Ketubot 67a (סז.) — the Talmud in English

And it was taught in a baraita: They said about Naqdimon ben Gurion that when he would leave his house to go to the bet midrash,

silk garments [

expensive clothing]

would be

spread beneath him,

and poor people would come and fold them up behind him,

and take them for themselves.

Alternatively,

this matter

he did for his own honor,

and he did not intend it as charity.

And alternatively: He did not do what he ought to have done. [

He did not give charity to the extent that he ought to have done. ]

As people say: According to the strength of the camel is the load placed upon it.

According to the camel’s strength, so is the burden with which it is loaded.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Tzadok said: “May I see consolation” [

an oath formula],

if I did not see her gathering barley from between the hooves of horses in Akko.

I applied this verse to her [

Song of Songs 1]:

“If you know not, you fairest among women, go your way by the footsteps of the flock, and pasture your kids.” Do not read “your kids” but “your corpses ”.

.”

Rav Shaman bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: If she brought him

pieces of

gold

in her dowry,

they are appraised, and he adds their full value.

He does not add one-third, since pieces of gold are not suitable for immediate profit; but, on the other hand, he does not deduct one-fifth, since the pieces do not lose value over time.

And we raise an objection:

It was challenged:

Did we not learn in the Tosefta:

“Gold

is like vessels”?

And we infer:

What, does “like vessels” not mean like silver vessels, which depreciate [

whose value decreases as they are used ], and if so, why should he not deduct one-fifth?

And we reject this:

No; it means like gold vessels, which do not depreciate,

since they are not used as extensively.

And we raise an objection:

If so, it should have said, “like his vessels,”

and why did we learn “like vessels,” which implies like ordinary vessels, whose value decreases?

Furthermore,

there is

a baraita:

“Gold is like vessels; gold coins are like silver coins. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where people customarily do not exchange them, they are appraised, and they are valued at their full worth.”

And the Gemara infers:

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel

—with regard to which statement?

With which part of the baraita does he disagree?

If you say it is with regard to the latter clause—

which teaches, “Gold coins are like silver coins,” and concerning this Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that only in a place where people customarily exchange them at their full value does he add one-third—

by inference

you learn

that the first tanna holds

that

even in a place where people customarily do not exchange them

he adds one-third.

And this is difficult: Why should he add one-third?

They are not negotiable! [

They are not suitable for immediate profit.]

Rather, is it not with regard to the first clause—

which teaches, “Gold is like vessels”?

And this is what the first tanna is saying:

The first tanna says:

Gold is like vessels,

and necessarily,

what vessels? Silver vessels!

And he deducts one-fifth from her property, since they depreciate.

And concerning this

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

Gold

is like gold coins [

minted coins]

in a place where people customarily do not exchange them.

He does not add one-third, since in that place they are not negotiable; but neither does he deduct one-fifth, since they do not depreciate.

And accordingly, the Gemara asks:

The position of the first tanna is preferable to that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, because pieces of gold should not be compared to gold coins: minted gold coins retain their value even in a place where people customarily do not exchange them, whereas pieces of gold lose one-fifth of their value, since they still have to be minted into coins. If so, why did Rabbi Yohanan choose to hold like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rather than like the first tanna?

And we answer:

No; actually,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was speaking

with regard to the latter clause,

which teaches, “Gold coins are like silver coins.”

And

as for what we asked—what is the reason of the first tanna?—one may say that it is referring to a case

where they are negotiable with difficulty.

And they disagree about this: One master [

the first tanna]

holds that since they are negotiable,

even with difficulty,

we enhance their value. [

He derives profit from them, and therefore must add one-third.]

And the other master [

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel]

holds that since they are negotiable only with difficulty, we do not enhance their value,

and he does not add one-third.

But with regard to the first clause, in which we learned, “Gold is like vessels,” the tanna means that it is like gold vessels, which do not depreciate, and he does not deduct one-fifth, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

Alternatively, the entire baraita is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And it is deficient, and this is what it teaches

Gold is like vessels; gold coins are like silver coins.

When does this apply? In a place where people customarily exchange them. But in a place where people customarily do not exchange them, they are appraised

and are valued at their full worth—these are the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. For Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where people customarily do not exchange them,

they are appraised and are valued at their full worth.

Accordingly, when it said, “Gold is like vessels,” it meant like gold vessels, which do not depreciate, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

And we raise an objection:

Nevertheless, it should have said, “like his vessels,”

as the Gemara asked earlier; why did it say, “like vessels”?

And we conclude:

It remains difficult.

Alternatively, the Mishna’s intention is indeed to say, “Gold is like silver vessels, which depreciate.” Nevertheless, this is not difficult according to Rabbi Yohanan, because

here we are dealing with soft gold [

gold that is diminished when it is used].

Rav Ashi said: It is referring to gold that is filled [

with gold fragments, which depreciate], and therefore one-fifth is deducted.

Rabbi Yannai said: Antiochian perfumes [

the name of a place]

are like silver coins.

If she brought him perfumes, he adds one-third, since in that place they are negotiable.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: With regard to Arabian camels, a woman may collect her ketuba from them [

meaning, the husband must add one-third to their value ] since they are negotiable and he can profit from them immediately.

Rav Pappa said: With regard to these garments of Bei Mekhasi [

garments manufactured in Bei Mekhasi],

a woman may collect her ketuba [

the additional one-third]

from them.

And Rav Pappa said: With regard to these sacks of Rudya [

sacks manufactured in Rudya],

and ropes of Kamhunya [

ropes manufactured in Kamhunya],

a woman may collect her ketuba from them.

Rava said: At first, I would say [

initially I would say]:

With regard to these purses of Meḥoza [

purses full of money, after which the women of Meḥoza were infatuated],

a woman may collect her ketuba from them.

That is, if she comes to collect her ketuba from orphans, she may collect it from those purses.

What is the reason?

Is it not the case that a woman does not collect her ketuba from the movable property of orphans?

Since

their reliance is upon them.

Although generally a woman does not collect her ketuba from movable property, here it is different, because at the time of the marriage contract her primary reliance was upon these items.

But

once I saw that they would take them and leave, and when they found land they would purchase it with them, I said: Their reliance is upon the land [

Once I saw that they would take the money in order to purchase land with it, I said that their primary reliance had been upon the land. If so, she cannot collect her ketuba from the money in these purses.]

Mishna:

The customary practice of providing for the needs of the groom and bride binds both parties, even if they did not explicitly stipulate this, since the marriage was entered into on that basis.

Therefore, if the parties did not discuss the amount of the dowry, the bride’s father must give his son-in-law the lesser amount customarily given, as will be explained below.

Likewise, a father who brings his daughter beneath the wedding canopy must give her clothing in accordance with the customary manner of clothing brides.

Conversely, if the father announced in advance that he would not give his daughter the clothing customarily given, the groom must provide clothing for the bride even before she enters beneath the wedding canopy. For the husband’s obligation to clothe his wife also includes the time when he brings her beneath the wedding canopy: she must enter the canopy clothed like all the daughters of Israel who enter the canopy, whose fathers clothe them.

a.

One who marries off his daughter without specifying

a particular sum for her dowry

may not give her less than fifty

zuz .

b. If

the father stipulated

explicitly

to bring her in “unclothed,”

without a dowry and without clothing,

the husband may not say: “When I bring her into my house,

then

I will clothe her with my clothing.” Rather, he must clothe

her

while she is still in her father’s house.

Likewise,

the charity administrators

who marry off an orphan girl may not give her less than fifty zuz .

And

if there is sufficient money in the fund

of charity,

they provide for her according to her dignity.

Gemara:

Abaye said:

The statement in the Mishna, “He may not give her less than fifty zuz,” refers to

fifty plain zuz,

which are “

state zuz,” whose value is one-eighth of Tyrian zuz.”

And

from where

do I derive this ruling?

As the latter clause teaches:

“If there is money in the fund, they provide for her according to her dignity.”

And we say: What is meant by “fund”?

Raḥava said [

the name of an amora]:

A charity purse.

And if it enters your mind that the fifty zuz are actual [

Tyrian money], then when we learned in the latter clause,

“If there is money in the fund,

they give her according to her dignity,” which implies more than fifty zuz,

how much do they give her?

Are fifty Tyrian zuz not an extremely large sum?

Rather, conclude from it that the fifty zuz—

are plain zuz.

The Sages taught: If an orphan boy and an orphan girl came to receive support

from charity, and there is enough to provide for only one of them,

they provide for the orphan girl, and afterward they provide for the orphan boy .

Because it is the way of a man to go door to door, whereas it is not the way of a woman to do so.