|  |  | Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth ### Folio 66a which is her handiwork1 R. Akiba ruled [that it belongs] to herself, how much more so her find? For we learned: [If a woman said to her husband,] 'Konam, if I do aught for your mouth', he need not invalidate her vow;2 R. Akiba, however, said: He must invalidate it, since she might do more work than is due to him!3 — Reverse then: A wife's find belongs to her husband, but R. Akiba ruled [that it belonged] to herself. But surely, when Rabin came4 he stated in the name of R. Johanan: In respect of a surplus5 obtained through no undue exertion all6 agree that [it belongs to the] husband, and they only differ in respect of a surplus5 obtained through undue exertion; the first Tanna being of the opinion [that even this belongs] to her husband while R. Akiba maintains [that it belongs] to herself!7 — R. Papa replied: A find is like a surplus gained through undue exertion,8 [concerning which there is] a difference of opinion between R. Akiba and the Rabbis. R. Papa raised the question: What is the law where she performed for him two [kinds of work] simultaneously?9 Rabina raised the question: What is the ruling where she did three or four [kinds of work]10 simultaneously? — These must remain undecided.11 [ANY COMPENSATION FOR] INDIGNITY OR BLEMISH [THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INFLICTED UPON] HER. Raba son of R. Hanan demurred:12 Now then,13 if a man insulted his fellow's mare would he also have to pay him [compensation for the] indignity? But is a horse then susceptible to insult?14 — This, however, [is the objection:] If a man spat on his fellow's garment would he15 also have to pay him [compensation for this] indignity? And should you say that [the ruling] is really so,16 surely [it can be retorted] we have learned: If a man spat so that the spittle fell upon another person, or uncovered the head of a woman, or removed a cloak from a person he must pay four hundred zuz;17 and R. Papa explained: This has been taught [to apply] only [where it touched] him18 but if it touched his garment only [the offender] is exempt!19 — [An insult] to his garment involves no indignity to him, [but an insult to] his wife does involve an indignity to him.20 Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Now then,21 If a man insulted a poor man of a good family where all the members of the family are involved in the indignity, must he also pay [compensation for] indignity to all the members of the family?22 — The other replied: There23 it is not their own persons [that are insulted]. Here, however, one's wife is [like] one's own body. MISHNAH. IF A MAN UNDERTOOK TO GIVE A FIXED SUM OF MONEY TO HIS SON-IN-LAW AND HIS SON-IN-LAW DIED,24 HE25 MAY, THE SAGES RULED, SAY26 'I WAS WILLING TO GIVE [THE MENTIONED SUM] TO YOUR BROTHER BUT I AM UNWILLING TO GIVE IT TO YOU'.27 IF A WOMAN UNDERTOOK TO BRING HER HUSBAND28 ONE THOUSAND DENARII HE MUST ASSIGN TO HER29 A CORRESPONDING SUM OF FIFTEEN MANEH.30 AS A CORRESPONDING SUM FOR APPRAISED GOODS,31 HOWEVER, HE ASSIGNS29 ONE FIFTH LESS.32 [IF A HUSBAND IS REQUESTED TO ENTER IN HIS WIFE'S KETHUBAH:] 'GOODS ASSESSED AT ONE MANEH', AND THESE ARE IN FACT WORTH A MANEH,33 HE CAN HAVE [A CLAIM FOR] ONE MANEH ONLY.34 [OTHERWISE,35 IF HE IS REQUESTED TO ENTER IN THE KETHUBAH:] 'GOODS ASSESSED AT A MANEH', HIS WIFE MUST GIVE HIM [GOODS OF THE ASSESSED VALUE35 OF] THIRTY-ONE SELA'S AND A DENAR,36 AND IF 'AT FOUR HUNDRED [ZUZ]', SHE MUST GIVE [HIM GOODS VALUED35 AT] FIVE HUNDRED [ZUZ.]37 WHATEVER To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files And should belong to her husband. A husband is entitled to his wife's handiwork (v. our Mishnah) in, return for the maintenance he provides for her (v. supra 58b). Since a wife's work, and even its surplus (v. supra note 6), belongs to her husband, (v. supra note 7) she has no right to dispose of it without his consent. Her vow, therefore, is null and void and no invalidation is required. And of this surplus being her own property, she may well dispose. (For further notes v. supra 59a). How then, Raba argued, could the opinion be entertained that, according to R. Akiba, a wife's find (to which she has a greater claim than to the surplus mentioned) should belong to her husband? From Palestine to Babylon. V. supra note 6. Lit., 'all the world', sc. R. Akiba and the Rabbis. A find should naturally be regarded as a 'surplus obtained through no undue exertion', about which there is no difference of opinion. How then could it be said that the find of a wife is a point in dispute? Most finds are not easily obtained, and before one finds anything valuable among the deposits of the sea, for instance, many hours and days might have to he spent. Acting as watchman, for instance, and spinning at the same time. While doing the former (v. supra n. 2) she was also teaching, for instance. a lesson and hatching eggs. Are such performances regarded as ordinary. or undue exertion? Teku, v. Glos. Against R. Judah b. Bathyra (v. our Mishnah). If a man is to receive compensation for an indignity or injury which he himself has not sustained. Surely not Raba's objection does not, consequently, arise. Cf. supra n. 6 That he must pay compensation. Cf. B.K. 90a. The body of the offended party. Which proves conclusively that for such an offence, since it was not committed on one's person, no compensation is paid. Why then should a husband receive compensation for his wife's sufferings which he himself has not experienced? Read [H] (MS.M.). Cur. edd., read [H], and the rendering (rather unsatisfactory) would be as follows: His garment feels no shame but his wife feels the indignity. If indirect insult also entitles one to compensation. certainly not. Why then should the husband receive compensation for indignity to his wife? The case of indirect insult to the family. Childless; so that his widow should now be married to, or perform halizah (v. Glos.) with his surviving brother (v. Deut. XXV, 5ff) who, in the case of his marriage with the widow, is entitled to the deceased brother's estate (v. Yeb. 40a). The father-in-law. To the surviving brother who by virtue of his right to the estate of the deceased now claims also the slim his father-in-law had promised him. And the brother must, nevertheless, either submit to halizah from the widow or marry her. On marriage. As her kethubah (v. Glos.) V. Glos. He must, in return for the profits he will be able to derive from his trading with her money, add fifty per cent to the amount his wife brought him. A maneh = a hundred denarii (or zuz), and fifteen maneh = fifteen hundred denarii. I.e., if she brought to him, on marriage, goods instead of cash. This kind of dowry is designated Shum (appraisement). Than the appraised value. This refers to an appraisement made during the wedding festivities when the tendency is to over-assess whatever goods the bride brings to her husband. [According to the T.J. a fifth is allowed for the wear and tear of the goods, since her husband is held responsible for them]. I.e., if the assessment was made prior to the wedding festivities. (Cf. p. 401, n. 12). He cannot claim twenty-five percent more than the maneh as in the case where the valuation was made during the wedding festivities (v. supra note 1). l.e., If the valuation was made during the wedding festivities (cf. supra p. 401, n. 12). V. Glos. A sela' = four denarii, thirty-one sela's and one denar = (31 X 4 + 1) 125 denarii. A maneh, or a hundred denarii, is a fifth less than one hundred and twenty-five denarii. [This passage is difficult, and the interpretations of it are many and varied, cf. e.g., Tosaf. s.v. [H]. The explanation given follows Rashi. R. Hai Gaon, on the basis of the T.J. (v. supra p. 401, n. 12) explains: If she promised to bring him a dowry (shum) of property worth a maneh, which does not wear out, and is thus always actually worth a maneh, she need not add a fifth to it, v. Shittah Mekubbezeth; v. p. 406, in the case of a bar of gold]. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Kethuboth 66b A BRIDEGROOM ASSIGNS [TO HIS WIFE IN HER KETHUBAH] HE ASSIGNS AT ONE FIFTH LESS [THAN THE APPRAISED VALUE]. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: There was no need to state that where the first1 was a scholar and the second an 'am ha-'arez [the father-in-law] can say, 'I WAS WILLING TO GIVE [THE MENTIONED SUM] TO YOUR BROTHER BUT I AM UNWILLING TO GIVE IT TO YOU, but even where the first was 'am ha-'arez and the second a scholar he may also say so. IF A WOMAN UNDERTOOK TO BRING TO HER HUSBAND ONE THOUSAND DENARII etc. Are not these2 the same as the case in the first clause?3 — He taught [first concerning a] large assessment4 and then he taught also about a smaller assessment;5 he taught about his assessment6 and he also taught about her assessment.7 M I S H N A H. IF A WOMAN UNDERTOOK TO BRING TO HER HUSBAND8 READY MONEY, EVERY SELA'9 OF HERS COUNTS10 AS SIX DENARII.11 THE BRIDEGROOM MUST UNDERTAKE [TO GIVE HIS WIFE]12 TEN DENARII FOR HER [PERFUME]13 BASKET IN RESPECT OF EACH MANEH.14 R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IN ALL MATTERS THE LOCAL USAGE SHALL BE FOLLOWED. GEMARA. This,15 surely, is exactly [the same ruling as] 'He must assign to her a corresponding sum of fifteen maneh'.16 — He taught first about a major transaction17 and then taught about a minor transaction.18 And [both rulings were] necessary. For had that of the major transaction only been taught it might have been assumed [that it applied to this only] because the profit [it brings in] is large but not to a minor transaction the profit from which is small; [hence it was] necessary [to state the latter]. And had we been informed of that of the minor transaction only it might have been said [to apply to this only] because the expenses and responsibility19 are small but not to a large transaction where the expenses and responsibility are great; [hence it was] necessary [to state the former]. THE BRIDEGROOM MUST UNDERTAKE [TO GIVE HIS WIFE] TEN DENARII FOR HER BASKET. What is meant by BASKET? r. Ashi replied: The perfume basket. R. Ashi further stated: This ruling applies to Jerusalem20 only. R. Ashi enquired: [Is the prescribed perfume allowance21 made] in respect of each maneh valued or each maneh for which [obligation has been] accepted?22 [And even]23 if you could find [some reason] for stating: ['In respect of each] maneh for which [obligation has been] accepted'22 [the question arises: Is the allowance to be made only on] the first day or every day? Should you find [some ground] for deciding: Every day, [the question still remains whether this applies only to the] first week or to every week. Should you find [some authority] for stating: Every week, [it may be asked whether this applies only to the] first month or to every month — And should you find [some argument] for saying: Every month, [It may still be questioned whether this is applicable only to the] first year or to every year. — All this remains undecided.24 Rab Judah related in the name of Rab: It once happened that the daughter of Nakdimon b. Gorion25 was granted by the Sages26 an allowance of four hundred gold coins in respect of her perfume basket for that particular day, and she27 said to them, 'May you grant such allowances for your own daughters!' and they answered after her: Amen.28 Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that R. Johanan b. Zakkai left Jerusalem riding upon an ass, while his disciples followed him, and he saw a girl picking barley grains in the dung of Arab cattle. As soon as she saw him she wrapped herself with her hair and stood before him. 'Master', she said to him, 'feed me'. 'My daughter', he asked her, 'who are you?' 'I am', she replied, 'the daughter of Nakdimon b. Gorion'. 'My daughter', he said to her, 'what has become29 of the wealth of your father's house?' 'Master', she answered him, 'is there not a proverb current in Jerusalem: "The salt30 of money is diminution?"'31 (Others read: Benevolence).32 'And where [the Master asked] is the wealth of your father-in-law's house?' 'The one', she replied, 'came and destroyed the other'.33 'Do you remember, Master', she said to him, 'when you signed my kethubah?' 'I remember', he said to his disciples, 'that when I signed the kethubah of this [unfortunate woman], I read therein "A million gold denarii from her father's house" besides [the amount] from her father-in-law's house'.34 Thereupon R. Johanan b. Zakkai wept and said: 'How happy are Israel;35 when they do the will of the Omnipresent no nation nor any language-speaking group has any power over them; but when they do not do the will of the Omnipresent he delivers them into the hands of a low people, and not only in the hands of a low people but into the power of the beasts of a low people'. Did not Nakdimon b. Gorion, however, practice charity? Surely it was taught: It was said of Nakdimon b. Gorion that, when he walked from his house to the house of study, woollen clothes were - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Brother who died. The latter portions of our Mishnah, which contain various instances of deductions of a fifth. (So Rashi. For another interpretation v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]). AS A CORRESPONDING SUM … HE ASSIGNS ONE FIFTH LESS, which includes all the other instances. ONE THOUSAND DENARII to which the ruling AS A CORRESPONDING SUM … HE ASSIGNS ONE FIFTH LESS refers. GOODS ASSESSED AT A MANEH … THIRTY-ONE SELA'S AND A DENAR. Both cases were necessary, since some might assume that with a larger sum over-estimation is more likely while others might assume that over-estimation is more likely to take place in the case of a smaller sum. WHATEVER A BRIDEGROOM ASSIGNS … ONE FIFTH LESS, referring to a valuation made by him, of goods she had already brought to him before the kethubah had been written. IF AT FOUR HUNDRED [ZUZ] SHE MUST GIVE etc., the last three words implying that the kethubah had already been written and SHE MUST GIVE the required amount of goods which is naturally valued by her (or her relations) to correspond after due deduction with the amount entered in the kethubah. On marriage. Which is worth four denarii. In respect of the corresponding amount to be entered in her kethubah. I.e., fifty percent is added to it as in the case of ready money mentioned in the previous Mishnah. The difference between the two cases will be explained in the Gemara infra. Whether daily, weekly or more rarely has not been stated. According to the explanation of the Gemara. Which she brings on marriage. The ruling in the first clause of our Mishnah. V. previous Mishnah. In that case he adds fifty percent, and so he does in this case also. Why then should the same ruling be recorded twice? A thousand denarii in the previous Mishnah, supra 66a. EVERY SELA' etc. in the Mishnah of ours. [H] (v. Rashi). Jast., 'management, expenses and risks of business': [H], 'a small capital the management of which is easy'. Where the women here in the habit of indulging in the use of perfumes. Ten denarii in respect of each maneh (v. our Mishnah). By the husband in the kethubah. The latter (v. previous Mishnah) amount to one fifth less than the valuation. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]. Teku, v. Glos. Cf. supra 65a (p. 392, n. 6). To whom, when her husband died, she applied for an order for an allowance out of her husband's estate. In her discontent with the amount. V. supra p. 392, n. 10 and text. Lit., 'where did it go'. I.e., the preservative, the safeguard. [H], i.e., spending it in the exercise of charitable and benevolent deeds. As the members of her family were not charitable they lost their money. [H] (v. supra n. 3) interchange of [H] with [H]. The two were mixed up and when the one was lost the other disappeared with it. The addition made to her kethubah by the bridegroom. Read with MS.M., [H]. Cur. edd., [H], 'happy are you'. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |