Ketubot 66b — the Talmud in English

What! [when] the groom

the version of the Rishonim: “and when the groom”

appraises —

he appraises at one-fifth less.

If their value was established initially, and the groom came to write how much they had established for him, he deducts one-fifth.

And in the Gemara it will be explained why the Mishna repeated its words.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “One who apportioned money to his son-in-law, and [the son-in-law] died, he can say to him: ‘I wanted to give to your brother, but I do not wish to give to you.’”

The Sages taught: It is not necessary to say

that he can say this when the first brother was

a Torah scholar, and

the

second

was

an ignoramus.

Rather, even if

the

first brother was an ignoramus, and the

«

second was a Torah scholar, he can

the father of the woman

say: ‘I wanted to give to your brother, but I do not wish to give to you.’

We learned in the Mishna:

If she apportioned that she would bring him one thousand dinars,

he apportions against them fifteen maneh.

And if she apportioned that she would bring him property valued at one maneh, she gives him thirty-one sela and one dinar.

And the Gemara objects: This law

is identical to the first clause

of the Mishna, for thus the Mishna said in its first clause: “And against the appraised value, he apportions one-fifth less.” And why did the Mishna repeat its words?

And we answer:

The tannai

stated in the first clause, “And against the appraised value, he apportions one-fifth less,” with reference to “she brought him one thousand dinars,” which is

a large appraisal,

to teach us that even with a large appraisal, concerning which she is not embarrassed, it is the way [of people] to exaggerate.

And he teaches

in the final clause, “Property valued at one maneh, she gives thirty-one sela and one dinar. And for four hundred, she gives five hundred,” which is

a small appraisal,

to teach us that even with a small appraisal, it is the way [of people] to exaggerate. So that we should not say that people exaggerate only in a large appraisal, but not in a small one.

The tannai [also] taught her appraisal,

that is, the Mishna said: “And against the appraised value, he apportions one-fifth less,” and “What the groom apportions, he apportions one-fifth less,” to teach us that even in the case where she had already brought him the appraised property and now the groom appraises it in order to write it in the ketuba, it is also his way to exaggerate; therefore, he deducts one-fifth in the ketuba. And the Mishna repeated its words to teach us [the distinction between] a large appraisal and a small one.

And he teaches her appraisal —

“If she apportioned that she would bring him one thousand dinars: and against the appraised value he apportions one-fifth less,” and “Property valued at one maneh, she gives thirty-one sela and one dinar,” since when the woman’s relatives appraise her property, it is their way to add one-fifth to it, in order to make her beloved to her husband.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues to discuss the laws taught in the previous Mishna:

If she apportioned that she would bring him money,

from which the husband can profit immediately,

her sela —

becomes six dinars.

That is, the husband is obligated to write for her in her ketuba one-third more than what she brought him [a sela is worth four dinars, whereas the husband writes six dinars for her], as explained above. And in the Gemara it will be explained why the Mishna repeated this law.

And there is an additional law for the groom when his wife brings him money —

The groom accepts upon himself

to give his wife

ten dinars for the “provision,” for each maneh

[one-tenth of what she brought him; that is, ten dinars for every one hundred dinars, he must give her for the purchase of perfumes and jewelry].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything follows the custom of the country.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “Her sela becomes six dinars.”

And we ask: Why did the Mishna return and write this law a second time? Is this law not

identical to ‘he apportions against them fifteen maneh,’

which was taught above?

And we answer:

The tannai taught a large business investment, and he taught a small business investment.

The tannai stated this law twice in order to teach us that this law applies both to a large sum and to a small sum.

And it is necessary,

the tannai was compelled to teach this twice.

For if he had taught

only

a large business investment,

I would have said that specifically with a large sum she must be given an additional third, because

the profit is great

[he can profit much from it],

but with a small business investment, since the profit is small, I would say not

that it is significant enough to add a third to it. Therefore,

it is necessary

to write [the law of] a small business investment.

And if he had informed us

only

of a small business investment,

I would have said that specifically with a small sum,

since the risk is small

[the risk imposed upon him is small], she must be given an additional third,

but with a large business investment, since the risk is great, I would say not. It is necessary.

We learned in the Mishna:

The groom accepts upon himself ten dinars for the provision.

And the Gemara explains:

What is “the provision”?

Rav Ashi said: A provision of perfumes.

And Rav Ashi said: These words were stated only

with regard to Jerusalem,

where the women were accustomed to adorn themselves with perfumes .

And the Gemara brings that Rav Ashi was uncertain about several laws relating to the nature of the obligation of “a provision of perfumes.”

a.

Rav Ashi inquired

[Rav Ashi was uncertain]: Is it necessary to give her ten percent of what she brought him

according to the maneh “appraised”

[according to what was added to it, one-fifth],

or according to the maneh “received”

[according to its true value]?

And Rav Ashi was further uncertain:

b.

If you can say

that he appraised it for her according to

the received maneh,

is it necessary to give her the entire sum on

the first day, or

does he divide the sum for her over

each and every day?

c.

If you can say

that he divides it for her over

each and every day,

does he divide it for her only for

the first

[week]

week,

and from then onward he provides her sustenance according to her honor,

or every week and every week?

d.

If you can say

that he divides the sum for her over

every week and every week,

does he divide it for her only for

the first

month,

or

for

each and every month?

e.

If you can say

for

each and every month,

does he give her only in

the first year, or every year and every year?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion, for whom the Sages apportioned four hundred gold coins

for a provision of perfumes, for that day [for the needs of one day].

She said to them —

“May you apportion this way for your daughters!” And they answered after her: “Amen.”

Увидев его, она укрылась своими волосами, встала перед ним и сказала: «Рабби, обеспечь меня пропитанием!»

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who was

riding on a donkey, and he was leaving Jerusalem, and his students were walking behind him.

He saw one notable woman

who was gathering barley from among the dung of the Arabs’ animals.

When she saw him, she wrapped herself in her hair, stood before him, and said to him: “Rabbi, sustain me!”

He said to her: “My daughter, who are you?”

She said to him: “I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion.”

He said to her: “My daughter, where did the money of your father’s household go?”

She said to him: “Rabbi, is this not how they would state a proverb in Jerusalem

[and did they not thus state a proverb in Jerusalem],

‘Salt for money’ —

‘diminish’

[that is, one who wishes to preserve his money, just as salt preserves food, should diminish his money for charity].

And some say,

and there are those who say,

“kindness”

[that he should perform acts of kindness with it ]?

And they did not perform kindness, and therefore their money was lost.

He said to her:

“And the property of your father-in-law’s household, where is it?”

She said to him: “This came and destroyed that,”

because it became mixed with it.

She said to him, “Rabbi,”

did

“you remember when you signed the ketuba of this woman?”

He said to his students: “I remember when I signed this woman’s ketuba, and I was reading in it one thousand thousands

[one million]

gold dinars from her father’s household, apart from that of her father-in-law.”

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai wept and said: “Fortunate are you, Israel!”

When they perform the will of the Omnipresent, no nation or tongue can rule over them. And when they do not perform the will of the Omnipresent, He delivers them into the hand of a lowly nation. And not into the hand of a lowly nation, but into the hand of the animals of a lowly nation .

And we object:

And

for

did Nakdimon ben Gurion not perform charity?!