every day. The Gemara asks: If they provided him with the reasonable ration of a litra of meat, what is the novelty in this incident? Why does it bear repeating? Rav Huna said: It was a litra of meat of poultry, which is very expensive. And if you wish, say instead that for the weight of a litra of coins, they bought him actual red meat. The price of ordinary meat was so expensive that they had to pay the exorbitant price of a litra of coins. Rav Ashi said they did not spend a litra of coins for him. Rather, there, in the Galilee, it was a small village, and every day they would lose an entire animal just for him. They would slaughter an animal daily, simply to provide him with fresh meat, although there was otherwise no market for such a plentiful supply of meat in the village.
הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, אָמַר לֵיהּ: בַּמָּה אַתָּה סוֹעֵד? אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּבָשָׂר שָׁמֵן וְיַיִן יָשָׁן. רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתְּגַלְגֵּל עִמִּי בַּעֲדָשִׁים? גִּלְגֵּל עִמּוֹ בַּעֲדָשִׁים וָמֵת. אָמַר: אוֹי לוֹ לְזֶה שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ נְחֶמְיָה. אַדְּרַבָּה, ״אוֹי לוֹ לִנְחֶמְיָה שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזֶה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא: אִיהוּ הוּא דְּלָא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפַנּוֹקֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ כּוּלֵּי הַאי.
The Gemara relates another incident concerning charity. A certain person came before Rabbi Neḥemya to request charity. He said to him: On what do you normally dine? He said to him: I usually dine on fatty meat and aged wine. Rabbi Neḥemya asked him: Is it your wish to belittle yourself and partake together with me in a meal of lentils, which is my regular food? He partook with him of lentils, and he died, since he was not accustomed to this food. Rabbi Neḥemya said: Woe to this one who was killed by Neḥemya. The Gemara wonders: On the contrary, Rabbi Neḥemya should have said: Woe to Neḥemya who killed this one. The Gemara responds: Rather, Rabbi Neḥemya meant that it was he, the pauper, who should not have pampered himself so much. The poor man was to blame for his own death. His excessive indulgence rendered him incapable of digesting simple foods such as lentils.
הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אָמַר לוֹ: בַּמָּה אַתָּה סוֹעֵד? אָמַר לוֹ: בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת פְּטוּמָה וְיַיִן יָשָׁן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָא חָיְישַׁתְּ לְדוּחְקָא דְּצִיבּוּרָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ מִדִּידְהוּ קָאָכֵילְנָא? מִדְּרַחְמָנָא קָאָכֵילְנָא! דְּתָנֵינָא: ״עֵינֵי כֹל אֵלֶיךָ יְשַׂבֵּרוּ וְאַתָּה נוֹתֵן לָהֶם אֶת אׇכְלָם בְּעִתּוֹ״. ״בְּעִתָּם״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״בְּעִתּוֹ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא פַּרְנָסָתוֹ בְּעִתּוֹ.
The Gemara relates another story. A certain person came before Rava to request charity. He said to him: On what do you normally dine? He said to him: On a fattened hen and aged wine. He said to him: And were you not concerned for causing a burden to the community by expecting such opulent foods? He said to him: Is that to say that it is from their funds that I eat? I eat from the support of the Merciful One. This would seem to be a reasonable argument, as we already learned that in the verse “the eyes of all wait for You, and You give them their food in its time” (Psalms 145:15), the phrase: At their time, is not stated, rather “in its time.” This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, gives each and every one his personally appropriate sustenance at its proper time, and the community is merely His agent in discharging His will. Therefore, the man is justified in maintaining his standard.
אַדְּהָכִי, אֲתַאי אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא דְּלָא חָזְיָא לֵיהּ תְּלֵיסְרֵי שְׁנֵי, וְאַתְיָא לֵיהּ תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת פְּטוּמָה וְיַיִן יָשָׁן. אָמַר: מַאי דְּקַמָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נַעֲנֵתִי לְךָ, קוּם אֱכוֹל.
In the meantime, while they were talking, Rava’s sister, who had not seen him for thirteen years, came. And as a gift, she brought him a fattened hen and aged wine. Rava said to himself: What is this that happened in front of me that suddenly I am brought food that I do not usually eat? He then understood that this was a providential response to what he had earlier said to the man. Rava said to him: I have responded [na’aneti] to your contention. Arise and eat.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם הַלְוָאָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם הַלְוָאָה. לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה? הָא לָא שָׁקֵיל! אָמַר רָבָא: לִפְתּוֹחַ לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה.
§ The Sages taught: If an individual does not have sufficient means of support and does not want to be supported from charity funds, the charities provide him funds as a loan in a dignified manner, and then they go back and give the funds to him as a gift; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They give him funds as a gift, and then they go back and give the funds to him as a loan. The Gemara wonders about the Rabbis’ ruling: How can we give it as a gift? After all, he does not want to take it as a gift. The Gemara answers that Rava said: The Rabbis’ instruction is to begin discussions with him by offering the assistance as a gift. If he refuses, the charities give it to him as a loan, but they treat it as a gift and refrain from attempting to collect a debt.
יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנִפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ. חוֹזְרִין וְנִפְרָעִין הֵימֶנּוּ, תּוּ לָא שָׁקֵיל! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְאַחַר מִיתָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. אֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: הָבֵא מַשְׁכּוֹן וָטוֹל, כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּזוּחַ דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו.
If he has sufficient funds of his own but does not want to support himself by his own funds without the assistance of charity, the charities give him aid as a gift, and then they go back and collect the debt from him. The Gemara asks: How can the administrators of the fund go back and collect from him? Would their efforts not be in vain, as subsequently he would not take their support, knowing that he would still have to pay for it? Rav Pappa said: The charities collect the accrued debt from his estate only after his death. The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says, disputing the opinion of the Rabbis: If he has sufficient funds and does not want to be supported by his own means, they do not get involved with him, as the community is not obligated to support him. If he does not have and does not want to be supported from charity, the charities say to him: Bring collateral and take a loan, so that his mindset should be raised for him, with the false impression that he is not receiving a handout.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַעֲבֵט״, זֶה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס, שֶׁנּוֹתְנִים לוֹ לְשׁוּם הַלְוָאָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה. ״תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״, זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס, שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנִפְרָעִין הֵימֶנּוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara cites a dispute related to the previous discussions. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the double expression in the Torah: “You shall open your hand to him [ha’avet ta’avitenu]” (Deuteronomy 15:8). “Ha’avet”; this is referring to one who does not have funds and does not want to be supported by charity. The policy is that the charities provide him funds as a loan and go back and give the funds to him as a gift. “Ta’avitenu”; this is referring to one who has means and does not want to support himself. The policy is that the charities provide money as a gift, and then they go back and collect from his estate after his death. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. וְאֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״? דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say: If he has money and does not want to support himself, they do not get involved with him. The baraita asks: How then do I uphold the double expression “ha’avet ta’avitenu”? The baraita answers: The Torah spoke in the language of men, and the double form does not have halakhic significance.
מָר עוּקְבָא הֲוָה עַנְיָא בְּשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל כׇּל יוֹמָא דְּשָׁדֵי לֵיהּ אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי בְּצִינּוֹרָא דְּדַשָּׁא. (יוֹם אֶחָד) [יוֹמָא חַד] אֲמַר: אֵיזִיל אִיחְזֵי מַאן קָעָבֵיד בִּי הָהוּא טֵיבוּתָא. הָהוּא יוֹמָא נְגַהָא לֵיהּ לְמָר עוּקְבָא לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא, אָתְיָא דְּבֵיתְהוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ.
The Gemara recounts another incident related to charity. Mar Ukva had a pauper in his neighborhood, and Mar Ukva was accustomed every day to toss four dinars for him into the slot adjacent to the hinge of the door. One day the poor person said: I will go and see who is doing this service for me. That day Mar Ukva was delayed in the study hall, and his wife came with him to distribute the charity.
כֵּיוָן דְּחַזְיֵוהּ דְּקָא מַצְלֵי לֵיהּ לְדַשָּׁא, נְפַק בָּתְרַיְיהוּ. רְהוּט מִקַּמֵּיהּ, עָיְילִי לְהָהוּא אַתּוּנָא דַּהֲוָה גְּרִופָה נוּרָא, הֲוָה קָא מִיקַּלְיָין כַּרְעֵיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ דְּבֵיתְהוּ: שְׁקוֹל כַּרְעָיךְ אוֹתֵיב אַכַּרְעַאי. חֲלַשׁ דַּעְתֵּיהּ, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אֲנָא שְׁכִיחָנָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ דְּבֵיתָא וּמְקָרְבָא אַהֲנָיָיתִי.
When the people in the poor man’s house saw that someone was turning the door, the pauper went out after them to see who it was. Mar Ukva and his wife ran away from before him so that he would not determine their identity, and they entered a certain furnace whose fire was already raked over and tempered but was still burning. Mar Ukva’s legs were being singed, and his wife said to him: Raise your legs and set them on my legs, which are not burned. Understanding that only his wife was spared from burns, because she was more worthy, Mar Ukva became distraught. By way of explanation, she said to him: I am normally found inside the house, and when I give charity, my assistance is ready and immediate, insofar as I distribute actual food items. Since you distribute money, which is not as readily helpful, my aid is greater than yours.
וּמַאי כּוּלֵּי הַאי? דְּאָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: נוֹחַ לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר עַצְמוֹ לְתוֹךְ כִּבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ, וְאַל יַלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ בָּרַבִּים. מְנָא לַן — מִתָּמָר, דִּכְתִיב: ״הִיא מוּצֵאת״.
The Gemara asks: And what is all this? Why did they go to such extreme lengths to avoid being discovered? The Gemara answers: It is as Mar Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said, and some say that Rav Huna bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said, and some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is preferable for a person to deliver himself into a fiery furnace so that he not whiten the face of, i.e., embarrass, his friend in public. From where do we derive this? From the conduct of Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man, whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:24–25). Although Tamar was taken to be executed by burning, she privately and directly appealed to Judah, rather than publicly identifying him as the father of her unborn children and causing him embarrassment.
מָר עוּקְבָא הֲוָה עַנְיָא בְּשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל לְשַׁדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ אַרְבַּע מְאָה זוּזֵי כׇּל מַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְּכִיפּוּרָא. יוֹמָא חַד שַׁדְּרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּיַד בְּרֵיהּ. אֲתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיךְ. אָמַר מַאי חֲזֵית? חֲזַאי דְּקָא מְזַלְּפִי לֵיהּ יַיִן יָשָׁן. אָמַר: מְפַנַּק כּוּלֵּי הַאי! עַיְיפִינְהוּ וְשַׁדְּרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates another incident involving Mar Ukva. Mar Ukva had another pauper in his neighborhood, and Mar Ukva was accustomed to send to him four hundred dinars every year on the eve of Yom Kippur. One day he sent the money to him by the hand of his son. The son returned and said to him: The poor individual does not need the charity. Mar Ukva said: What did you see that prompted you to say this? He said to him: I saw them spilling old wine on the ground for him, to give the room a pleasant smell. Mar Ukva said: If he is pampered this much and requires even this luxury, then he needs even more money. He doubled the funds and sent them to him.
כִּי קָא נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אֲמַר: אַיְיתוֹ לִי חוּשְׁבְּנַאי דִּצְדָקָה. אַשְׁכַּח דַּהֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ שִׁבְעַת אַלְפֵי דִּינָרֵי סְיָאנְקֵי. אֲמַר: זַוְודַאי קַלִּילֵי וְאוֹרְחָא רַחִיקְתָּא. קָם בַּזְבְּזֵיהּ לְפַלְגֵיהּ מָמוֹנֵיהּ. הֵיכִי עֲבַד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַאי, בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ: הַמְבַזְבֵּז — אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ! הָנֵי מִילֵּי מֵחַיִּים, שֶׁמָּא יֵרֵד מִנְּכָסָיו. אֲבָל לְאַחַר מִיתָה לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
When Mar Ukva was dying, he said: Bring me my charity records. He found that it was written there that he had given seven thousand fine, siankei, i.e., gold, dinars, to charity. He said: My provisions are light, and the way is far. This meager sum is insufficient for me to merit the World-to-Come. He got up and spent half of his remaining money on charity. The Gemara asks: How did he do this? But didn’t Rabbi Ilai say: In Usha they instituted: One who spends money on charity, he should not spend more than one-fifth of his money for this purpose. The Gemara answers: This restriction on giving too much charity applies only while he is alive, because perhaps he will descend from his holdings and become destitute. Therefore, for his own financial security, he should never distribute more than one-fifth. But after death, we have no problem with it. One need not save money in his estate anymore.
רַבִּי אַבָּא הֲוָה צָיַיר זוּזֵי בְּסוּדָרֵיהּ, וְשָׁדֵי לֵיהּ לַאֲחוֹרֵיהּ, וּמַמְצֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ לְבֵי עַנְיֵי, וּמַצְלֵי עֵינֵיהּ מֵרַמָּאֵי.
The Gemara recounts more stories related to charity. Rabbi Abba would wrap coins in his scarf and toss the money behind him over his shoulder. And he would place himself at the homes of the poor without being seen, so the poor could receive the aid without being embarrassed. And he would incline his eyes just enough so he could safeguard the handouts from swindlers who might take the money dishonestly.
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא הֲוָה הָהוּא עַנְיָא דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל לְשַׁדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי כׇּל מַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא. יוֹמָא חַד שַׁדְּרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּיַד דְּבֵיתְהוּ, אֲתַאי אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיךְ. מַאי חֲזֵית? שְׁמַעִי דַּהֲוֹה קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: בַּמָּה אַתָּה סוֹעֵד,
Rabbi Ḥanina knew a certain pauper and was accustomed to send to him four dinars on every Shabbat eve. One day he sent it in the hand of his wife. She came back home and said to him: The man does not need charity. Rabbi Ḥanina asked her: What did you see that prompted you to say this? She said to him: I heard them saying to him inside the house: With what do you normally dine:
