Ketubot 66b (סו:) — the Talmud in English

What, when a groom [

the version of the early authorities: “and when a groom”]

stipulates -

he stipulates one-fifth less.

If they appraised the items initially, and the groom then came to write how much they had appraised for her, he deducts one-fifth.

The Gemara will explain why the Mishna repeated its statement.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “If one stipulated a sum of money for his son-in-law, and the son-in-law died, he may say to him: I wanted to give it to your brother, but I do not wish to give it to you.”

The Sages taught: It is not necessary to say

that he may say this when the first brother was

a Torah scholar, and

the

second

brother was

an ignoramus.

Rather, even

if the

first brother was an ignoramus, and the

«

second was a Torah scholar, he may

the woman's father

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

We learned in the Mishna:

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

he stipulates fifteen maneh against them.

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

The Gemara raises an objection: This ruling

is identical to the first clause

of the Mishna, which stated in its first clause: “And against the property appraisal he stipulates one-fifth less.” Why, then, did the Mishna repeat its statement?

And we answer:

The tanna

stated in the first clause, “And against the property appraisal he stipulates one-fifth less,” with reference to “she stipulated that she would bring 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 customary to exaggerate.

And he taught

in the latter clause: “If the property was appraised at one maneh, she gives him thirty-one sela and one dinar. And for four hundred she gives him five hundred,” which is

a small appraisal,

to teach us that even with a small appraisal it is customary to exaggerate. This is necessary so that we would not say that people exaggerate only with a large appraisal, but not with a small one.

The tanna taught the appraisal concerning him,

that is, the Mishna said: “And against the property appraisal he stipulates one-fifth less,” and “When a groom stipulates, he stipulates one-fifth less,” to teach us that even when she has already brought him the appraised property and the groom now appraises it in order to record it in the ketuba, he too customarily exaggerates; therefore, he deducts one-fifth from the amount recorded in the ketuba. The Mishna repeated its statement to teach us the laws of a large and a small appraisal.

And he taught the appraisal concerning her -

“If she stipulated that she would bring him one thousand dinars; and against the property appraisal he stipulates one-fifth less,” and “If the property was appraised at one maneh, she gives him thirty-one sela and one dinar,” since when the woman's relatives appraise her property, it is customary for them 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 stipulated that she would bring him money,

from which the husband can earn immediately,

her sela -

becomes six dinars.

That is, the husband must record in her ketuba one-third more than the amount she brought him [a sela is worth four dinars, whereas the husband records six dinars for her], as explained above. The Gemara will explain why the Mishna repeated this ruling.

There is an additional law concerning a groom to whom his wife brings money -

The groom undertakes

to give his wife

ten dinars for the “fund,” for each maneh [

one-tenth of what she brought him—that is, ten dinars for every one hundred dinars; he must give it to her for purchasing perfumes and jewelry].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything follows local custom.

Gemara:

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

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

identical to ‘he stipulates fifteen maneh against them,’

which was taught above?

And we answer:

The tanna taught the rule concerning a large business investment, and he taught the rule concerning a small business investment.

The tanna taught this ruling twice in order to teach us that it applies both to a large sum and to a small sum.

And it is necessary,

as the tanna was required to teach this twice.

For if he had taught

only

the rule concerning a large business investment,

I would have said that only with a large sum must he add one-third to it, because

the profit is substantial [

he can earn a great deal from it],

but with a small business investment, since the profit is slight, I would say that it is not significant enough to require adding one-third to it. Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach the rule concerning a small business investment.

And if he had taught us

only

the rule concerning a small business investment,

I would have said that only with a small sum,

since the risk is slight [

and therefore he must add one-third to it],

but with a large business investment, since the risk is substantial, I would say that he need not add it. It is necessary.

We learned in the Mishna:

The groom undertakes to give ten dinars for the fund.

And the Gemara explains:

What is meant by “the fund”?

Rav Ashi said: A fund for perfumes.

And Rav Ashi said: These statements were stated only

with regard to Jerusalem,

where women were accustomed to adorn themselves with perfumes .

The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi raised doubts concerning several laws relating to the nature of the obligation of “a fund for perfumes.”

a.

Rav Ashi raised a dilemma [

Rav Ashi was uncertain]: Must he give her ten percent of what she brought him

according to the maneh that was “appraised” [

according to the amount after the addition of one-fifth],

or according to the maneh that is “received” [

according to its actual value]?

And Rav Ashi raised another dilemma:

b.

If you say

that he appraised it for her at

the received maneh,

must he give her the entire sum on

the first day, or

does he divide the sum for

each and every day?

c.

If you say

that he divides it for

each and every day,

does he give it to her only for the

first week [

of the month]

of the first month,

and thereafter supports her according to her status,

or does he give it to her every week?

d.

If you say

that he divides the sum for

every week,

does he give it to her only for

the first month

of the

first year, or

for

every month?

e.

If you say

for

every month,

does he give it to her only in

the first year, or every year?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

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

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

She said to them -

“So may you stipulate for your daughters!” And they answered her: Amen .

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

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

He saw

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

When she saw him, she wrapped herself in her hair and stood before him. She said to him: My teacher, sustain me!

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

She said to him: I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon.

He said to her: My daughter, where did the wealth of your father's household go?

She said to him: My teacher, is this not how they used to recite a proverb in Jerusalem [

was this not indeed the proverb they used to recite in Jerusalem],

“Salt for wealth” -

diminution [

that is, one who wishes to preserve his wealth, just as salt preserves food, should diminish his wealth by giving 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 wealth was lost.

He said to her:

And where is the wealth of your father-in-law's household?

She said to him: This came and destroyed that,

because it became mixed with it.

She said to him: My teacher,

do

you remember when you signed the ketuba of this woman?

He said to his students: I remember when I signed her ketuba, and I read in it one thousand thousand [

one million]

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

Rabban Yoḥanan 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 hands of the lowliest nation. And not merely into the hands of the lowliest nation, but into the hands of the animals of the lowliest nation .

And we ask:

A

s it possible that

Nakdimon ben Guryon did not perform charity?!