Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 68 - Highlights

Pretenders

The Gemora cites an incident: Rabbi Chanina had a poor man to whom he regularly sent four zuz on every Erev Shabbos. One day he sent the money with his wife who came back and told him that the man was in no need of charity. Rabbi Chanina asked her, “What did you see?” She replied, “I heard that he was asked, ‘On what would you like to dine? Would you like silver or gold tablecloths?’” Rabbi Chanina remarked, “It is because of such cases that Rabbi Elozar said: Come and let us be grateful to the swindlers (who pretend to be poor), for were it not for them, we would have been sinning every day (on account of ignoring the poor).

Rabbi Chiya bar Rav of Difti taught the following braisa: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha said: Any one who shuts his eyes against charity is regarded like who worships idols.

The Gemora cites a related braisa: If a man pretends to have a blind eye, a swollen belly or a shriveled leg, he will not depart from this world before actually experiencing such a condition. If a man accepts charity and is not in need of it, his end will be that he will not depart from this world before he experiences such a condition. (67b – 68a)

Less than Two Hundred Zuz

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Pe’ah: We do not compel him (one who has less than two hundred zuz in cash and he therefore wishes to take a share in the poor man's gifts) to sell his house or his utensils (even though the proceeds from such a sale will raise his capital to above two hundred zuz, and he will not be considered a pauper any longer).

The Gemora asks: Is that so? Was it not taught in the following braisa: If a poor man was in the habit of using gold utensils, he must sell them and use silver utensils. If he was in the habit of using silver utensils, he must sell them and use copper ones. (This indicates that a poor man is expected to sell his costlier goods before he is allowed to take entitlements designated for the poor; why then was it stated here that he is not compelled to sell his house or utensils?)

Rav Zevid replied. This is no difficulty. The braisa is referring to his bed and table (we require him to sell them); the Mishna is referring to his cups and dishes.

The Gemora asks: What difference is there in the case of the cups and dishes that they are not to be sold? Obviously because he can say, “The inferior quality is repulsive to me.” But in respect of a bed and table also, he might say, “The cheaper ones are unacceptable to me!”

Rava the son of Rabbah offers a different answer: The braisa is referring to a silver plow (which is an item that is not used for his personal use, and generally, people are not finicky about it).

Rav Papa replied: There is no difficulty: The Mishna is referring to a man before he came under the obligation of repayment (if he possessed less than two hundred zuz and applied for assistance; he is not required to sell utensils to raise his capital), whereas, the braisa is referring to a man after he had come under the obligation of repayment (who, being in possession of two hundred zuz, accepted entitlements granted to the poor under false pretences; after it had been discovered that he was not actually a pauper, he was instructed by the court to refund all sums he had received unlawfully; in such a case, if he is unable to repay the money, he is compelled to sell his costly articles and use the cheaper ones). (68a)


Mishna

The Mishna states: An orphan (minor) who was given in marriage by her mother or her brother with her consent, and they wrote for her one hundred, or fifty zuz (for her dowry), she can, after she comes of age, exact from them what should rightfully be given to her (a tenth of her father’s estate).

Rabbi Yehudah says: If he gave his first daughter in marriage, the second should be given in the same manner as he gave to the first. But the Chachamim say: Sometimes a man is poor and becomes wealthy, or he is wealthy and becomes poor; rather, they appraise the assets and give her accordingly. (68a)

Assessing the Father’s Character

Shmuel said: With regard to a dowry, we estimate according to the disposition of their father (if he would be liberally generous or perhaps sting).

The Gemora asks on Shmuel from the following braisa: The daughters are to be maintained and provided for out of the estate of their father. How do we do this? It is not to be said, “Had her father been alive, he would have given her such and such an amount.” Rather, the estate is valued and she is given accordingly. Are we not referring to the estate set aside for the dowry of the orphaned daughter (this would be inconsistent with Shmuel’s ruling that we assess the father’s disposition)?

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak replied: No! It is referring to her own maintenance (before she is married, she is supported by the brothers).

The Gemora asks: But, surely, it was stated: The daughters are to be maintained and provided for; doesn’t one of the expressions refer to the dowry and the other to her own maintenance?

The Gemora answers: No! They both refer to her own maintenance, and yet there is no difficulty, for one of the expressions refers to food and drink and the other refers to clothing and bed coverings.

The Gemora asks on Shmuel from our Mishna: The Chachamim say: Sometimes a man is poor and becomes wealthy, or he is wealthy and becomes poor; rather, they appraise the assets and give her accordingly. What does the Mishna mean when it says “poor” or “rich”? If it means that he is poor or rich in possessions, it would follow that Rabbi Yehudah holds that even if the father was rich when he married off the first daughter, and now he is poor, we would provide for the second daughter the same amount as the first! How can that be? The father’s estate does not have the money to give her? Rather, it is evident that “poor” means that he is poor in mind (stingy) and “rich” means that he is rich in mind (generous). Accordingly, it emerges that Rabbi Yehudah maintains that we assess the father’s disposition and the Chachamim disagree; they hold that we do not make presumptions regarding the father’s disposition. This would refute Shmuel’s opinion!

The Gemora answers: Shmuel would follow Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion, for Rabbi Yehudah said: If he gave his first daughter in marriage, the second should be given in the same manner as he gave to the first.

The Gemora asks: Why didn’t Shmuel just say that the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah?

The Gemora answers: If he would have said that the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah, we might have thought that this is applicable only in a case where the father married off his first daughter (then, we assess his character), but in a case where he did not marry off any daughter previously, we do not make any presumptions as to the character of the father. Shmuel, therefore, teaches us that Rabbi Yehudah’s logic is based on our presumption to the father’s character, whether he married off a daughter or even if he did not marry one off. The Gemora concludes that the reason the Mishna specified the case where he married off the first daughter is to demonstrate the extent of the Chachamim’s opinion – that even in that case, they disagree. (68a)

The Gemora cites another braisa: If an orphan applied for assistance (from the charity fund) to marry, a house must be rented for him, a bed must be prepared for him and he must also be supplied with all the household objects required for his use, and then he is given a wife in marriage. (67a – 67b)

Is the Halacha like Rabbi Yehudah?

Rava said to Rav Chisda: Shall we rule in your name that the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah?

Rav Chisda replied: May it be the will of God that you report in your discourses all such excellent sayings in my name.

The Gemora asks: Could Rava, however, have made such a statement (agreeing to Rabbi Yehudah)? Surely, it was taught in the following braisa: Rebbi said: A daughter who is maintained by her brothers is entitled to receive a tenth of her father’s estate (and we do not make presumptions regarding the father’s character). And Rava stated that the law is in agreement with Rebbe!?

The Gemora answers: This is no difficulty. The halacha follows Rabbi Yehudah in a case where we were able to determine the father’s disposition; whereas, Rebbe’s ruling applies in a case where we have not formed any opinion about his character.

This explanation may also be supported by the following logical reasoning: For Rav Adda bar Ahava stated: It once happened that Rebbe gave her a twelfth of her father’s estate. Are not the two statements contradictory (for elsewhere, Rebbe ruled that she should be awarded a tenth)? Consequently, it must be inferred that one ruling (where she is awarded a twelfth) refers to a father of whom some opinion had been formed, while the other refers to a case where we have formed no opinion.

The Gemora concludes: This is indeed conclusive proof. (68a)

A Tenth of the Estate

The Gemora stated above: Rebbi said: A daughter who is maintained by her brothers is entitled to receive a tenth of her father’s estate (and we do not make presumptions regarding the father’s character).

They said to Rebbe: According to you, if one has ten daughters and one son, the son will receive nothing because of the daughters!

Rebbe replied: The following is what I am saying: The first daughter is awarded a tenth of the father’s estate. The second daughter is awarded a tenth of the remainder. The third daughter is awarded a tenth of what is now remaining. Then, they pool all their shares together and divide them equally. (There will be approximately thirty-five percent of the estate remaining for the son.)

The Gemora asks: Why do they have to pool their shares together after they already received their appropriate “tenth”?

The Gemora answers: They would pool their shares together in a case where they all came to get married at one time. (68a – 68b)

A Gift and a Loan

The Gemora cites a braisa: The orphaned daughters, whether they had attained bagrus (generally, at twelve and a half) before they married or whether they married before they had attained bagrus, they lose their right to maintenance (as this is explicitly stated in the kesuvah), but not to their dowry; these are the words of Rebbe. Rabbi Shimon ben Elozar said: They lose their rights to a dowry as well (the tenth of the estate to which, a daughter is entitled; in his opinion, it is only one who is a minor that receives the tenth, however, once she has reached bagrus, or she performed nisuin as a na’arah, without claiming at the time her dowry, she loses her claim to it). How should they proceed (if they are close to attaining bagrus and have not found a husband yet)? They hire for themselves husbands and the husbands will collect their dowries for them.

Rav Nachman stated: Huna told me that the halacha follows the opinion of Rebbe.

Rava asked Rav Nachman from our Mishna: An orphan (minor) who was given in marriage by her mother or her brother with her consent, and they wrote for her one hundred, or fifty zuz (for her dowry), she can, after she comes of age, exact from them what should rightfully be given to her (a tenth of her father’s estate). It would seem that the Mishna rules in this manner because she married when she was a minor (and she cannot waive her rights to the tenth), but if she would have married as adult, her waiver is legally valid (and since this is an anonymous Mishna, it is evident that even Rebbe, who compiled the Mishnayos is ruling like Rabbi Shimon ben Elozar)?

The Gemora answers: Rebbe is referring to a case where she protested, whereas the Mishna is referring to a case where she did protest.

The Gemora proves that Rebbe is only referring to a case where she protested. (68b)

[END]