Ketubot 68a — the Talmud in English

“Cancel the silver coins or cancel the gold coins” [I heard that they would ask him: Would you like to dine with white linen tablecloths, or with dyed silk tablecloths].

I heard that people would ask him: “Would you like to dine with white linen tablecloths, or with dyed silk tablecloths?”].

He said

Rabbi Hanina:

This is what Rabbi Elazar said—

Come and let us hold the deceivers in esteem, for were it not for them, we would sin every day. As it is stated (Deuteronomy 15),

Deuteronomy 15):

“And he will call concerning you to the Lord, and there will be sin in you.”

But now, since there are deceivers, they cause us not to give charity to everyone .

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: Rabbi Joshua ben Korha says—

Anyone who averts his eyes from charity is as though he worships idolatry.

And from where do we know this?

It is written here (Deuteronomy 15), concerning charity,

Deuteronomy 15), concerning charity:

“Beware for yourself, lest there be a base thought in your heart.” And it continues.

And it is written there (Deuteronomy 13), concerning idolatry—

Deuteronomy 13), concerning idolatry:

“Base men went out.”

Just as there, it is idolatry, so here too, it is idolatry.

The Sages taught: One who blinds his eye, and one who inflates his belly, and one who cripples his thigh,

and deceives the public as though he has a defect, so that they will give him charity,

does not depart from the world until he comes to this.

One who accepts charity although he does not need it—ultimately, he does not depart from the world until he comes to this .

We learned there:

One who has two hundred zuz may not take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or the corner of the field. But if he does not have two hundred zuz,

they do not obligate him to sell his house and his household utensils

to complete the two hundred, but he takes gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field.

And we raise an objection:

And

if

not

do they force him to sell them?!

But it was taught: “If he was using gold utensils, he should use silver utensils; if silver utensils, he should use copper utensils.”

And it is evident that they obligate him to sell his utensils to complete the two hundred zuz? And we answer:

Rav Zevid said: It is not difficult. This

where they obligate him to use simple utensils—

with a bed and a table.

And

this

where they do not force him to sell—

with cups and bowls.

And we inquire about it:

What is different about cups and bowls, that they do not

obligate him to sell, because

he says, “They are repulsive to me,”

but

a bed and a table too—does he not say, “It is unacceptable to me”?

Rava, son of Rabbah, said:

Only

a silver plow

is made of silver

they obligate him to sell, since this object is certainly not repulsive. But as for his other utensils, they do not obligate him to sell them.

Rav Pappa said: It is not difficult. Here, before he comes to collection; here, after he comes to collection. [That is, the case where we learned “they do not obligate him” concerns one who came to collect gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field, and did not have two hundred zuz; they do not obligate him to sell in order to complete two hundred. And the case where we learned “they obligate him” concerns a case where he collected gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field, and afterward it became known that he had two hundred zuz at that time. The court comes to collect from him what he took unlawfully, and then, if he does not have [the money], they obligate him to sell his household utensils. Rashi] .

That is, the statement we learned, “he is not required,” refers to when he comes to collect gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field, and he does not possess two hundred zuz. In that case he is not required to sell anything in order to reach two hundred.

The statement we learned, “he is required,” refers to a case in which he collected gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field, and afterward it became known that he had possessed two hundred zuz at that time. The court comes to collect from him what he took unlawfully, and if he no longer has the money, he is required to sell his household utensils. Rashi.]

Mishna:

The Sages enacted that if the father died and left behind him an unmarried daughter, the heirs are obligated to marry her off and to give her a dowry from the inheritance property.

And our Mishna comes to teach that the heirs cannot discharge their obligation with a dowry of fifty zuz; rather, they must stipulate for her a dowry according to what is appropriate for her.

An orphan

who is a minor

whose mother or brothers married her off with her consent ,

and they wrote her a ketuba

of one hundred or fifty zuz [and this amount is less than what is appropriate for her],

when that amount is less than what is appropriate for her],

when she comes of age, she may collect from them what is appropriate to be given to her .

Even if, when she was a minor, she agreed to what they wrote for her .

And how is what is appropriate for her assessed?

Rabbi Judah says: If he married off

her father

the first daughter

before his death,

the second should be given in the manner in which he gave to the first.

And the Sages say: Sometimes a person is poor and becomes wealthy, or wealthy and becomes poor,

and therefore one should not assess according to the older daughter,

but one assesses the property and gives her

according to the practice of people who possess such wealth, to give to their daughters .

Gemara:

Samuel said: For support [the orphaned daughter who comes to marry, and it is necessary to determine the amount of the dowry due to her from her father’s property]—

one assesses the father,

whether he was miserly or generous, and they give her a dowry according to that assessment.

A challenge was raised

against Samuel from a beraita, in which we learned:

“The daughters are nourished and supported from their father’s property.”

How so?—

We do not say, “Had her father

been

alive, he would have given her such and such.”

Rather, one assesses the property and gives her.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not

the meaning of what the beraita said, “are supported”—that it refers to a dowry, which is called

“support for the husband,”

and we learned in the beraita that “one assesses the property,” giving her according to the value of the property, and not as Samuel said, giving her according to an assessment of the father’s disposition?

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: No!

The beraita is discussing

her own support [her sustenance while she is with the brothers].

her maintenance while she is living with her brothers].

And we raise an objection:

Here

there are two separate expressions—

“are nourished” and “are supported”—

it teaches

in the beraita!

Is it not

that the tanna changed and doubled his wording only to teach us

one, support for the husband, and one, her own support,

and in all of them “one assesses the property,” and not the father’s disposition?!

And we answer:

No! Both this and that,

this and that [that is, the duplication of the expressions “are nourished” and “are supported”] refer only to

her own support,

and not to the dowry.

And it is not difficult

to explain the duplication of the expressions.

This [“are nourished” refers]

refers to

to eating and drinking.

And this [“are supported” refers]

refers to

to clothing and covering.

And the measure is as explained above, page 62b, concerning a poor person. But in the case of a wealthy person, it is according to his honor.

And the Gemara continues to discuss Samuel’s words:

We learned

in our Mishna:

“And the Sages say: Sometimes a person is poor and becomes wealthy, or wealthy and becomes poor. Rather, one assesses the property and gives her.”

And we inquire about it:

What is “poor,” and what is “wealthy”?

If we say “poor”

means

poor in property,

and

“wealthy”

means

wealthy in property,

and in this the Rabbis held that one does not assess her according to what he gave the first daughter, but “one assesses the property”—that is, one assesses the father’s disposition, as Samuel said, whether he is miserly or generous,

by inference

you learn this:

the tanna kama [Rabbi Judah],

who disagreed with them,

held

that

even if

he was

wealthy and became poor,

nevertheless,

we give her as he gave initially,

when he was wealthy.

But it is impossible to explain it this way, for

he does not have it!

He does not have it, so how can he give what he does not have?!

Rather, is it not

necessarily that the Sages’ intention when saying

“poor” is

poor in disposition [miserly], and

miserly], while

“wealthy” is

wealthy in disposition [generous].

generous].

And it teaches

in our Mishna that even so one does not assess according to his disposition as it was known to us, for perhaps his disposition changed, but

“one assesses the property and gives her.”

Evidently, we do not follow an assessment!

And this is a refutation of Samuel,

who said, “One assesses the father”?

And we answer:

He said

[Samuel held]

in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

For we learned

in our Mishna—

“Rabbi Judah says: If he married off the first daughter—

the second should be given in the manner in which he gave to the first.”

Evidently, everything depends on an assessment of the father’s disposition, how much he gives his daughters.

And

we raise an objection: If so,

let

Samuel

say, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah”!

And why did he state his words as an innovation, “For support, one assesses the father”?

And we answer:

If

Samuel had said

“The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah,” I would have thought specifically

when he

married off

the

first

daughter,

for his disposition was revealed

as to how much he gives, and then one follows the assessment of the father’s disposition.

But

if he

did not marry her off, no.

One does not assess his disposition, but gives according to the property.

He teaches us

Samuel that

the reason of Rabbi Judah

is

that we follow an assessment. It makes no difference whether he married her off, and it makes no difference whether he did not marry her off.

And this that it teaches, “he married her off”—

to inform you of the strength of the Rabbis. For even though he married her off

the first daughter,

and his disposition was revealed

as to how much he wished to give for his daughter’s dowry, nevertheless, at the marriage of his second daughter, which took place after he died,

we do not follow an assessment.

Rava said to Rav Hisda: We expound in your name, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah.”

He said to him: May it be the will [of Heaven] that all such excellent matters—

you should expound in my name [May it be the will that all the good matters, like this one, you say in my name].

May it be the will of Heaven that you state all good teachings, such as this one, in my name].

And

we raise an objection:

Did Rava say this?!

But it was taught: Rabbi says: A daughter who is nourished from the brothers takes

in her dowry

a tenth of the assets.

And Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi!

Evidently, Rava did not hold in accordance with Rabbi Judah, that one assesses the father’s disposition?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This,

what Rava said, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah,” applies in a case where

we assessed him [we recognized his disposition, whether he was miserly or generous, because he lived among us], and then we have the possibility of assessing his disposition; therefore Rava said that one gives her according to an assessment of her father’s disposition.

when we knew his disposition—whether he was miserly or generous—because he lived among us]. In that case, we can assess his intentions, and therefore Rava said that she is given according to an assessment of her father’s intentions.

This,

what Rabbi said, that they give a tenth of the assets, applies

when we did not assess him,

when we have no possibility of assessing his disposition, since he does not live among us.

This too is evidently correct

that where they recognize the father, they assess according to the father’s disposition.

For Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It once happened that Rabbi gave her one twelfth

of the property.

And seemingly,

the words of Rabbi are difficult

against

each other?

Rather, is it not, learn from this

that one must make our distinction:

This is when we assessed him,

when they recognize the father—they give according to an assessment of his disposition;

this is when we did not assess him,

when we do not recognize his disposition—they give according to the value of the property.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from this.

And now the Gemara discusses Rabbi’s ruling:

With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi said: A daughter who is nourished from the brothers—

takes a tenth of the assets

for her dowry.

They said to him

the Sages

to Rabbi: According to your words, one who has ten daughters and a son—

does the son have nothing in place of the daughters?!

He said to them

Rabbi:

This is what I say: The first [and the Gemara assumed that Rabbi’s intention was the daughter who marries first]

the Gemara assumes that Rabbi means the daughter who marries first]

takes a tenth of the assets. The second

takes a tenth

of what the first left over

for her.

And the third takes what the second left over

for her.

However, after each one took, at the time of her marriage, the one-tenth from what her fellow left, they then

return and divide

among themselves the total sum that all of them received together,

equally.

Thus each one receives “one-tenth of the assets” equally.