Ketubot 68a (סח.) — the Talmud in English

“Cancel the silver or cancel the gold” [

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

He said

Rabbi Ḥanina:

This is what Rabbi Elazar said—

Come, let us acknowledge the merit of the swindlers, for were it not for them, we would sin every day. As it is stated (

Deuteronomy 15):

“Beware lest there be a base thought in your heart,” and so on.

But now that there are swindlers, they cause us not to give charity to everyone.

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says—

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

And from where do we derive this?

It is written here (

Deuteronomy 15), with regard to charity:

“Beware lest there be a base thought in your heart,” and so on.

And it is written there (

Deuteronomy 13), with regard to idolatry:

“Certain men, base fellows, have gone out.”

Just as there, the reference is to idolatry, so too here, the reference is to idolatry.

The Sages taught: One who blinds his eye, or inflates his stomach, or cripples his leg,

and deceives the public into thinking that he has a disability, so that they will give him charity,

will not leave this world before he actually comes to such a state.

One who accepts charity although he does not need it will ultimately not leave this world before he actually comes to such a state.

We learned there:

One who possesses two hundred zuz may not take leket, shikheḥa, or pe’a. But if he does not possess two hundred zuz,

he is not required to sell his house or his household utensils

in order to make up the amount of two hundred, but he may take leket, shikheḥa, and pe’a.

And we challenge this:

A

if

he is not

forced to sell them?!

But was it not taught in a beraita: “If he was using gold utensils, he should use silver utensils; if he was using silver utensils, he should use copper utensils”?

This proves that he is required to sell his utensils in order to make up the amount of two hundred zuz. And we answer:

Rav Zevid said: This is not difficult. This

where he is required to use simple utensils refers

to a bed and a table.

And

this

where he is not forced to sell them refers

to cups and bowls.

We examine this:

What is different about cups and bowls, for which he is not

required to sell them, because

he says, “They are repulsive to me,”

whereas

with regard to a bed and a table, he could likewise say, “I cannot accept them”?

Rava, son of Rabba, said:

Only

a silver plow

is

something he is required to sell, since this object is certainly not repulsive. But he is not required to sell his other utensils.

Rav Pappa said: This is not difficult. Here, it is before he comes to collect; there, it is after he comes to collect. [

That is, the statement we learned, “he is not required,” refers to when he has come to collect leket, shikheḥa, and pe’a, and he does not possess two hundred zuz. In that case he is not required to sell his utensils in order to make up the amount of two hundred zuz.

The statement we learned, “he is required,” refers to a case where he collected leket, shikheḥa, and pe’a, and afterward it became known that he had possessed two hundred zuz at that time. A court comes to collect from him what he took unlawfully; then, if he no longer has the money, he is required to sell his household utensils. Rashi].

Mishna:

The Sages enacted that if a father dies and leaves behind an unmarried daughter, the heirs are required to marry her off and give her a dowry from the estate.

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

An orphan

who is a minor

whom her mother or her brothers married off with her consent,

and they wrote her a ketuba

for one hundred or fifty zuz [

where the sum 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, while she was a minor, she agreed to what they wrote for her.

And how is what is appropriate for her assessed?

Rabbi Yehuda says: If her father married off

the

first daughter

before his death,

the second shall 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 her share should not be assessed according to what was given to the older daughter;

rather, the estate is assessed and she is given

according to what people possessing such wealth customarily give their daughters.

Gemara:

Shmuel said: With regard to support [the orphaned daughter who comes to marry, where the question is what amount of dowry she is entitled to receive from her father’s estate]—

the father is assessed,

whether he was miserly or generous, and she is given a dowry according to that assessment.

Meytivi

against Shmuel from a beraita, where we learned:

The daughters are fed and supported from their father’s estate.

How so?

We do not say, “Had her father

been

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

Rather, the estate is assessed, and she is given .

The Gemara infers:

Is it not

the meaning of the beraita when it says “are supported” that this refers to the dowry, which is called

“support for the husband,”

and we learned in the beraita that “the estate is assessed,” meaning that she is given according to the value of the estate, and not according to Shmuel’s statement that she is given according to an assessment of the father’s intentions?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: No!

The beraita concerns

her own support [

her food while she is living with her brothers].

And we challenge this:

This

two separate expressions—

“are fed” and “are supported”—

it teaches

in the beraita!

Is it not

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

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

and in both cases “the estate is assessed,” rather than the father’s intentions?!

And we answer:

No! Both this and that

that is, both expressions, “are fed” and “are supported”—refer only

to her own support,

and not to the dowry.

And it is not difficult

to account for the repetition of the expressions.

This [“are fed” refers]

to

eating and drinking.

And this [“are supported” refers]

to

clothing and covering.

The measure is as explained above, on page 64b, with regard to a poor person. In the case of a wealthy person, it is according to his honor.

The Gemara continues its discussion of Shmuel’s statement:

We learned

in our Mishna:

“And the Sages say: Sometimes a person is poor and becomes wealthy, or wealthy and becomes poor. Rather, the estate is assessed and she is given.”

We examine this:

What is meant by poor, and what is meant by wealthy?

If we say that “poor”

means

poor in assets,

and

“wealthy”

means

wealthy in assets,

then the Sages held that her share is not assessed according to what was given to the first daughter, but rather “the estate is assessed,” meaning that the father’s intentions are assessed, in accordance with Shmuel’s opinion, to determine whether he was miserly or generous.

By inference

you learn

that the first tanna [

Rabbi Yehuda], who disagreed with them,

held

that

even if he was

wealthy and then

wealthy and became poor,

nevertheless,

we give her as he gave originally,

according to the time when he was wealthy.

But it cannot be explained this way, for

he does not have it!

He has nothing, so how can he give what he does not have?!

Rather, is it not

necessarily the intention of the Sages when they say

“poor”—

poor in disposition [

miserly].

“Wealthy”—

wealthy in disposition [

generous].

And it teaches

in our Mishna that even so, her share is not assessed according to the disposition known to us, for perhaps his disposition changed; rather,

“the estate is assessed, and she is given.”

Apparently, we do not follow an assessment of intentions!

And this is a refutation of Shmuel,

who said, “The father is assessed”?

And we answer:

He

[Shmuel] held

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

For we learned

in our Mishna:

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

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

Apparently, everything depends on an assessment of the father’s intentions, namely, how much he gives his daughters.

And

we challenge this: If so,

let Shmuel say

Shmuel

“The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda”!

Why did he state his ruling in the innovative formulation, “With regard to support, the father is assessed”?

And we answer:

Had

Shmuel said

“The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,” I would have said that this applies specifically

when he

married off

the

first

daughter,

thereby revealing his intentions

as to how much he gives, and then we follow the assessment of the father’s intentions.

But

if he

did not marry her off, it does not apply.

His intentions are not assessed; rather, she is given according to the estate.

He teaches us

Shmuel that

the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion

is

that we follow an assessment of intentions. It makes no difference whether he married her off or whether he did not marry her off.

And the fact that he teaches “married her off” is

to show you the force of the Sages’ opinion. For even though he married off

the first daughter,

and revealed his intentions

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

we do not follow an assessment of intentions.

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

He said to him: May it be the will of Heaven that all such excellent teachings

be expounded in my name [

May it be the will of Heaven that all good teachings, like this one, be stated in my name].

And

we challenge this:

Did Rava actually say this?!

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi says: A daughter who is supported from her brothers receives

for her dowry

one tenth of the estate.

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

Apparently, Rava did not agree with Rabbi Yehuda, who held that the father’s intentions are assessed?

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

This

statement of Rava, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,” applies when

we had assessed him [

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

This

statement of Rabbi, that she is given one tenth of the estate, applies

when we had not assessed him,

when we have no ability to assess his intentions because he did not live among us.

It is likewise reasonable

that when the father is known, his intentions are assessed.

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

of the estate.

Apparently,

the words of Rabbi

are

contradictory to one another?

Rather, is it not possible to infer

that our distinction should be made:

This when

we had assessed him,

and knew the father—she is given according to an assessment of his intentions;

this when

we had not assessed him, and do not know his intentions—she is given according to the value of the estate.

Indeed, infer from here.

The Gemara now discusses Rabbi’s ruling:

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

receives one tenth of the estate

for her dowry.

The Sages said

to Rabbi:

According to your statement, if one has ten daughters and one son—

does the son have nothing at all in the presence of the daughters?!

He said to them,

Rabbi:

This is what I say: The first [

and the Gemara assumed that Rabbi meant the daughter who marries first]

receives one tenth of the estate. The second

receives one tenth

of what the first left over

from the estate.

And the third receives one tenth of what

the second left over.

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

return and divide

among themselves the total sum that they had all received together,

equally.

Thus, each one receives an equal “one-tenth of the assets.”