## Ketubot Daf 68a

###### Ketubot 68a:1
[Ketubot 68a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:1)

בִּטְלֵי כֶסֶף אוֹ בִּטְלֵי זָהָב? אָמַר: הַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בּוֹאוּ וְנַחֲזִיק טוֹבָה לָרַמָּאִין, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הֵן, הָיִינוּ חוֹטְאִין בְּכׇל יוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְקָרָא עָלֶיךָ אֶל ה׳ וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Silver,** i.e., white, **tablecloths [*telei*] or gold,** i.e., colored, **tablecloths?** Clearly, then, they are not entitled to charity. Rabbi Ḥanina **said: This is what Rabbi Elazar said: Come and let us appreciate the swindlers** who ask for charity that they do not need, **because were it not** for **them,** who command our attention and receive our charity, **we would be sinning every day** in failing to properly support the truly poor, **as it is stated:** “Beware that there be not a base thought in your heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you will not give him; **and he cry to the Lord against you, and it be sin in you”** (Deuteronomy 15:9). Because the swindlers take our money in the name of charity, we have an excuse of sorts for failing to fully meet the needs of the truly poor.


###### Ketubot 68a:2
[Ketubot 68a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:2)

וְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב מִדִּיפְתִּי, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַמַּעֲלִים עֵינָיו מִן הַצְּדָקָה — כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן יִהְיֶה דָבָר עִם לְבָבְךָ בְלִיַּעַל וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״יָצְאוּ אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל״. מָה לְהַלָּן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אַף כָּאן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:** With regard to **anyone who averts his eyes from the** obligation to give **charity,** it **is as if he engages in idol worship.** It is **written here** concerning charity: **“Beware that there be not a base [*beliya’al*] thought in your heart…**and you will not give him” (Deuteronomy 15:9), **and** it is **written there** concerning idolatry: **“Certain base [*beliya’al*] fellows** have **gone out”** (Deuteronomy 13:14). **Just as there,** in the latter verse, the word “base [*beliya’al*]” is referring to **idol worship, so too here,** this expression indicates a sin on the scale of **idol worship.**


###### Ketubot 68a:3
[Ketubot 68a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְסַמֵּא אֶת עֵינוֹ וְהַמַּצְבֶּה אֶת בִּטְנוֹ, וְהַמְקַפֵּחַ אֶת שׁוֹקוֹ — אֵינוֹ נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי כָךְ. הַמְקַבֵּל צְדָקָה וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְכָךְ — סוֹפוֹ אֵינוֹ נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי כָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a *baraita* relating to swindlers who collect charity. **The Sages taught: One who** falsely **blinds his eye, and one who bloats his stomach** as if he were sick, **and one who** falsely **crushes [*mekape’aḥ*] his leg,** in order to benefit dishonestly from charity, **will not depart from the world before he comes to this** same plight, and he will truly suffer from the ailment that he feigned. More generally, **one who receives charity and does not need it, his end** will be that **he will not depart from the world before he comes to this** state of actually needing charity.


###### Ketubot 68a:4
[Ketubot 68a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:4)

תְּנַן הָתָם: אֵין מְחַיְּיבִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְכּוֹר אֶת בֵּיתוֹ וְאֶת כְּלֵי תַשְׁמִישׁוֹ. וְלָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: הָיָה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי זָהָב — יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי כֶסֶף, בִּכְלֵי כֶסֶף — יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי נְחוֹשֶׁת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned in a mishna elsewhere** (*Pe’a* 8:8): Who is entitled to receive charity? Whoever has less than two hundred dinars. However, the administrators of the charities **do not require him to sell his house and his accessories** to reach the threshold of two hundred dinars. For the purposes of charity, his wealth is calculated based on cash alone. The Gemara asks: **And** do we **not** insist that he sell property? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If **he was** accustomed to **use gold wares, he should** now **use silver wares.** If he was accustomed to use **silver wares,** he should now use **copper wares.** This indicates that he is required to sell at least some of his possessions.


###### Ketubot 68a:5
[Ketubot 68a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:5)

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּמִטָּה וְשׁוּלְחָן, הָא — בְּכוֹסוֹת וּקְעָרוֹת. מַאי שְׁנָא כּוֹסוֹת וּקְעָרוֹת דְּלָא — דְּאָמַר: מְאִיסִי לִי. מִטָּה וְשׁוּלְחָן נָמֵי, אָמַר: לָא מְקַבַּל עִילָּוַאי. אָמַר רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: בְּמַחֲרֵישָׁה דְכַסְפָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid said: This** is **not difficult. This** source, which requires him to sell wares and lower his standard of living, speaks **of a bed and a table,** and **that** source, which does not require him to sell his accessories, speaks **of** his **cups and plates.** The Gemara asks: **What is different** about **cups and plates, that** he is **not** required to sell them? It is **because he says:** The cheaper ones are **disgusting to me,** and I cannot eat with them. The Gemara asks further: If so, with regard to **a bed and a table** he may **also say: I do not accept** these lesser wares **upon myself,** as they are uncomfortable for me. What is the difference between the furnishings and the dishes? **Rava, son of Rabba, said:** There is no difference; he need not sell furnishings either. The *baraita* requiring him to sell his property speaks **of a silver comb** on his table or another comparable novelty or decorative item. Such articles must be sold, but necessities, even luxurious or high quality ones, need not be sold.


###### Ketubot 68a:6
[Ketubot 68a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:6)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי גִיבּוּי. כָּאן — לְאַחַר שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי גִיבּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers an alternative resolution to the contradiction concerning the requirement to sell property. **Rav Pappa said: This** is **not difficult. Here,** the source that does not require him to sell property describes circumstances **before he comes to** the point of **collecting** charity. **There,** the source that requires him to sell property addresses a case that may arise **after he comes to** the point of **collecting** charity. If he has more than two hundred dinars and nevertheless collects charity, the court will reclaim from him the charity he has collected. In the event that he does not have enough cash to pay, he is required to sell his property of any type and downgrade to lesser items.


###### Ketubot 68a:7
[Ketubot 68a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** יְתוֹמָה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאַתָּה אִמָּהּ אוֹ אַחֶיהָ מִדַּעְתָּהּ, וְכָתְבוּ לָהּ בְּמֵאָה אוֹ בַּחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז — יְכוֹלָה הִיא מִשֶּׁתַּגְדִּיל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָן מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לְהִנָּתֵן לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to a minor **orphan girl whose mother or brothers married her off,** even **with her consent** to a small dowry, she retains her rights to a proper dowry. **And** thus, if they **wrote for her** a dowry **of one hundred or of fifty dinars, she may, upon reaching majority, exact from** her mother, or brothers, or their respective estates the sum of money **that is fit to be given to her** as a dowry, which is one-tenth of the family’s estate. Even if she agreed to forgo part of this sum as a minor, she may collect it as an adult.


###### Ketubot 68a:8
[Ketubot 68a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:8)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הִשִּׂיא אֶת הַבַּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — יִנָּתֵן לַשְּׁנִיָּה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנָּתַן לָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, אוֹ עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי. אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says: If** the father **married off the first daughter** before he died, a dowry **should be given to the second** daughter **in the same manner that he gave** one **to the first** daughter. **And the Rabbis say:** There is no ready standard, since **sometimes a person** is **poor and** then **becomes wealthy, or** a person is **wealthy** and then **becomes poor,** so a family’s allowance for dowries is subject to change. **Rather,** the court **appraises the property and gives her** the appropriate sum.


###### Ketubot 68a:9
[Ketubot 68a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְפַרְנָסָה — שָׁמִין בָּאָב. מֵתִיבִי: הַבָּנוֹת נִיזּוֹנוֹת וּמִתְפַּרְנְסוֹת מִנִּכְסֵי אֲבִיהֶן. כֵּיצַד? אֵין אוֹמְרִים אִילּוּ אָבִיהָ קַיָּים, כָּךְ וְכָךְ הָיָה נוֹתֵן לָהּ. אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְנוֹתְנִין לַהּ. מַאי לָאו: פַּרְנָסַת הַבַּעַל? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לֹא, בְּפַרְנָסַת עַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Shmuel said:** With respect **to** her **support** in the form of the dowry, the court **evaluates** what she should be given **based on** the circumstances of **the father** and gives her the amount that he would have given. The Gemara **raises an objection:** We have learned: **The daughters are sustained and supported from the property of their father. How so? We do not** speculate on the basis of his social standing and his previous experience and **say: If her father were** still **alive, he would give her such and such** amount. **Rather,** the court **appraises the** total worth of the **property and gives her** a portion of it, without a subjective estimate based on the father. The Gemara analyzes this *baraita*: **What, is it not** that the word support is referring to **support** for **the husband,** which is the dowry? The Gemara responds: **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: No,** it is referring **to her own support** and the food she receives. That allowance is calculated without considering the father’s practices, but the question of the dowry is still unresolved.


###### Ketubot 68a:10
[Ketubot 68a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:10)

הָא נִיזּוֹנוֹת וּמִתְפַּרְנְסוֹת קָתָנֵי, מַאי לָאו: אַחַת — פַּרְנָסַת הַבַּעַל, וְאַחַת — פַּרְנָסַת עַצְמָהּ?! לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי בְּפַרְנָסַת עַצְמָהּ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בַּאֲכִילָה וּבִשְׁתִיָּה, וְהָא — בִּלְבוּשָׁא וְכִיסּוּיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** the cited source **teaches:** They are **sustained and supported,** which indicates two separate allowances. **What, is it not** that **one** term is referring to **support** for **the husband** in the form of the dowry **and one** term is referring to **her own support?** The Gemara answers: **No, this one and that one** both refer **to her own support** for her personal needs. **And** the use of two terms is **not difficult,** because **this** term, sustained, is referring **to** allowance for **eating and drinking, and that** term, supported, is referring **to clothing and** other **covering.**


###### Ketubot 68a:11
[Ketubot 68a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:11)

תְּנַן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר אוֹ עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי, אֶלָּא שָׁמִין הַנְּכָסִים וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ. מַאי ״עָנִי״, וּמַאי ״עָשִׁיר״? אִי נֵימָא ״עָנִי״ — עָנִי בִּנְכָסִים, ״עָשִׁיר״ — עָשִׁיר בִּנְכָסִים, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר אֲפִילּוּ עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי כִּדְמֵעִיקָּרָא יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ — הָא לֵית לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: **And the Rabbis say: Sometimes a person** is **poor and becomes wealthy, or** a person **is wealthy** and **becomes poor,** and a family’s allowance for dowries is subject to change. **Rather,** the court **appraises the property and gives her** the appropriate sum. The Gemara analyzes this opinion: **What** is meant by the term **poor, and what** is meant by the term **wealthy? If we say** that **poor** is referring to one who is **poor in property,** and **wealthy** is referring to one who is **wealthy in property,** if so, **by inference** it seems **that the first *tanna* holds** that **even** if the father was **wealthy and** then **became poor, we give** the second daughter a dowry that is **like** the dowry that he provided **originally** to the first daughter. **But** how could we assign such a sum when **he does not have** enough in the estate?


###### Ketubot 68a:12
[Ketubot 68a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:12)

אֶלָּא לָאו ״עָנִי״ — עָנִי בְּדַעַת, ״עָשִׁיר״ — עָשִׁיר בְּדַעַת, וְקָתָנֵי: שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ, אַלְמָא לָא אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר אוּמְדָּנָא, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל! הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הִשִּׂיא בַּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — יִנָּתֵן לַשְּׁנִיָּה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנָּתַן לָרִאשׁוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** that **poor** means **poor in mindset,** i.e., he spends his money thriftily as though he were poor, and that **wealthy** means **wealthy in mindset,** i.e., he spends money liberally as though he were wealthy? **And** nevertheless the mishna **teaches** that even if the father changes his approach to spending, the court **appraises the property and gives** the dowry to **her. Apparently,** then, **we do not follow** the **assessment** of the father’s intentions but rather give a fixed sum, **and** this is **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Shmuel.** The Gemara dismisses the refutation: Shmuel **has said** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned** in the mishna: **Rabbi Yehuda says: If** the father **married off the first daughter,** a dowry **should be given to the second in the same manner that he gave to the first.** According to this opinion, the court does assess the father’s tendencies in determining the dowry for the second daughter.


###### Ketubot 68a:13
[Ketubot 68a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:13)

וְנֵימָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה! אִי אָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דַּוְקָא הִשִּׂיאָהּ, דְּגַלִּי דַּעְתֵּיהּ. אֲבָל לֹא הִשִּׂיאָהּ — לָא! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָזְלִינַן בָּתַר אוּמְדָּנָא, לָא שְׁנָא הִשִּׂיאָהּ וְלָא שְׁנָא לֹא הִשִּׂיאָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let** Shmuel **say** explicitly that **the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** Why did he not do so? The Gemara responds: **If he** had **said** that **the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said** that this is **specifically** when **he marries off** the first daughter, **as he revealed his mind** concerning the proper sum of a dowry, **but** if **he did not marry her off** before he died, then the court does **not** assess his disposition to determine the proper amount. Since, however, Shmuel did not merely say that he accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he **teaches us** that the **reason behind Rabbi Yehuda’s** opinion is **that we follow** the **assessment** of what the father would have done. It **is no different** if **he married** a daughter off, **and** it **is no different if he did not marry** one off.


###### Ketubot 68a:14
[Ketubot 68a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:14)

וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״הִשִּׂיאָהּ״ — לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּהִשִּׂיאָהּ וְגַלִּי דַּעְתֵּיהּ, לָא אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר אוּמְדָּנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And that which** the mishna **teaches** in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: **He married off** the first daughter, this is **to convey to you the far-reaching nature** of the dissenting opinion **of the Rabbis,** who hold **that although** the father **married** the first daughter **off and revealed his mind** with respect to dowries, **we** still **do not follow an assessment** of how much the father would have given to the second daughter.


###### Ketubot 68a:15
[Ketubot 68a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: דָּרְשִׁינַן מִשְּׁמָךְ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא כֹּל כִּי הָנֵי מִילֵּי מְעַלְּיָיתָא תִּדְרְשׁוּ מִשְּׁמַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Rav Ḥisda: We teach in your name** that the ***halakha*** is in accordance **with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** in this matter. **He said to him: May it be** God’s **will** that **you will teach in my name all proper statements such as this.** Rav Ḥisda agreed with the quote attributed to him.


###### Ketubot 68a:16
[Ketubot 68a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:16)

וּמִי אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בַּת הַנִּיזּוֹנֶת מִן הָאַחִין — נוֹטֶלֶת עִישּׂוּר נְכָסִים. וְאָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי! לָא קַשְׁיָא הָא — דַּאֲמֵידְנֵיהּ, הָא — דְּלָא אֲמֵידְנֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Rava** actually **say this,** that the *halakha* follows Rabbi Yehuda? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** With regard to an orphan **daughter who is sustained from the** inheritance held by her **brothers,** she **takes one-tenth of** the **estate** for her dowry. **And Rava said** with regard to that *baraita*: **The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. Evidently, Rava rejects Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion concerning approximating the father’s intent. The Gemara answers: **This** is **not difficult.** In **this** instance, Rava adopts Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion **because we assessed** the father and understood his mindset. In **that** instance, Rava rules that she should be given one-tenth **because we did not assess** the father and his mindset could not be determined.


###### Ketubot 68a:17
[Ketubot 68a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:17)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: מַעֲשֶׂה וְנָתַן לָהּ רַבִּי אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵים עָשָׂר בַּנְּכָסִים! קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי. אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הָא — דַּאֲמֵידְנֵיהּ, הָא — דְּלָא אֲמֵידְנֵיהּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **So too, it is reasonable, as Rav Adda bar Ahava said:** There was **an incident, and Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **gave** an orphan **one-twelfth of** her late father’s **property** for her dowry. Ostensibly, these amoraic statements **are difficult,** as they contradict **each other.** Which portion of the estate did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi determine should be given for a dowry, one-tenth or one-twelfth? **Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** the discrepancy that the respective circumstances were different? In **this** ruling, in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave one-twelfth, it was **because we assessed** the father, and we knew that to be his intention. In **that** ruling, he ruled that she should receive the standard one-tenth **because we didn’t assess** the father and could not determine his intentions. The Gemara accepts the proof: **Conclude from this** that the matter does depend on the ability to properly assess the father’s intent.


###### Ketubot 68a:18
[Ketubot 68a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:18)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: בַּת הַנִּיזּוֹנֶת מִן הָאַחִין נוֹטֶלֶת עִישּׂוּר נְכָסִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי: לִדְבָרֶיךָ, מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֶשֶׂר בָּנוֹת וּבֵן, אֵין לוֹ לַבֵּן בִּמְקוֹם בָּנוֹת כְּלוּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discuss **the** matter **itself. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi said: With regard to an orphan **daughter who is sustained from the** inheritance held by her **brothers,** she **takes one-tenth** of the **estate** for her dowry. **They said to Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: **According to your opinion,** in the case of **one who has ten daughters and a son, the son does not have anything where** there are **daughters,** as each daughter receives one-tenth of the estate. What becomes of the son’s biblically mandated inheritance?


###### Ketubot 68a:19
[Ketubot 68a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/68a:19)

אָמַר לָהֶן, כָּךְ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר: רִאשׁוֹנָה נוֹטֶלֶת עִישּׂוּר נְכָסִים, שְׁנִיָּה — בַּמֶּה שֶׁשִּׁיְּירָה, וּשְׁלִישִׁית — בַּמֶּה שֶׁשִּׁיְּירָה. וְחוֹזְרוֹת וְחוֹלְקוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to them: This is what I say:** The **first** daughter to marry **takes one-tenth of the estate;** the **second** takes one-tenth **of what** the first **left,** rather than one-tenth of the original estate; **and** the **third** takes one-tenth **of what** the second **left; and then they** later **redistribute** the portions **equally,** so that each daughter receives the same amount. In this way, the son retains a portion of the inheritance.