## Ketubot Daf 67a

###### Ketubot 67a:1
[Ketubot 67a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:1)

מַצִּיעִין תַּחְתָּיו, וּבָאִין עֲנִיִּים וּמְקַפְּלִין אוֹתָן מֵאַחֲרָיו! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לִכְבוֹדוֹ הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּדְבָעֵי לֵיהּ לְמִיעְבַּד לָא עֲבַד. כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: לְפוּם גַּמְלָא שִׁיחְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**spread underneath him** to walk on, **and** with his blessing, **the poor** would **come and fold them up from behind him** for themselves? Clearly he gave abundant charity. The Gemara offers two possible explanations: **If you wish, say that he acted** that way **for his own honor,** to demonstrate that he considered the exorbitant expense trivial. **And if you wish, say that as he should have done, he did not do. As people say, according to the camel** is **the burden.** The stronger the camel, the heavier the load it must bear. Even if he gave altruistically, Nakdimon ben Guryon did not give as much as he was expected to give.


###### Ketubot 67a:2
[Ketubot 67a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:2)

תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק: אֶרְאֶה בְּנֶחָמָה, אִם לֹא רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְלַקֶּטֶת שְׂעוֹרִים מִבֵּין טַלְפֵי סוּסִים בְּעַכּוֹ. קָרָאתִי עָלֶיהָ מִקְרָא זֶה: ״אִם לֹא תֵדְעִי לָךְ הַיָּפָה בַּנָּשִׁים צְאִי לָךְ בְּעִקְבֵי הַצֹּאן וּרְעִי אֶת גְּדִיּוֹתַיִךְ״. אַל תִּקְרֵי ״גְּדִיּוֹתַיִךְ״, אֶלָּא ״גְּוִיּוֹתַיִךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 5:8) with regard to the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon: **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said** in the form of an oath: I pray that **I will** not **see the consolation** of the Jewish people **if I did not see her gathering barley** kernels **from between the hooves of horses in Akko. I recited this verse about her: “If you know not, O you fairest among women, go your way forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed your kids,** beside the shepherds’ tents” (Song of Songs 1:8). **Do not read** it as **“your kids [*gediyotayikh*]” but rather** read it as **your bodies [*geviyotayikh*].** This woman is compelled to follow the sheep to the pastures in order to sustain her own body from the leftovers of their food.


###### Ketubot 67a:3
[Ketubot 67a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:3)

אָמַר רַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ זָהָב — שָׁמִין אוֹתוֹ, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּשׇׁוְויוֹ. מֵיתִיבִי: הַזָּהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים. מַאי לָאו: כְּכֵלִים שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, דְּפָחֲתִי! לָא, כְּכֵלִים שֶׁל זָהָב, דְּלָא פָּחֲתִי. אִם כֵּן, כְּכֵלָיו מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the topic of how the groom records the bride’s dowry in the marriage contract: **Rav Shemen bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If **she brings him gold** in her dowry, the court **appraises it, and it is** recorded in the marriage contract **according to its value,** without additions or subtractions. The Gemara **raises an objection** from that which was taught in a *baraita*: The *halakha* is that **the gold is like utensils** and not like cash for purposes of the dowry. The Gemara qualifies its objection: **What, is it not** that gold is **like** silver vessels, **which diminish,** so that they resemble all other goods in the dowry whose values are reduced in the marriage contract? The Gemara responds: **No,** the intent is that gold is **like utensils of gold, which do not diminish.** The Gemara asks: **If so,** the *baraita* **should have** stated that gold is **like its** own **utensils,** which would demonstrate that gold is appraised according to its true value. Evidently, then, this is not true of gold.


###### Ketubot 67a:4
[Ketubot 67a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:4)

וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: זָהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים. דִּינְרֵי זָהָב, הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְסָפִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן — שָׁמִין אוֹתָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּשׇׁוְויֵהֶן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן? הָא לָא נָפְקִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And moreover,** one can ask: **It is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 6:2) that the *halakha* is that **gold is like utensils** and that **gold** dinars **are like silver** coins. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where** people **were accustomed not to exchange them,** the court **appraises them, and they are** recorded **at their appraised worth,** no more or less. The Gemara clarifies: **To which** clause is **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** referring, when he comments that they are not exchanged? **If we say** he is commenting **on the latter clause** concerning the gold dinars, **by inference** it may be understood **that the first *tanna* holds** that gold dinars have the same status as cash, **even in a place where** people **were accustomed not to exchange them. But they are not used** and do not function as liquid money in a place where they are not exchanged. Why, then, does the husband need to raise the value as though they were functional cash?


###### Ketubot 67a:5
[Ketubot 67a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:5)

אֶלָּא לָאו אַרֵישָׁא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: זָהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים, מַאי כֵּלִים — כֵּלִים שֶׁל כֶּסֶף. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא כְּדִינָרִין שֶׁל זָהָב, בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commented **on the first clause** of the *baraita*, **and this is what** the *baraita* **is saying:** The *halakha* is that **gold is like utensils. What** is meant by the ambiguous term **utensils? Utensils of silver. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** qualifies this ruling and **says:** The *halakha* is that **it is like gold** dinars, whose value remains constant, **in a place where they are accustomed not to exchange it** or use it for business. In any event, the opinion of the first *tanna* in this *baraita*, that gold is treated like silver utensils, contradicts the previous assertion that gold must have the status of gold utensils, not silver utensils.


###### Ketubot 67a:6
[Ketubot 67a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:6)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אַסֵּיפָא, וּדְנָפְקִי עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק. וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקִי, מַשְׁבְּחִינַן לַהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא נָפְקִי אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק, לָא מַשְׁבְּחִינַן לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No, actually** it must be that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commented **on the latter clause** of the *baraita*, which deals with gold dinars, **and** they are not exchanged **because they are used** as cash only **with difficulty.** They are not typically used for business, but they could be used when necessary. **And** consequently, **they disagree about this:** One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds since they are used** when necessary, **we increase** the value of gold dinars **for** the wife in the dowry, and the husband writes an increased sum in the marriage contract. **And** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds since they are used** for commerce **only with difficulty, we do not increase** the value of gold dinars **for her.** According to this interpretation, the first opinion can still subscribe to the notion that gold pieces, like gold utensils, are appraised at their actual value.


###### Ketubot 67a:7
[Ketubot 67a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:7)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כּוּלַּהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: זָהָב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֵלִים, דִּינְרֵי זָהָב הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְסָפִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְפוֹרְטָן. אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן — שָׁמִין אוֹתָם וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּשׇׁוְויֵהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. שֶׁרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפוֹרְטָן, שָׁמִין אוֹתָם וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּשׇׁוְויֵהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** instead that the **entire** *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and** the *baraita* **is incomplete and this** is what **it is teaching:** The *halakha* is that a piece of **gold is like utensils** and **gold dinars are like money. In what** case **is this statement said? In a place where** the people were **accustomed to exchange the** dinars. **However, in a place where the** people were **accustomed not to exchange the** dinars, the court **appraises their** worth, **and they are** recorded **at their appraised worth.** This is **the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where the** people were **accustomed not to exchange them,** the court **appraises their** worth, **and they are** recorded **at their appraised worth.**


###### Ketubot 67a:8
[Ketubot 67a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:8)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״כְּכֵלָיו״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּדַהֲבָא פְּרִיכָא. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּמַמְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The contradiction from this *baraita* has been resolved, but **in any case,** a difficulty remains: If the status of gold is similar to that of gold utensils and it is appraised at its actual value, the *baraita* **should have** stated that gold is **like its** own **utensils** and not simply like any utensils. The Gemara answers: The language is **difficult. If you wish, say** the following answer instead: **With what are we dealing here? With smashed gold** fragments. **Rav Ashi said:** We are dealing **with granules** of gold. Certainly, then, they are not treated as gold utensils, but the novel element of the *baraita* is that they have the status of regular utensils and not of gold dinars.


###### Ketubot 67a:9
[Ketubot 67a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל אַנְטוֹכְיָא — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְסָפִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גְּמַלִּים שֶׁל עַרְבִיָּא — אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the preceding discussion concerning the appraisal of objects used for commerce, the Gemara cites a series of related comments. **Rabbi Yannai said:** With regard to **spices in Antioch,** they **are like money.** Since in Antioch they would conduct business with spices, they should be treated like cash when a woman brings them in her dowry. Similarly, **Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** Concerning **camels in Arabia, a woman may collect** the amount of her **marriage settlement from them.** Since they conduct business using camels in Arabia, the camels are consequently given the status that money has in other places.


###### Ketubot 67a:10
[Ketubot 67a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:10)

אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי: הָנֵי תּוֹתְבֵי דְּבֵי מִכְסֵי, אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶם. וְאָמַר רַב פַּפִּי: הָנֵי שַׂקֵּי דְרוּדְיָא וְאַשְׁלֵי דְקִמְחוֹנְיָא — אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶן. אָמַר רָבָא, מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי אַרְנְקֵי דְמָחוֹזָא — אִשָּׁה גּוֹבָה פֻּרְנָא מֵהֶם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אַסְמַכְתַּיְיהוּ עֲלַיְיהוּ. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזַאי דְּשָׁקְלִי לְהוּ וְנָפְקִי, וְכִי מַשְׁכְּחִי אַרְעָא זָבְנִי בְּהוּ, אָמֵינָא: אַסְמַכְתַּיְיהוּ אַאַרְעָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **Rav Pappi said:** With regard to **those robes in Bei Mikhsei, a woman may collect** her **marriage settlement from them** because they use dresses for commerce. **And Rav Pappi said:** With regard to **these sacks in Rodya and ropes in Kimḥonya, a woman may collect** her **marriage settlement from them. Rava said: Initially, I would have said** that concerning **those money pouches [*arnakei*] in Meḥoza, a woman may collect** her marriage settlement **from them. What is the reason? They rely on them,** and they serve the commercial function served by real estate in other places. **Once I saw that they take them and** the pouches **are used, and when they find land they buy** it **with them** and do not retain them, **I said** that they too **rely on land.** The money pouches are used in a fluid manner, but these pouches do not serve the same role served by real estate.


###### Ketubot 67a:11
[Ketubot 67a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת בִּתּוֹ סְתָם — לֹא יִפְחוֹת לָהּ מֵחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. פָּסַק לְהַכְנִיסָהּ עֲרוּמָּה — לֹא יֹאמַר הַבַּעַל ״כְּשֶׁאַכְנִיסֶנָּה לְבֵיתִי אֲכַסֶּנָּה בִּכְסוּתִי״, אֶלָּא מְכַסָּהּ וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. וְכֵן הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת הַיְּתוֹמָה — לֹא יִפְחוֹת לָהּ מֵחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. אִם יֵשׁ בַּכִּיס — מְפַרְנְסִין אוֹתָהּ לְפִי כְּבוֹדָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who marries** off **his daughter** with the terms of the dowry **unspecified, he must not give her less than fifty dinars.** If the bride’s father **pledged to bring her** into the marriage **bare,** by saying that he refuses to give her anything, **the husband should not say: When I bring her into my house, I will clothe her with my clothing,** but not beforehand. **Rather, he must clothe her while she is yet in her father’s house,** and she enters the marriage with the clothing in hand. **And similarly,** with regard to a charity administrator **who marries** off **an orphan girl,** he **must not give her less than fifty dinars. If there are** sufficient resources **in the** charity **fund,** the charities **provide** even more **for her,** furnishing a dowry and her other needs **according to her dignity.**


###### Ketubot 67a:12
[Ketubot 67a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חֲמִשִּׁים זוּזֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי. מִמַּאי — מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם יֵשׁ בַּכִּיס — מְפַרְנְסִין אוֹתָהּ לְפִי כְּבוֹדָהּ, וְאָמְרִינַן מַאי כִּיס? אָמַר רַחֲבָה: אַרְנְקִי שֶׁל צְדָקָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין חֲמִשִּׁים זוּזֵי מַמָּשׁ, אִם יֵשׁ בַּכִּיס כַּמָּה יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּזֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Abaye said:** The **fifty dinars** mentioned in the mishna is referring to fifty **provincial** dinars, each of which is worth one-eighth the amount of a standard dinar. **From where** do I know that this is so? **From** the fact **that the latter clause teaches: If there are** sufficient resources **in the** charity **fund,** the charities **provide** more **for her,** furnishing a dowry and her other needs **according to her dignity. And we say: What is** this **fund? Raḥava said:** The **charity fund. And if it enters our minds** to say that the mishna is referring to **fifty actual,** i.e., standard, **dinars, if there are** sufficient resources **in the fund, how many** standard dinars **do we give him?** Fifty standard dinars is already a sizable sum to distribute as charity. **Rather, conclude from this** comment that the mishna is referring to **fifty provincial dinars.**


###### Ketubot 67a:13
[Ketubot 67a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/67a:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה שֶׁבָּאוּ לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — מְפַרְנְסִין אֶת הַיְּתוֹמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְפַרְנְסִין אֶת הַיָּתוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאִישׁ דַּרְכּוֹ לַחְזוֹר עַל הַפְּתָחִים, וְאֵין אִשָּׁה דַּרְכָּהּ לַחְזוֹר. יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** Concerning **an orphan boy and an orphan girl who have come** and appealed **to be supported** by the charity fund, the distributors **provide for the orphan girl** first **and afterward** they **provide for the orphan boy.** This is **because it is the way of a man to circulate about the entryways** to ask for charity, **and it is not a woman’s way to circulate** for charity. Therefore, her need is greater. Concerning **an orphan boy and orphan girl**