Ketubot 67a — the Talmud in English

And it was taught in a beraita: They said about Nakdimon ben Gurion: When he would leave his house for the beit-midrash, garments

of linen

[expensive clothing]

were ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

spread beneath him,

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

and take them for themselves.

If you wish, say:

this matter,

he did for his own honor,

and he did not intend it for the sake of charity.

And if you wish, say: He did not do as it was proper for him to do

[he did not give charity as was proper for him to do] .

As people say: According to the camel is its burden.

According to the strength of the camel, so they load it with a burden.

It was taught: Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Zadok said: “May I see consolation”

[an expression of an oath],

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

I applied this verse to her

[Song of Songs 1]:

“If you do not know, fairest among women, go forth in 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 appraise it, and it is [reckoned] according to its value.

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

And we raise an objection:

It was objected:

Did we not learn in the Tosefta:

“Gold

is like vessels”?

And we infer:

What, is it not like silver vessels, which depreciate

[which decrease in value as they are used] , and if so, why should he not subtract a fifth?

And we reject this:

No! Like golden vessels, which do not depreciate,

since they are not used so much.

And we raise an objection:

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

and why did we learn “like vessels,” which implies like vessels in general, which decrease in value?

And furthermore,

indeed

it was taught:

“Gold is like vessels; golden coins are like silver. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where the custom is not to exchange them, they are appraised, and they are [reckoned] at their value.”

And the Gemara infers:

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel

—with regard to which [part]?

With which part of the beraita does he disagree?

If you say, with regard to the latter clause—

which teaches in it, “Golden coins are like silver,” and regarding this Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that only in a place where the custom is to exchange them for their full value does he add a third—

by implication

you learn this:

the first tanna maintains

that

even in a place where the custom is not to exchange them

he adds a third.

And this is difficult: Why should he add a third,

for they do not circulate!

[They are not suitable for immediate profit]?

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

which teaches in it, “Gold is like vessels”?

And this is what

the first tanna

is saying: Gold is like vessels,

and necessarily

what [is meant by] “vessels”? Silver vessels!

And he subtracts a fifth for her, since they depreciate.

And regarding this

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

Gold

is like coins

[minted coins]

of gold in a place where the custom is not to exchange them.

And he does not add a third, since in this place they do not circulate in commerce; but he also does not subtract a fifth, since they do not depreciate.

And according to this the Gemara asks:

The reasoning of the first tanna is preferable to the reasoning of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, because golden pieces should not be compared to golden coins: minted golden coins retain their value even in a place where the custom is not to exchange them, whereas golden pieces lose a fifth of their value, since they still need to be minted into coins. If so, why did Rabbi Yohanan choose to hold like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and not like the first tanna?

And we answer:

No! Actually,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel spoke

with regard to the latter clause,

which teaches in it, “Golden coins are like silver,”

and

as for what we asked—if so, what is the reason of the first tanna?—it can be said that we are dealing with a case

where they circulate under pressure.

And they disagree about this: One

[the first tanna]

maintains: Since they circulate

even under pressure,

we enhance their valuation.

[There is profit from them, and therefore he must add a third.]

And one maintains

[Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel],

Since they circulate only under pressure, we do not enhance their valuation,

and he does not add a third.

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

If you wish, say: The entire [passage] is [the opinion of] Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And it is deficient, and this is what it teaches

“Gold is like vessels; golden coins are like silver.”

When are these words said? In a place where the custom is to exchange them. But in a place where the custom is not to exchange them, they are appraised

and they are [reckoned] at their value—these are the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where the custom is not to exchange them—

they are appraised and are [reckoned] at their value.”

And if so, when it said, “Gold is like vessels,” this means like golden vessels, which do not depreciate. And [this is] like Rabbi Yohanan.

And we raise an objection:

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

as the Gemara asked earlier; and why did it state “like vessels”?

And we conclude:

It is difficult .

If you wish, say: Actually, the intention of the Mishna is to say, “Gold is like silver vessels that depreciate.” Nevertheless, this is not difficult according to Rabbi Yohanan, because

what are we dealing with here? With soft gold

[soft gold, which becomes diminished when it is used].

Rav Ashi said: With gold filled

[with gold fragments, which depreciate], and therefore he subtracts a fifth.

Rabbi Yannai said: Perfumes of Antioch

[a place-name]

are like silver.

And if she brought him perfumes, he adds a third, since in that place they circulate in commerce.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: With regard to the camels of Arabia, a woman collects her parna from them

[that is, the husband must add a third to her for their value] since they circulate in commerce, and one can profit from them immediately.

Rav Pappi said: These garments of Bei Makhsei

[garments produced in Bei Makhsei],

a woman collects her parna

[an addition of a third]

from them.

And Rav Pappi said: These sacks of Rudya

[sacks produced in Rudya],

and the ropes of Kamhunya

[ropes produced in Kamhunya],

a woman collects her parna from them.

Rava said: At first, I would say

[at first I would say]:

These purses of Mehoza

[purses full of money, after which the women of Mehoza were passionately desirous],

a woman collects her parna from them.

That is, if she comes to collect her ketuba from the orphans, she can collect it from those purses,

For what reason,

is it not the case that a woman collects her ketuba from the movable property of orphans?

Since

their principal reliance is upon them.

And even though ordinarily a woman does not collect her ketuba from movable property, here it is different, because at the time of the ketuba her principal reliance is upon them.

But

when I saw that they would take them and go out, and when they found land they would buy it with them, I said: Their principal reliance is upon the land

[since I saw that they would take the money in order to buy land with it, I said that their principal reliance was primarily upon the land. If so, she cannot collect her ketuba from these purse monies].

Mishna:

The customary practice of providing the needs of the groom and bride obligates both parties, even if they did not stipulate this explicitly, since the marriage between the parties was entered into with this understanding.

Therefore, if the parties did not discuss the amount of the dowry between themselves, the bride’s father is obligated to give his son-in-law the lower sum that people customarily give, as will be explained below.

Likewise, the father who brings his daughter beneath the wedding canopy is obligated to give her garments in the manner in which people customarily dress girls who marry.

On the other hand, if the father announced beforehand that he was not giving his daughter the garments that it was customary to give, the groom is obligated to provide the bride’s clothing even before she enters beneath the wedding canopy, because the husband’s obligation to clothe his wife includes the time of bringing her beneath the wedding canopy: she must enter beneath the wedding canopy dressed like all the daughters of Israel who enter beneath the wedding canopy, whose fathers clothe them.

a.

One who marries off his daughter without specification,

and did not set a particular sum for her dowry,

may not give her less than fifty

zuz .

b. If

the father stipulated

explicitly

“to bring her in naked,”

without a dowry and without clothing,

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

then

I will house her in my clothing.” Rather, he clothes

her

while she is still in her father’s house.

And likewise,

the charity collectors

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

And

if there is in the purse

of charity enough money,

they support her according to her honor.

Gemara:

Abaye said:

That which they said in the Mishna, “May not give less than fifty zuz,” means

fifty zuz of peshiti,

which are “

zuz of the country,” whose value is one-eighth of zuz of Tyre.”

And

from where [do I know this]?

[From where do I derive this law?]

As it teaches in the latter clause—

“If there is in the purse, they support her according to her honor.”

And we say: What is “purse”?

Rakhva said

[the name of an amora]:

A charity purse.

And if it enters your mind that [the sum is] literally fifty zuz

[that is, Tyrian money], if so, when we learned in the latter clause—

“If there is in the purse

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

up to how much do they give her?

Is fifty Tyrian zuz not an exceedingly large sum?

Rather, infer from this: Fifty zuz—

[means] peshiti.

The Sages taught: An orphan and an orphan girl who came to be supported

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

they support the orphan girl, and afterward they support the orphan boy .

Because it is the man’s way to go around to the doorways, but it is not a woman’s way to go around.