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

Daf Yomi

September 12, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讘

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

Ketubot 68

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ellen Segal on behalf of her daughter, Dr. Chana Shacham-Rosby’s birthday. “May you continue to go from strength to strength as you begin your fellowship at the Halpern Center at Bar Ilan.”聽

Are you allowed to ignore one who needs charity? What if they are lying about their situation? Does a poor person need to trade in their expensive house and utensils for less expensive items before taking charity? On what does it depend? The Mishna and Gemara deal with orphan girls and their rights to a dowry. If at the time of the marriage, they are given a small dowry and they do not protest, can they later claim that they deserve more? On what does it depend? What is the standard amount that an orphan should get? Does it depend on the amount in the estate or does it depend on an assessment of what we think the father would have given her – was he generous or stingy? Is there an age limit on the orphan for being able to collect the dowry from the father’s estate? In what way is the payment of food different from the payment for the dowry?

讘讟诇讬 讻住祝 讗讜 讘讟诇讬 讝讛讘 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讜讗讜 讜谞讞讝讬拽 讟讜讘讛 诇专诪讗讬谉 砖讗诇诪诇讗 讛谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讞讜讟讗讬谉 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜拽专讗 注诇讬讱 讗诇 讛壮 讜讛讬讛 讘讱 讞讟讗


Silver, i.e., white, tablecloths [telei] or gold, i.e., colored, tablecloths? Clearly, then, they are not entitled to charity. Rabbi 岣nina said: This is what Rabbi Elazar said: Come and let us appreciate the swindlers who ask for charity that they do not need, because were it not for them, who command our attention and receive our charity, we would be sinning every day in failing to properly support the truly poor, as it is stated: 鈥淏eware that there be not a base thought in your heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you will not give him; and he cry to the Lord against you, and it be sin in you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:9). Because the swindlers take our money in the name of charity, we have an excuse of sorts for failing to fully meet the needs of the truly poor.


讜转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪讚讬驻转讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪注诇讬诐 注讬谞讬讜 诪谉 讛爪讚拽讛 讻讗讬诇讜 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讛砖诪专 诇讱 驻谉 讬讛讬讛 讚讘专 注诐 诇讘讘讱 讘诇讬注诇 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讬爪讗讜 讗谞砖讬诐 讘谞讬 讘诇讬注诇 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛


And Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav of Difti taught: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: With regard to anyone who averts his eyes from the obligation to give charity, it is as if he engages in idol worship. It is written here concerning charity: 鈥淏eware that there be not a base [beliya鈥檃l] thought in your heart鈥and you will not give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:9), and it is written there concerning idolatry: 鈥淐ertain base [beliya鈥檃l] fellows have gone out鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:14). Just as there, in the latter verse, the word 鈥渂ase [beliya鈥檃l]鈥 is referring to idol worship, so too here, this expression indicates a sin on the scale of idol worship.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪住诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 讜讛诪爪讘讛 讗转 讘讟谞讜 讜讛诪拽驻讞 讗转 砖讜拽讜 讗讬谞讜 谞驻讟专 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 注讚 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讻讱 讛诪拽讘诇 爪讚拽讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讻讱 住讜驻讜 讗讬谞讜 谞驻讟专 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 注讚 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讻讱


The Gemara cites a baraita relating to swindlers who collect charity. The Sages taught: One who falsely blinds his eye, and one who bloats his stomach as if he were sick, and one who falsely crushes [mekape鈥檃岣] his leg, in order to benefit dishonestly from charity, will not depart from the world before he comes to this same plight, and he will truly suffer from the ailment that he feigned. More generally, one who receives charity and does not need it, his end will be that he will not depart from the world before he comes to this state of actually needing charity.


转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇诪讻讜专 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜讗转 讻诇讬 转砖诪讬砖讜 讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 诪砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 讝讛讘 讬砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 讻住祝 讘讻诇讬 讻住祝 讬砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 谞讞讜砖转


We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Pe鈥檃 8:8): Who is entitled to receive charity? Whoever has less than two hundred dinars. However, the administrators of the charities do not require him to sell his house and his accessories to reach the threshold of two hundred dinars. For the purposes of charity, his wealth is calculated based on cash alone. The Gemara asks: And do we not insist that he sell property? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If he was accustomed to use gold wares, he should now use silver wares. If he was accustomed to use silver wares, he should now use copper wares. This indicates that he is required to sell at least some of his possessions.


讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪讟讛 讜砖讜诇讞谉 讛讗 讘讻讜住讜转 讜拽注专讜转 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讜住讜转 讜拽注专讜转 讚诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬住讬 诇讬 诪讟讛 讜砖讜诇讞谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 注讬诇讜讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘诪讞专讬砖讛 讚讻住驻讗


Rav Zevid said: This is not difficult. This source, which requires him to sell wares and lower his standard of living, speaks of a bed and a table, and that source, which does not require him to sell his accessories, speaks of his cups and plates. The Gemara asks: What is different about cups and plates, that he is not required to sell them? It is because he says: The cheaper ones are disgusting to me, and I cannot eat with them. The Gemara asks further: If so, with regard to a bed and a table he may also say: I do not accept these lesser wares upon myself, as they are uncomfortable for me. What is the difference between the furnishings and the dishes? Rava, son of Rabba, said: There is no difference; he need not sell furnishings either. The baraita requiring him to sell his property speaks of a silver comb on his table or another comparable novelty or decorative item. Such articles must be sold, but necessities, even luxurious or high quality ones, need not be sold.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讙讬讘讜讬 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讙讬讘讜讬:


The Gemara offers an alternative resolution to the contradiction concerning the requirement to sell property. Rav Pappa said: This is not difficult. Here, the source that does not require him to sell property describes circumstances before he comes to the point of collecting charity. There, the source that requires him to sell property addresses a case that may arise after he comes to the point of collecting charity. If he has more than two hundred dinars and nevertheless collects charity, the court will reclaim from him the charity he has collected. In the event that he does not have enough cash to pay, he is required to sell his property of any type and downgrade to lesser items.


诪转谞讬壮 讬转讜诪讛 砖讛砖讬讗转讛 讗诪讛 讗讜 讗讞讬讛 诪讚注转讛 讜讻转讘讜 诇讛 讘诪讗讛 讗讜 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诪砖转讙讚讬诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚谉 诪讛 砖专讗讜讬 诇讛谞转谉 诇讛


MISHNA: With regard to a minor orphan girl whose mother or brothers married her off, even with her consent to a small dowry, she retains her rights to a proper dowry. And thus, if they wrote for her a dowry of one hundred or of fifty dinars, she may, upon reaching majority, exact from her mother, or brothers, or their respective estates the sum of money that is fit to be given to her as a dowry, which is one-tenth of the family鈥檚 estate. Even if she agreed to forgo part of this sum as a minor, she may collect it as an adult.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛砖讬讗 讗转 讛讘转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬谞转谉 诇砖谞讬讛 讻讚专讱 砖谞转谉 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 注谞讬 讜讛注砖讬专 讗讜 注砖讬专 讜讛注谞讬 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛:


Rabbi Yehuda says: If the father married off the first daughter before he died, a dowry should be given to the second daughter in the same manner that he gave one to the first daughter. And the Rabbis say: There is no ready standard, since sometimes a person is poor and then becomes wealthy, or a person is wealthy and then becomes poor, so a family鈥檚 allowance for dowries is subject to change. Rather, the court appraises the property and gives her the appropriate sum.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇驻专谞住讛 砖诪讬谉 讘讗讘 诪转讬讘讬 讛讘谞讜转 谞讬讝讜谞讜转 讜诪转驻专谞住讜转 诪谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛谉 讻讬爪讚 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬诇讜 讗讘讬讛 拽讬讬诐 讻讱 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻专谞住转 讛讘注诇 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 讘驻专谞住转 注爪诪讛


GEMARA: Shmuel said: With respect to her support in the form of the dowry, the court evaluates what she should be given based on the circumstances of the father and gives her the amount that he would have given. The Gemara raises an objection: We have learned: The daughters are sustained and supported from the property of their father. How so? We do not speculate on the basis of his social standing and his previous experience and say: If her father were still alive, he would give her such and such amount. Rather, the court appraises the total worth of the property and gives her a portion of it, without a subjective estimate based on the father. The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not that the word support is referring to support for the husband, which is the dowry? The Gemara responds: Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: No, it is referring to her own support and the food she receives. That allowance is calculated without considering the father鈥檚 practices, but the question of the dowry is still unresolved.


讛讗 谞讬讝讜谞讜转 讜诪转驻专谞住讜转 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讞转 驻专谞住转 讛讘注诇 讜讗讞转 驻专谞住转 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘驻专谞住转 注爪诪讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘砖转讬讛 讜讛讗 讘诇讘讜砖讗 讜讻讬住讜讬讗


The Gemara asks: But the cited source teaches: They are sustained and supported, which indicates two separate allowances. What, is it not that one term is referring to support for the husband in the form of the dowry and one term is referring to her own support? The Gemara answers: No, this one and that one both refer to her own support for her personal needs. And the use of two terms is not difficult, because this term, sustained, is referring to allowance for eating and drinking, and that term, supported, is referring to clothing and other covering.


转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 注谞讬 讜讛注砖讬专 讗讜 注砖讬专 讜讛注谞讬 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谉 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诪讗讬 注谞讬 讜诪讗讬 注砖讬专 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 注谞讬 注谞讬 讘谞讻住讬诐 注砖讬专 注砖讬专 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讬专 讜讛注谞讬 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛


We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: Sometimes a person is poor and becomes wealthy, or a person is wealthy and becomes poor, and a family鈥檚 allowance for dowries is subject to change. Rather, the court appraises the property and gives her the appropriate sum. The Gemara analyzes this opinion: What is meant by the term poor, and what is meant by the term wealthy? If we say that poor is referring to one who is poor in property, and wealthy is referring to one who is wealthy in property, if so, by inference it seems that the first tanna holds that even if the father was wealthy and then became poor, we give the second daughter a dowry that is like the dowry that he provided originally to the first daughter. But how could we assign such a sum when he does not have enough in the estate?


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 注谞讬 注谞讬 讘讚注转 注砖讬专 注砖讬专 讘讚注转 讜拽转谞讬 砖诪讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛砖讬讗 讘转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬谞转谉 诇砖谞讬讛 讻讚专讱 砖谞转谉 诇专讗砖讜谞讛


Rather, is it not that poor means poor in mindset, i.e., he spends his money thriftily as though he were poor, and that wealthy means wealthy in mindset, i.e., he spends money liberally as though he were wealthy? And nevertheless the mishna teaches that even if the father changes his approach to spending, the court appraises the property and gives the dowry to her. Apparently, then, we do not follow the assessment of the father鈥檚 intentions but rather give a fixed sum, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara dismisses the refutation: Shmuel has said his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the father married off the first daughter, a dowry should be given to the second in the same manner that he gave to the first. According to this opinion, the court does assess the father鈥檚 tendencies in determining the dowry for the second daughter.


讜谞讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讜拽讗 讛砖讬讗讛 讚讙诇讬 讚注转讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛砖讬讗讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讗讜诪讚谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讛砖讬讗讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 讛砖讬讗讛


The Gemara asks: And let Shmuel say explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Why did he not do so? The Gemara responds: If he had said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said that this is specifically when he marries off the first daughter, as he revealed his mind concerning the proper sum of a dowry, but if he did not marry her off before he died, then the court does not assess his disposition to determine the proper amount. Since, however, Shmuel did not merely say that he accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he teaches us that the reason behind Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is that we follow the assessment of what the father would have done. It is no different if he married a daughter off, and it is no different if he did not marry one off.


讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛砖讬讗讛 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛砖讬讗讛 讜讙诇讬 讚注转讬讛 诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讗讜诪讚谞讗


And that which the mishna teaches in Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion: He married off the first daughter, this is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the dissenting opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that although the father married the first daughter off and revealed his mind with respect to dowries, we still do not follow an assessment of how much the father would have given to the second daughter.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 诪砖诪讱 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讻诇 讻讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 转讚专砖讜 诪砖诪讗讬


Rava said to Rav 岣sda: We teach in your name that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this matter. He said to him: May it be God鈥檚 will that you will teach in my name all proper statements such as this. Rav 岣sda agreed with the quote attributed to him.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘转 讛谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪讬讚谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚谞讬讛


The Gemara asks: And did Rava actually say this, that the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to an orphan daughter who is sustained from the inheritance held by her brothers, she takes one-tenth of the estate for her dowry. And Rava said with regard to that baraita: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Evidently, Rava rejects Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion concerning approximating the father鈥檚 intent. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. In this instance, Rava adopts Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion because we assessed the father and understood his mindset. In that instance, Rava rules that she should be given one-tenth because we did not assess the father and his mindset could not be determined.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪注砖讛 讜谞转谉 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讘谞讻住讬诐 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讚讗诪讬讚谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚谞讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable, as Rav Adda bar Ahava said: There was an incident, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave an orphan one-twelfth of her late father鈥檚 property for her dowry. Ostensibly, these amoraic statements are difficult, as they contradict each other. Which portion of the estate did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi determine should be given for a dowry, one-tenth or one-twelfth? Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from the discrepancy that the respective circumstances were different? In this ruling, in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave one-twelfth, it was because we assessed the father, and we knew that to be his intention. In that ruling, he ruled that she should receive the standard one-tenth because we didn鈥檛 assess the father and could not determine his intentions. The Gemara accepts the proof: Conclude from this that the matter does depend on the ability to properly assess the father鈥檚 intent.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讘转 讛谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬讱 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 注砖专 讘谞讜转 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讘谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讜转 讻诇讜诐


搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: With regard to an orphan daughter who is sustained from the inheritance held by her brothers, she takes one-tenth of the estate for her dowry. They said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: According to your opinion, in the case of one who has ten daughters and a son, the son does not have anything where there are daughters, as each daughter receives one-tenth of the estate. What becomes of the son鈥檚 biblically mandated inheritance?


讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻讱 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讜谞讛 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 砖谞讬讛 讘诪讛 砖砖讬讬专讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讘诪讛 砖砖讬讬专讛 讜讞讜讝专讜转 讜讞讜诇拽讜转 讘砖讜讛


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: This is what I say: The first daughter to marry takes one-tenth of the estate; the second takes one-tenth of what the first left, rather than one-tenth of the original estate; and the third takes one-tenth of what the second left; and then they later redistribute the portions equally, so that each daughter receives the same amount. In this way, the son retains a portion of the inheritance.


讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讚谞驻砖讛 砖拽诇讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讘讗讜 讻讜诇诐 诇讛谞砖讗 讻讗讞转 讞讜诇拽讜转 讘砖讜讛


The Gemara asks: Why should they divide the portions equally? Since each and every daughter, in turn, takes her own dowry, each one receives that which she rightfully deserves. It is unreasonable to demand of them to redivide the dowries later. The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said, i.e., meant: If they all come to be married at the same time, then they divide the portions equally. If, however, they marry at different times, then each daughter receives the appropriate percentage of the estate at the time of her marriage.


诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诐 讘讗讜 诇讛谞砖讗 讻讜诇诐 讻讗讞转 谞讜讟诇讜转 注讬砖讜专 讗讞讚 注讬砖讜专 讗讞讚 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 注讬砖讜专 讻讗讞讚


This conclusion supports the opinion of Rav Mattana, as Rav Mattana said: If they all come to be married at one time, they take one-tenth. The Gemara clarifies: Does it enter your mind that all the daughters should share just one-tenth of the property? Rather, Rav Mattana means that they each take one-tenth in one uniform measure, as in normal circumstances each one successively takes one-tenth of whatever property remains. However, because all the weddings take place within a short time span, the dowries are redistributed immediately after the weddings, so that they are all of equal value.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讘谞讜转 讘讬谉 讘讙专讜 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讜讘讬谉 谞讬砖讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讘讙专讜 讗讬讘讚讜 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛谉 讜诇讗 讗讬讘讚讜 驻专谞住转谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗讬讘讚讜 驻专谞住转谉 讻讬爪讚 讛谉 注讜砖讜转 砖讜讻专讜转 诇讛谉 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讛谉 驻专谞住转谉


The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the daughters, whether they matured before they were married or were married before they matured, they lost their sustenance. Sustenance is provided from the inheritance only for single daughters who have not yet matured. However, they did not lose their support, i.e., their allotted provisions for a dowry, upon maturing. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: They lost even their support. If they matured before marrying, they lost their chance to collect their dowries from the estate. What do they do to avoid losing the dowries? They have no alternative other than to marry before maturing. They hire themselves husbands, i.e., they take pains to be sure that they are married, and then they appropriate their support, i.e., dowries, for themselves.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬转讜诪讛 砖讛砖讬讗转讛 讗诪讛 讗讜 讗讞讬讛 诪讚注转讛 讜讻转讘讜 诇讛 讘诪讗讛 讗讜 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诪砖转讙讚讬诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚诐 诪讛 砖专讗讜讬 诇讛谞转谉 诇讛 讟注诪讗 讚拽讟谞讛 讛讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讬转专讛


Rav Na岣an said: Rav Huna told me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and orphans may collect their dowries from the estate even when they marry after maturing. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna: With regard to an orphan girl whose mother or brothers married her off with her consent and wrote for her a dowry of one hundred or of fifty dinars, she may, upon reaching majority, exact from them that which is fit to be given to her for her dowry. The Gemara infers: The reason that she may collect the balance of the dowry is that she married as a minor girl, but if she married as an adult woman, evidently she forgoes the balance. This would appear to follow the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says that her rights to inherit the dowry are terminated when she matures, against the statement of Rav Na岣an.


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讞讗讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讞讗讬


The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi distinguishes between two instances of mature brides. In this case, because she protests, she may still collect the rest of her dowry. In that case, because she does not protest, she implicitly waives the balance of the dowry.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘转 讛谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 谞讬讝讜谞转 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讬讝讜谞转 诇讗


The Gemara notes: This, too, stands to reason, since if indeed Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi fails to differentiate between when she does and does not protest, it is difficult: One statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi contradicts another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: An orphan daughter who is sustained by the brothers takes one-tenth of the estate for her dowry. The Gemara infers: If she is sustained when she is a minor, then yes, she receives inheritance for a dowry; if she is not sustained because she has reached majority, then no, she does not receive a dowry from the estate. Ostensibly, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches that once she matures, she may not take one-tenth of the estate, which directly contradicts the first statement cited in his name.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讚诪讞讗讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讞讗讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara proposes a resolution to the contradiction: Rather, is it not correct to conclude from this that this ruling applies when she protests and that ruling applies when she does not protest? The Gemara confirms: Conclude from this that this is the resolution. If she matures before marrying, she collects the full dowry only if she insists upon it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪砖诪讱 讘讙专讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讞讜转 谞讬砖讗转 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讞讜转 讘讙专讛 讜谞讬砖讗转 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讞讜转


Ravina said to Rava: Rav Adda bar Ahava said to us in your name: If she matured, she does not need to actively protest in order to receive her one-tenth of the estate. Similarly, if she became married, she does not need to protest. If she both matured and became married, then she needs to protest in order to receive her one-tenth.


诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬转讜诪讛 讜砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚诪讞讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讞讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讗 诪讬转讝谞讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讬转讝谞讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: Did Rava actually say this? But Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an earlier concerning an orphan who was married, and Rav Na岣an answered him that this ruling applies when she protested, and that other ruling applies when she did not protest. Evidently, then, she forfeits her share if she does not protest. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This ruling applies when she is sustained by them even after marriage, and consequently she is embarrassed to protest. In this case, silence does not indicate that she forgoes the dowry. That ruling, insisting that she voice a claim, applies when she is not sustained by them, and she has no reason not to protest.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻专谞住讛 讗讬谞讛 讻转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 讻转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚讗讬诇讜 驻专谞住讛 讟专驻讗 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讜转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗 讟专驻讗 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 诪注砖讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讜转


Rav Huna said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Support is not treated like a stipulation in the marriage contract. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Is not like a stipulation in the marriage contract? If we say that he is teaching: Whereas, with regard to support, she may seize her debt even from liened property that has been sold, and with regard to a stipulation in the marriage contract, she may not seize her debt from liened property that has been sold, what is he teaching us? But incidents that occur daily are proof enough that the court does appropriate money from liened property for paying support but does not appropriate for sustenance. He does not need to teach us that distinction.


讜讗诇讗 讚讗讬诇讜 驻专谞住讛 讙讘讬讗 谞诪讬 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讙讘讬讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 讙讘讬讗


But rather, there may be another explanation of Rav Huna鈥檚 statement: Whereas with regard to support, she may also collect it from movable property of the estate, with regard to a stipulation in the marriage contract, she may collect for it only from real estate, but from movable property she may not collect for it.


诇专讘讬 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讬讙讘讗 讙讘讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇诪讝讜谉 讛讗砖讛 讜诇讘谞讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬


The Gemara objects that this explanation is untenable: According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from both this and that type of property, she may certainly collect for it, as it is taught in a baraita: Whether with respect to property that has a guarantee behind it, assuring that the seller will compensate the buyer if the property is repossessed, i.e., real estate, or whether with respect to property that does not have a guarantee, i.e., movable objects, the court appropriates the funds necessary for the sustenance of the wife and the daughters. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Since sustenance is a stipulation in the marriage contract, this approach does not explain how a stipulation is unlike support.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 驻专谞住讛 讗讬谞讛 讻转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 讗诇 讬讝讜谞讜 讘谞讜转讬讜 诪谞讻住讬讜 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讗诇 讬转驻专谞住讜 讘谞讜转讬讜 诪谞讻住讬讜 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 砖讛驻专谞住讛 讗讬谞讛 讻转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛


Rather, what is the meaning of the statement: Support is not treated like a stipulation in the marriage contract? This statement has implications with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says in his will that his daughters should not be sustained from his estate, one does not listen to him, as it is not his prerogative to abrogate this obligation. But if he says that his daughters should not be supported from his estate, one does listen to him, as the legal status of the dowry is not like that of a stipulation in the marriage contract. The responsibility to provide support is an ordinance that falls upon the father or his inheritors, and they may choose to reject the responsibility.


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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

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

This week we are going to learn about the 鈥渞ebellious wife鈥, why she is called rebellious and what are the...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 68: You Don’t Have to Be Homeless to Need Help

The discussion of charity begins in Pe'ah, with a focus on how poor one must be to receive tzedakah, when...

Ketubot 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 68

讘讟诇讬 讻住祝 讗讜 讘讟诇讬 讝讛讘 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讜讗讜 讜谞讞讝讬拽 讟讜讘讛 诇专诪讗讬谉 砖讗诇诪诇讗 讛谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讞讜讟讗讬谉 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜拽专讗 注诇讬讱 讗诇 讛壮 讜讛讬讛 讘讱 讞讟讗


Silver, i.e., white, tablecloths [telei] or gold, i.e., colored, tablecloths? Clearly, then, they are not entitled to charity. Rabbi 岣nina said: This is what Rabbi Elazar said: Come and let us appreciate the swindlers who ask for charity that they do not need, because were it not for them, who command our attention and receive our charity, we would be sinning every day in failing to properly support the truly poor, as it is stated: 鈥淏eware that there be not a base thought in your heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you will not give him; and he cry to the Lord against you, and it be sin in you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:9). Because the swindlers take our money in the name of charity, we have an excuse of sorts for failing to fully meet the needs of the truly poor.


讜转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪讚讬驻转讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪注诇讬诐 注讬谞讬讜 诪谉 讛爪讚拽讛 讻讗讬诇讜 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讛砖诪专 诇讱 驻谉 讬讛讬讛 讚讘专 注诐 诇讘讘讱 讘诇讬注诇 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讬爪讗讜 讗谞砖讬诐 讘谞讬 讘诇讬注诇 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛


And Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav of Difti taught: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: With regard to anyone who averts his eyes from the obligation to give charity, it is as if he engages in idol worship. It is written here concerning charity: 鈥淏eware that there be not a base [beliya鈥檃l] thought in your heart鈥and you will not give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:9), and it is written there concerning idolatry: 鈥淐ertain base [beliya鈥檃l] fellows have gone out鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:14). Just as there, in the latter verse, the word 鈥渂ase [beliya鈥檃l]鈥 is referring to idol worship, so too here, this expression indicates a sin on the scale of idol worship.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪住诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 讜讛诪爪讘讛 讗转 讘讟谞讜 讜讛诪拽驻讞 讗转 砖讜拽讜 讗讬谞讜 谞驻讟专 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 注讚 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讻讱 讛诪拽讘诇 爪讚拽讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讻讱 住讜驻讜 讗讬谞讜 谞驻讟专 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 注讚 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讻讱


The Gemara cites a baraita relating to swindlers who collect charity. The Sages taught: One who falsely blinds his eye, and one who bloats his stomach as if he were sick, and one who falsely crushes [mekape鈥檃岣] his leg, in order to benefit dishonestly from charity, will not depart from the world before he comes to this same plight, and he will truly suffer from the ailment that he feigned. More generally, one who receives charity and does not need it, his end will be that he will not depart from the world before he comes to this state of actually needing charity.


转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇诪讻讜专 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜讗转 讻诇讬 转砖诪讬砖讜 讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 诪砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 讝讛讘 讬砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 讻住祝 讘讻诇讬 讻住祝 讬砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 谞讞讜砖转


We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Pe鈥檃 8:8): Who is entitled to receive charity? Whoever has less than two hundred dinars. However, the administrators of the charities do not require him to sell his house and his accessories to reach the threshold of two hundred dinars. For the purposes of charity, his wealth is calculated based on cash alone. The Gemara asks: And do we not insist that he sell property? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If he was accustomed to use gold wares, he should now use silver wares. If he was accustomed to use silver wares, he should now use copper wares. This indicates that he is required to sell at least some of his possessions.


讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪讟讛 讜砖讜诇讞谉 讛讗 讘讻讜住讜转 讜拽注专讜转 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讜住讜转 讜拽注专讜转 讚诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬住讬 诇讬 诪讟讛 讜砖讜诇讞谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 注讬诇讜讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘诪讞专讬砖讛 讚讻住驻讗


Rav Zevid said: This is not difficult. This source, which requires him to sell wares and lower his standard of living, speaks of a bed and a table, and that source, which does not require him to sell his accessories, speaks of his cups and plates. The Gemara asks: What is different about cups and plates, that he is not required to sell them? It is because he says: The cheaper ones are disgusting to me, and I cannot eat with them. The Gemara asks further: If so, with regard to a bed and a table he may also say: I do not accept these lesser wares upon myself, as they are uncomfortable for me. What is the difference between the furnishings and the dishes? Rava, son of Rabba, said: There is no difference; he need not sell furnishings either. The baraita requiring him to sell his property speaks of a silver comb on his table or another comparable novelty or decorative item. Such articles must be sold, but necessities, even luxurious or high quality ones, need not be sold.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讙讬讘讜讬 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讙讬讘讜讬:


The Gemara offers an alternative resolution to the contradiction concerning the requirement to sell property. Rav Pappa said: This is not difficult. Here, the source that does not require him to sell property describes circumstances before he comes to the point of collecting charity. There, the source that requires him to sell property addresses a case that may arise after he comes to the point of collecting charity. If he has more than two hundred dinars and nevertheless collects charity, the court will reclaim from him the charity he has collected. In the event that he does not have enough cash to pay, he is required to sell his property of any type and downgrade to lesser items.


诪转谞讬壮 讬转讜诪讛 砖讛砖讬讗转讛 讗诪讛 讗讜 讗讞讬讛 诪讚注转讛 讜讻转讘讜 诇讛 讘诪讗讛 讗讜 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诪砖转讙讚讬诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚谉 诪讛 砖专讗讜讬 诇讛谞转谉 诇讛


MISHNA: With regard to a minor orphan girl whose mother or brothers married her off, even with her consent to a small dowry, she retains her rights to a proper dowry. And thus, if they wrote for her a dowry of one hundred or of fifty dinars, she may, upon reaching majority, exact from her mother, or brothers, or their respective estates the sum of money that is fit to be given to her as a dowry, which is one-tenth of the family鈥檚 estate. Even if she agreed to forgo part of this sum as a minor, she may collect it as an adult.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛砖讬讗 讗转 讛讘转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬谞转谉 诇砖谞讬讛 讻讚专讱 砖谞转谉 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 注谞讬 讜讛注砖讬专 讗讜 注砖讬专 讜讛注谞讬 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛:


Rabbi Yehuda says: If the father married off the first daughter before he died, a dowry should be given to the second daughter in the same manner that he gave one to the first daughter. And the Rabbis say: There is no ready standard, since sometimes a person is poor and then becomes wealthy, or a person is wealthy and then becomes poor, so a family鈥檚 allowance for dowries is subject to change. Rather, the court appraises the property and gives her the appropriate sum.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇驻专谞住讛 砖诪讬谉 讘讗讘 诪转讬讘讬 讛讘谞讜转 谞讬讝讜谞讜转 讜诪转驻专谞住讜转 诪谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛谉 讻讬爪讚 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬诇讜 讗讘讬讛 拽讬讬诐 讻讱 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻专谞住转 讛讘注诇 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 讘驻专谞住转 注爪诪讛


GEMARA: Shmuel said: With respect to her support in the form of the dowry, the court evaluates what she should be given based on the circumstances of the father and gives her the amount that he would have given. The Gemara raises an objection: We have learned: The daughters are sustained and supported from the property of their father. How so? We do not speculate on the basis of his social standing and his previous experience and say: If her father were still alive, he would give her such and such amount. Rather, the court appraises the total worth of the property and gives her a portion of it, without a subjective estimate based on the father. The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not that the word support is referring to support for the husband, which is the dowry? The Gemara responds: Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: No, it is referring to her own support and the food she receives. That allowance is calculated without considering the father鈥檚 practices, but the question of the dowry is still unresolved.


讛讗 谞讬讝讜谞讜转 讜诪转驻专谞住讜转 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讞转 驻专谞住转 讛讘注诇 讜讗讞转 驻专谞住转 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘驻专谞住转 注爪诪讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘砖转讬讛 讜讛讗 讘诇讘讜砖讗 讜讻讬住讜讬讗


The Gemara asks: But the cited source teaches: They are sustained and supported, which indicates two separate allowances. What, is it not that one term is referring to support for the husband in the form of the dowry and one term is referring to her own support? The Gemara answers: No, this one and that one both refer to her own support for her personal needs. And the use of two terms is not difficult, because this term, sustained, is referring to allowance for eating and drinking, and that term, supported, is referring to clothing and other covering.


转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 注谞讬 讜讛注砖讬专 讗讜 注砖讬专 讜讛注谞讬 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谉 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诪讗讬 注谞讬 讜诪讗讬 注砖讬专 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 注谞讬 注谞讬 讘谞讻住讬诐 注砖讬专 注砖讬专 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讬专 讜讛注谞讬 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛


We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: Sometimes a person is poor and becomes wealthy, or a person is wealthy and becomes poor, and a family鈥檚 allowance for dowries is subject to change. Rather, the court appraises the property and gives her the appropriate sum. The Gemara analyzes this opinion: What is meant by the term poor, and what is meant by the term wealthy? If we say that poor is referring to one who is poor in property, and wealthy is referring to one who is wealthy in property, if so, by inference it seems that the first tanna holds that even if the father was wealthy and then became poor, we give the second daughter a dowry that is like the dowry that he provided originally to the first daughter. But how could we assign such a sum when he does not have enough in the estate?


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 注谞讬 注谞讬 讘讚注转 注砖讬专 注砖讬专 讘讚注转 讜拽转谞讬 砖诪讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛砖讬讗 讘转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬谞转谉 诇砖谞讬讛 讻讚专讱 砖谞转谉 诇专讗砖讜谞讛


Rather, is it not that poor means poor in mindset, i.e., he spends his money thriftily as though he were poor, and that wealthy means wealthy in mindset, i.e., he spends money liberally as though he were wealthy? And nevertheless the mishna teaches that even if the father changes his approach to spending, the court appraises the property and gives the dowry to her. Apparently, then, we do not follow the assessment of the father鈥檚 intentions but rather give a fixed sum, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara dismisses the refutation: Shmuel has said his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the father married off the first daughter, a dowry should be given to the second in the same manner that he gave to the first. According to this opinion, the court does assess the father鈥檚 tendencies in determining the dowry for the second daughter.


讜谞讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讜拽讗 讛砖讬讗讛 讚讙诇讬 讚注转讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛砖讬讗讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讗讜诪讚谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讛砖讬讗讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 讛砖讬讗讛


The Gemara asks: And let Shmuel say explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Why did he not do so? The Gemara responds: If he had said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said that this is specifically when he marries off the first daughter, as he revealed his mind concerning the proper sum of a dowry, but if he did not marry her off before he died, then the court does not assess his disposition to determine the proper amount. Since, however, Shmuel did not merely say that he accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he teaches us that the reason behind Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is that we follow the assessment of what the father would have done. It is no different if he married a daughter off, and it is no different if he did not marry one off.


讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛砖讬讗讛 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛砖讬讗讛 讜讙诇讬 讚注转讬讛 诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讗讜诪讚谞讗


And that which the mishna teaches in Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion: He married off the first daughter, this is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the dissenting opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that although the father married the first daughter off and revealed his mind with respect to dowries, we still do not follow an assessment of how much the father would have given to the second daughter.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 诪砖诪讱 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讻诇 讻讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 转讚专砖讜 诪砖诪讗讬


Rava said to Rav 岣sda: We teach in your name that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this matter. He said to him: May it be God鈥檚 will that you will teach in my name all proper statements such as this. Rav 岣sda agreed with the quote attributed to him.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘转 讛谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪讬讚谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚谞讬讛


The Gemara asks: And did Rava actually say this, that the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to an orphan daughter who is sustained from the inheritance held by her brothers, she takes one-tenth of the estate for her dowry. And Rava said with regard to that baraita: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Evidently, Rava rejects Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion concerning approximating the father鈥檚 intent. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. In this instance, Rava adopts Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion because we assessed the father and understood his mindset. In that instance, Rava rules that she should be given one-tenth because we did not assess the father and his mindset could not be determined.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪注砖讛 讜谞转谉 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讘谞讻住讬诐 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讚讗诪讬讚谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗诪讬讚谞讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable, as Rav Adda bar Ahava said: There was an incident, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave an orphan one-twelfth of her late father鈥檚 property for her dowry. Ostensibly, these amoraic statements are difficult, as they contradict each other. Which portion of the estate did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi determine should be given for a dowry, one-tenth or one-twelfth? Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from the discrepancy that the respective circumstances were different? In this ruling, in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave one-twelfth, it was because we assessed the father, and we knew that to be his intention. In that ruling, he ruled that she should receive the standard one-tenth because we didn鈥檛 assess the father and could not determine his intentions. The Gemara accepts the proof: Conclude from this that the matter does depend on the ability to properly assess the father鈥檚 intent.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讘转 讛谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬讱 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 注砖专 讘谞讜转 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讘谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讜转 讻诇讜诐


搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: With regard to an orphan daughter who is sustained from the inheritance held by her brothers, she takes one-tenth of the estate for her dowry. They said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: According to your opinion, in the case of one who has ten daughters and a son, the son does not have anything where there are daughters, as each daughter receives one-tenth of the estate. What becomes of the son鈥檚 biblically mandated inheritance?


讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻讱 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讜谞讛 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 砖谞讬讛 讘诪讛 砖砖讬讬专讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讘诪讛 砖砖讬讬专讛 讜讞讜讝专讜转 讜讞讜诇拽讜转 讘砖讜讛


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: This is what I say: The first daughter to marry takes one-tenth of the estate; the second takes one-tenth of what the first left, rather than one-tenth of the original estate; and the third takes one-tenth of what the second left; and then they later redistribute the portions equally, so that each daughter receives the same amount. In this way, the son retains a portion of the inheritance.


讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讚谞驻砖讛 砖拽诇讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讘讗讜 讻讜诇诐 诇讛谞砖讗 讻讗讞转 讞讜诇拽讜转 讘砖讜讛


The Gemara asks: Why should they divide the portions equally? Since each and every daughter, in turn, takes her own dowry, each one receives that which she rightfully deserves. It is unreasonable to demand of them to redivide the dowries later. The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said, i.e., meant: If they all come to be married at the same time, then they divide the portions equally. If, however, they marry at different times, then each daughter receives the appropriate percentage of the estate at the time of her marriage.


诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诐 讘讗讜 诇讛谞砖讗 讻讜诇诐 讻讗讞转 谞讜讟诇讜转 注讬砖讜专 讗讞讚 注讬砖讜专 讗讞讚 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 注讬砖讜专 讻讗讞讚


This conclusion supports the opinion of Rav Mattana, as Rav Mattana said: If they all come to be married at one time, they take one-tenth. The Gemara clarifies: Does it enter your mind that all the daughters should share just one-tenth of the property? Rather, Rav Mattana means that they each take one-tenth in one uniform measure, as in normal circumstances each one successively takes one-tenth of whatever property remains. However, because all the weddings take place within a short time span, the dowries are redistributed immediately after the weddings, so that they are all of equal value.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讘谞讜转 讘讬谉 讘讙专讜 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讜讘讬谉 谞讬砖讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讘讙专讜 讗讬讘讚讜 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛谉 讜诇讗 讗讬讘讚讜 驻专谞住转谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗讬讘讚讜 驻专谞住转谉 讻讬爪讚 讛谉 注讜砖讜转 砖讜讻专讜转 诇讛谉 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讛谉 驻专谞住转谉


The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the daughters, whether they matured before they were married or were married before they matured, they lost their sustenance. Sustenance is provided from the inheritance only for single daughters who have not yet matured. However, they did not lose their support, i.e., their allotted provisions for a dowry, upon maturing. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: They lost even their support. If they matured before marrying, they lost their chance to collect their dowries from the estate. What do they do to avoid losing the dowries? They have no alternative other than to marry before maturing. They hire themselves husbands, i.e., they take pains to be sure that they are married, and then they appropriate their support, i.e., dowries, for themselves.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬转讜诪讛 砖讛砖讬讗转讛 讗诪讛 讗讜 讗讞讬讛 诪讚注转讛 讜讻转讘讜 诇讛 讘诪讗讛 讗讜 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诪砖转讙讚讬诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚诐 诪讛 砖专讗讜讬 诇讛谞转谉 诇讛 讟注诪讗 讚拽讟谞讛 讛讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讬转专讛


Rav Na岣an said: Rav Huna told me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and orphans may collect their dowries from the estate even when they marry after maturing. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna: With regard to an orphan girl whose mother or brothers married her off with her consent and wrote for her a dowry of one hundred or of fifty dinars, she may, upon reaching majority, exact from them that which is fit to be given to her for her dowry. The Gemara infers: The reason that she may collect the balance of the dowry is that she married as a minor girl, but if she married as an adult woman, evidently she forgoes the balance. This would appear to follow the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says that her rights to inherit the dowry are terminated when she matures, against the statement of Rav Na岣an.


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讞讗讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讞讗讬


The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi distinguishes between two instances of mature brides. In this case, because she protests, she may still collect the rest of her dowry. In that case, because she does not protest, she implicitly waives the balance of the dowry.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘转 讛谞讬讝讜谞转 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 谞讬讝讜谞转 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讬讝讜谞转 诇讗


The Gemara notes: This, too, stands to reason, since if indeed Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi fails to differentiate between when she does and does not protest, it is difficult: One statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi contradicts another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: An orphan daughter who is sustained by the brothers takes one-tenth of the estate for her dowry. The Gemara infers: If she is sustained when she is a minor, then yes, she receives inheritance for a dowry; if she is not sustained because she has reached majority, then no, she does not receive a dowry from the estate. Ostensibly, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches that once she matures, she may not take one-tenth of the estate, which directly contradicts the first statement cited in his name.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讚诪讞讗讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讞讗讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara proposes a resolution to the contradiction: Rather, is it not correct to conclude from this that this ruling applies when she protests and that ruling applies when she does not protest? The Gemara confirms: Conclude from this that this is the resolution. If she matures before marrying, she collects the full dowry only if she insists upon it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪砖诪讱 讘讙专讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讞讜转 谞讬砖讗转 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讞讜转 讘讙专讛 讜谞讬砖讗转 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讞讜转


Ravina said to Rava: Rav Adda bar Ahava said to us in your name: If she matured, she does not need to actively protest in order to receive her one-tenth of the estate. Similarly, if she became married, she does not need to protest. If she both matured and became married, then she needs to protest in order to receive her one-tenth.


诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬转讜诪讛 讜砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚诪讞讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讞讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讗 诪讬转讝谞讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讬转讝谞讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: Did Rava actually say this? But Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an earlier concerning an orphan who was married, and Rav Na岣an answered him that this ruling applies when she protested, and that other ruling applies when she did not protest. Evidently, then, she forfeits her share if she does not protest. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This ruling applies when she is sustained by them even after marriage, and consequently she is embarrassed to protest. In this case, silence does not indicate that she forgoes the dowry. That ruling, insisting that she voice a claim, applies when she is not sustained by them, and she has no reason not to protest.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻专谞住讛 讗讬谞讛 讻转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 讻转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚讗讬诇讜 驻专谞住讛 讟专驻讗 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讜转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗 讟专驻讗 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 诪注砖讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇诪讝讜谞讜转


Rav Huna said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Support is not treated like a stipulation in the marriage contract. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Is not like a stipulation in the marriage contract? If we say that he is teaching: Whereas, with regard to support, she may seize her debt even from liened property that has been sold, and with regard to a stipulation in the marriage contract, she may not seize her debt from liened property that has been sold, what is he teaching us? But incidents that occur daily are proof enough that the court does appropriate money from liened property for paying support but does not appropriate for sustenance. He does not need to teach us that distinction.


讜讗诇讗 讚讗讬诇讜 驻专谞住讛 讙讘讬讗 谞诪讬 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讙讘讬讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 讙讘讬讗


But rather, there may be another explanation of Rav Huna鈥檚 statement: Whereas with regard to support, she may also collect it from movable property of the estate, with regard to a stipulation in the marriage contract, she may collect for it only from real estate, but from movable property she may not collect for it.


诇专讘讬 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讬讙讘讗 讙讘讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇诪讝讜谉 讛讗砖讛 讜诇讘谞讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬


The Gemara objects that this explanation is untenable: According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from both this and that type of property, she may certainly collect for it, as it is taught in a baraita: Whether with respect to property that has a guarantee behind it, assuring that the seller will compensate the buyer if the property is repossessed, i.e., real estate, or whether with respect to property that does not have a guarantee, i.e., movable objects, the court appropriates the funds necessary for the sustenance of the wife and the daughters. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Since sustenance is a stipulation in the marriage contract, this approach does not explain how a stipulation is unlike support.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 驻专谞住讛 讗讬谞讛 讻转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 讗诇 讬讝讜谞讜 讘谞讜转讬讜 诪谞讻住讬讜 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讗诇 讬转驻专谞住讜 讘谞讜转讬讜 诪谞讻住讬讜 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 砖讛驻专谞住讛 讗讬谞讛 讻转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛


Rather, what is the meaning of the statement: Support is not treated like a stipulation in the marriage contract? This statement has implications with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says in his will that his daughters should not be sustained from his estate, one does not listen to him, as it is not his prerogative to abrogate this obligation. But if he says that his daughters should not be supported from his estate, one does listen to him, as the legal status of the dowry is not like that of a stipulation in the marriage contract. The responsibility to provide support is an ordinance that falls upon the father or his inheritors, and they may choose to reject the responsibility.


Scroll To Top