## Ketubot Daf 66a

###### Ketubot 66a:1
[Ketubot 66a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/66a:1)

דְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ הִיא, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְעַצְמָהּ — מְצִיאָתָהּ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**which is** categorized as part of **her earnings** and to which the husband has rights, **Rabbi Akiva says** the surplus belongs **to her,** then with regard to lost **objects** that **she found,** which are unrelated to her handiwork, do they **not all the more so** belong to her?


###### Ketubot 66a:2
[Ketubot 66a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/66a:2)

דִּתְנַן: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי עוֹשָׂה לְפִיךָ״ — אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא תַּעֲדִיף עָלָיו יוֹתֵר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ! אֶלָּא אֵיפוֹךְ: מְצִיאַת הָאִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לְעַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
That is Rabbi Akiva’s opinion with regard to surplus, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Nedarim* 85a): With regard to a woman who said to her husband: Anything **that I produce** will be ***konam*,** i.e., forbidden like an offering, **to your mouth, he need not nullify** the vow. The vow never took effect at all because a woman cannot prohibit her husband from items produced by actions that she is obligated to perform for him. **Rabbi Akiva says: He should nullify** the vow, **lest she produce surplus** that is **more than** the amount that **is fitting for him,** and the vow will take effect on the surplus, which she is not obligated to provide him. According to Rabbi Akiva, any surplus belongs to her. The Gemara answers: **Rather, reverse** the opinions: Lost **objects found by a wife** belong **to her husband; Rabbi Akiva says:** They belong **to her.**


###### Ketubot 66a:3
[Ketubot 66a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/66a:3)

וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבַעַל הָוֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לְבַעְלָהּ, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר לְעַצְמָהּ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מְצִיאָתָהּ כְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק דָּמֵי. פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael, **didn’t** he say that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to surplus that is not** produced **through** extraordinary **effort, everyone agrees that it is** the **husband’s. Where they disagree** is in a case **of surplus that is** produced **through** extraordinary **effort. The first *tanna* holds** that the surplus belongs **to her husband, and Rabbi Akiva holds** that the surplus belongs **to her.** Apparently, there is no need to reverse the opinions, as Rabbi Akiva acknowledges that there are instances in which surplus belongs to the husband (Rid). The Gemara responds: **Rav Pappa said:** A lost **object found by** a wife is **comparable to surplus that is** produced **through** extraordinary **effort,** as this is not a regular occurrence. Therefore, lost objects are subject to the **dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis.**


###### Ketubot 66a:4
[Ketubot 66a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/66a:4)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: עָשְׂתָה לוֹ שְׁתַּיִם בְּבַת אַחַת, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי רָבִינָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ אַרְבָּעָה בְּבַת אַחַת, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa raises a dilemma:** In a case where **she performed two** tasks **for him simultaneously, what is** the *halakha*; is the status of the earnings the same as surplus produced through exertion? Similarly, **Ravina raises a dilemma:** In a case where she performed **three or four** tasks **simultaneously, what is** the *halakha*? The dilemmas **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Ketubot 66a:5
[Ketubot 66a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/66a:5)

בּוֹשְׁתָּהּ וּפְגָמָהּ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בִּיֵּישׁ סוּסָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתַּן לֵיהּ בּוֹשֶׁת? וְסוּס בַּר בּוֹשֶׁת הוּא?! אֶלָּא: רָקַק בְּבִגְדוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתַּן לֵיהּ בּוֹשֶׁת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that payments for **her humiliation and** for **her degradation** belong to her, but that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira holds that the husband receives a portion of the compensation. **Rava bar Rav Ḥanan strongly objects to this: If that is so** according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, then if one **humiliated another’s horse,** is it then the *halakha* **that also** such an offender **is required to give him** payment for **humiliation?** The Gemara asks: **And** is **a horse subject to humiliation?** How is a horse, who suffers no humiliation, comparable to a person, who does suffer from humiliation? **Rather,** the question is: According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, **if one spat on another’s clothing,** is the *halakha* **that also** such an offender **be required to give him** payment for **humiliation?**


###### Ketubot 66a:6
[Ketubot 66a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/66a:6)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי — וְהָתְנַן: רָקַק וְהִגִּיעַ בּוֹ הָרוֹק, וּפָרַע רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה, וְהֶעֱבִיר טַלִּיתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ — חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז. וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בּוֹ, אֲבָל בְּבִגְדּוֹ — פָּטוּר! בְּבִגְדּוֹ — לֵית לֵיהּ זִילוּתָא, אִשְׁתּוֹ — אִית לַהּ זִילוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **indeed** he would be required to pay, **but didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Bava Kamma* 90a): If **he spat** at another person **and the saliva reached him, or** if **he uncovered a woman’s head, or** if **he removed his garment from** another, **he is obligated to give him** a payment of **four hundred dinars,** because of the extreme humiliation that he caused. **And Rav Pappa said: They taught** that he must pay four hundred dinars **only** when the spit reached **his** person. **However,** if the saliva reached **his garment,** the one who spat is **exempt.** Why, then, is one who humiliates a woman required to pay compensation to her husband? The Gemara rejects the comparison: When a person spits **on one’s garment, he does not** suffer **dishonor,** but if **one’s wife** is humiliated, **she** suffers **dishonor,** which causes him humiliation.


###### Ketubot 66a:7
[Ketubot 66a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/66a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בִּיֵּישׁ עָנִי בֶּן טוֹבִים, דְּאִית לְהוּ זִילוּתָא לְכוּלְּהוּ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתַּן לְהוּ בּוֹשֶׁת לְכׇל בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם — לָאו גּוּפַיְיהוּ, הָכָא — אִשְׁתּוֹ גּוּפֵיהּ הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: However, if that is so,** if **one humiliated a poor person of noble descent, where there is dishonor for all members of the family,** is the *halakha* **also that he is required to give** payment for **humiliation to all members of the family?** Rav Ashi **said to him** that there is a distinction between one’s wife and one’s relatives. **There,** where a relative was humiliated, it is **not** as if **they themselves** had suffered the humiliation. **Here,** since **one’s wife is** considered **his own self,** it is as if he himself were humiliated.


###### Ketubot 66a:8
[Ketubot 66a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/66a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַפּוֹסֵק מָעוֹת לַחֲתָנוֹ, וּמֵת חֲתָנוֹ, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: יָכוֹל הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר: לְאָחִיךָ הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן, וְלָךְ אִי אֶפְשִׁי לִיתֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who pledges** to set aside a sum of **money for his son-in-law** as part of a dowry, **and his son-in-law dies** before receiving the money, the terms of the dowry do not transfer to the brother, who is now the *yavam* of the widow. **The Sages said:** The father-in-law **can say** to the *yavam*: **To your brother, I wanted to give** this money, **but to you I do not want to give** it.


###### Ketubot 66a:9
[Ketubot 66a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/66a:9)

פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ אֶלֶף דִּינָר — הוּא פּוֹסֵק כְּנֶגְדָּן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מָנֶה, וּכְנֶגֶד הַשּׁוּם הוּא פּוֹסֵק פָּחוֹת חוֹמֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna addresses another matter. If the woman had **pledged to bring in for him one thousand dinars** in cash as a dowry, **he** then **pledges,** in the marriage contract, that he will give her **fifteen hundred dinars against them.** That is, he writes in the marriage document that in the event of divorce or his death, he will pay her that greater amount. **And against** the **appraisal** of goods such as utensils and other movable items that are included in the dowry, **he pledges one-fifth less** than the amount of the evaluation. This is because movable property is generally assessed at a value one-fifth higher than the actual value, and he cannot earn any money from these items.


###### Ketubot 66a:10
[Ketubot 66a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/66a:10)

שׁוּם בְּמָנֶה וְשָׁוֶה מָנֶה — אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה. שׁוּם בְּמָנֶה, הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד סֶלַע וְדִינָר. וּבְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת. מַה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the **appraisal** is set **at one hundred dinars and** the property **is** actually **worth one hundred dinars,** then since the appraisal is conducted at market value **he has** a claim to property worth **only one hundred dinars.** Likewise, he may not record a decreased sum of property. His recorded **appraisal** of the movable property that she brings into the marriage is **one hundred dinars** only when **she is giving thirty-one *sela* and** one **dinar,** equal to 125 dinars. This is because the actual value is one-fifth less than the inflated evaluation, as explained. **And** similarly, he pledges **four hundred** dinars against her assets only when **she is giving five hundred,** based on the inflated assessment of their worth, such that the real value is four hundred dinars. In contrast, **what**