the son-in-law pledges according to the amount of the dowry that the bride brings, he pledges one-fifth less in the marriage contract, which is the actual value of the property. שֶּׁחָתָן פּוֹסֵק הוּא פּוֹסֵק פָּחוֹת חוֹמֶשׁ
GEMARA: The Gemara cites a baraita to expand upon the mishna’s statement that the father is not required to give the second son-in-law the gift that he promised the first son-in-law, as follows. The Sages taught: Needless to say, this ruling applies when the first is a Torah scholar and the second is an ignoramus, since the father-in-law has a reason to refuse to give the second a dowry like the first. But even if the first is an ignoramus and the second is a Torah scholar, the father-in-law may say: To your brother, I wanted to give this dowry, but to you I do not want to give it, since the obligation incurred was to a specific individual. גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר רִאשׁוֹן תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וְשֵׁנִי עַם הָאָרֶץ אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹן עַם הָאָרֶץ וְשֵׁנִי תַּלְמִיד חָכָם יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לְאָחִיךְ הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן לְךָ אִי אֶפְשִׁי לִיתֵּן
The mishna discusses the relationship between the value of the dowry the bride brings in and the amount of money the groom records in the marriage contract, and various examples are illustrated, e.g., if the woman pledged to bring him one thousand dinars. The Gemara asks: These latter examples in the mishna are the same as the first clause of the mishna, and they all illustrate the same financial conditions. Why was it not sufficient to mention only the case of the thousand dinars? The Gemara explains: The tanna teaches about a large appraisal of her substantial property, and he also teaches about a small appraisal in a case where she has minimal property, to illustrate that there is no halakhic difference between them. Similarly, the tanna teaches about the husband’s own appraisal of how to assess how much she must provide, and he also teaches about the wife’s own initial appraisal that she did and the corresponding amount that he must write. פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ אֶלֶף דִּינָר כּוּ׳ הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא תְּנָא שׁוּמָא רַבָּה וְקָתָנֵי שׁוּמָא זוּטָא תְּנָא שׁוּמָא דִּידֵיהּ וְקָתָנֵי שׁוּמָא דִּידַהּ
MISHNA: If she pledged to bring him money and not articles to serve as a dowry, her sela, i.e., four dinars, becomes six dinars with respect to the husband’s obligation in the marriage contract. This follows the standard outlined in the previous mishna: The groom increases his obligation by one half since he will profit from this money. Additionally, the groom accepts upon himself to give ten dinars to the account for her needs, for each and every hundred dinars that she brings. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is in accordance with the regional custom. מַתְנִי׳ פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ כְּסָפִים סַלְעָהּ נַעֲשֶׂה שִׁשָּׁה דִּינָרִין הֶחָתָן מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִים לַקּוּפָּה לְכׇל מָנֶה וּמָנֶה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה
GEMARA: Concerning the first clause, that her sela becomes six dinars, the Gemara asks: This is identical to that which was taught in the previous mishna, that if she brings one thousand dinars in her dowry, he pledges against them fifteen hundred dinars. Why does the mishna cite another example to demonstrate the same principle? גְּמָ׳ הַיְינוּ פּוֹסֵק כְּנֶגְדָּם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר מָנֶה

Koren Talmud Bavli (Steinsaltz Center)

The Koren Talmud Bavli is a groundbreaking edition of the Talmud that fuses the innovative design of Koren Publishers Jerusalem with the incomparable scholarship of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.

The Gemara responds: The tanna taught about large investment capital and taught about small investment capital. And it is necessary to relate to both situations, because if he taught only the case of large capital, which has abundant profit, you might think that only then does the husband add one-half. However, for small capital, which has small profit, you could say that this is not the case. Therefore, it is necessary to also state the principle in this mishna. And conversely, if the tanna had taught us only about small capital, then you might think that because it has little expense, one must add a half. However, with regard to large capital, for which there is abundant expense, you could say that the husband need not add as much. Therefore, it is necessary to state both cases to teach that the husband adds one-half to the sum in any case. תְּנָא עִסְקָא רַבָּה וּתְנָא עִסְקָא זוּטָא וּצְרִיכָא דְּאִי תְּנָא עִסְקָא רַבָּה דִּנְפִישׁ רַוְוחָא אֲבָל עִסְקָא זוּטָא דְּזוּטַר רַוְוחָא אֵימָא לָא צְרִיכָא וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עִסְקָא זוּטָא דְּזוּטַר זִיּוּנָא אֲבָל עִסְקָא רַבָּה דִּנְפִישׁ זִיּוּנָא אֵימָא לָא צְרִיכָא
The mishna states that the son-in-law accepts upon himself to give ten dinars to the account. The Gemara asks: What is this account? Rav Ashi said: It is an account for expenses of perfumes and cosmetics. And Rav Ashi said: This statement was said only for women in Jerusalem, where the women are accustomed to using an abundance of perfume. הֶחָתָן מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָר לַקּוּפָּה מַאי קוּפָּה אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי קוּפָּה שֶׁל בְּשָׂמִים וְאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֶלָּא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם
According to the mishna, the husband must give ten dinars for each and every hundred dinars that she brings. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Does this speak of each hundred dinars that are appraised in her dowry, or of each hundred dinars that are accepted by the husband in the marriage contract, which is the appraisal reduced by one-fifth? בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי בְּמָנֶה הַנִּישּׁוֹם אוֹ בְּמָנֶה הַמִּתְקַבֵּל
If you say that the mishna speaks of each hundred dinars that is accepted, is the intent that he gives a one-time sum only on the first day or on each day? If you say that he gives it every day, does he give it only the first week of marriage or each week? If you say he gives it each week, does he give it only the first month or each month? If you say he gives it each month, does he give it only the first year of marriage or each year? The Gemara does not determine how the calculation must be rendered and with what frequency the husband is required to provide for her cosmetics, and the dilemmas shall stand unresolved. אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר מָנֶה הַמִּתְקַבֵּל יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן אוֹ כׇּל יוֹם וָיוֹם אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כׇּל יוֹם וָיוֹם שַׁבָּת רִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ כׇּל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כׇּל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת חֹדֶשׁ רִאשׁוֹן אוֹ כׇּל חֹדֶשׁ וָחֹדֶשׁ אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כׇּל חֹדֶשׁ וָחֹדֶשׁ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה תֵּיקוּ
§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. When the Sages designated for her four hundred gold coins for her account of perfumes, from her late husband’s estate, for use on that same day, she blessed them and said to them: This is how you should also pledge for your own daughters, and they answered after her: Amen. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבִתּוֹ שֶׁל נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן שֶׁפָּסְקוּ לָהּ חֲכָמִים אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זְהוּבִים לַקּוּפָּה שֶׁל בְּשָׂמִים לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם אָמְרָה לָהֶם כָּךְ תִּפְסְקוּ לִבְנוֹתֵיכֶם וְעָנוּ אַחֲרֶיהָ אָמֵן
Apropos the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon, the Gemara relates what later became of her: The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. When he was riding on a donkey and leaving Jerusalem, and his students were walking after him to learn from him, he saw a certain young woman who was gathering barley from among the dung of the animals of Arabs. She was so poor that she subsisted on the undigested barley within the dung. When she saw him, she wrapped herself in her hair, as she had nothing else with which to cover herself, and stood before him. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁהָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל הַחֲמוֹר וְהָיָה יוֹצֵא מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְהָיוּ תַּלְמִידָיו מְהַלְּכִין אַחֲרָיו רָאָה רִיבָה אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה מְלַקֶּטֶת שְׂעוֹרִים מִבֵּין גֶּלְלֵי בְהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל עַרְבִיִּים כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאֲתָה אוֹתוֹ נִתְעַטְּפָה בִּשְׂעָרָהּ וְעָמְדָה לְפָנָיו
She said to him: My teacher, sustain me. He did not recognize her, so he said to her: My daughter, who are you? She said to him: I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. He said to her: My daughter, the money of your father’s household, where did it go? How did you become so poor? She said to him: My teacher, is it not that they say such a proverb in Jerusalem: Salt for money is lacking [ḥaser]? There is nothing with which to preserve it and prevent it from being lost. And some say the proverb asserts that kindness [ḥesed] is salt for money, i.e., using money for acts of kindness preserves it. He continued to ask her: And the money of your father-in-law’s house, which was used properly, for benevolent acts, where is it? She said to him: This one came and destroyed that one; all the money was combined, and it was all lost together. אָמְרָה לוֹ רַבִּי פַּרְנְסֵנִי אָמַר לָהּ בִּתִּי מִי אַתְּ אָמְרָה לוֹ בַּת נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן אֲנִי אֲמַר לַהּ בִּתִּי מָמוֹן שֶׁל בֵּית אָבִיךָ הֵיכָן הָלַךְ אָמְרָה לוֹ רַבִּי לָא כְּדֵין מָתְלִין מַתְלָא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם מֶלַח מָמוֹן חֶסֶר וְאָמְרִי לַהּ חֶסֶד וְשֶׁל בֵּית חָמִיךְ הֵיכָן הוּא אָמְרָה לוֹ בָּא זֶה וְאִיבֵּד אֶת זֶה
She said to him: My teacher, do you remember when you signed on my marriage contract? He said to his students: I remember that when I signed on the marriage contract of this woman, and I read in it, it listed a thousand thousands, i.e., one million gold dinars as a dowry from her father’s house, aside from that which was promised her from her father-in-law. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai cried and said: How fortunate are you, Israel, for when Israel performs the will of the Omnipresent, no nation or tongue can rule over them; and when Israel does not perform the will of the Omnipresent, He delivers them into the hand of a lowly nation. Not only are they delivered into the hand of a lowly nation, but even into the hand of the animals of a lowly nation, as in the pitiful instance of Nakdimon’s daughter. אָמְרָה לוֹ רַבִּי זָכוּר אַתָּה כְּשֶׁחָתַמְתָּ עַל כְּתוּבָּתִי אָמַר לָהֶן לְתַלְמִידָיו זָכוּר אֲנִי כְּשֶׁחָתַמְתִּי עַל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ וְהָיִיתִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים דִּינְרֵי זָהָב מִבֵּית אָבִיהָ חוּץ מִשֶּׁל חָמִיהָ בָּכָה רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי וְאָמַר אַשְׁרֵיכֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּזְמַן שֶׁעוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם אֵין כׇּל אוּמָּה וְלָשׁוֹן שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶם וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם מוֹסְרָן בְּיַד אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה וְלֹא בְּיַד אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה אֶלָּא בְּיַד בְּהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה
The recorded incident implies that Nakdimon lost all of his wealth after having failed to use it for acts of kindness. The Gemara asks: And did not Nakdimon ben Guryon perform charity? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: They said about Nakdimon ben Guryon that when he would leave his home to go to the study hall, there were fine woolen garments his attendants would וְנַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן לָא עֲבַד צְדָקָה וְהָתַנְיָא אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן כְּשֶׁהָיָה יוֹצֵא מִבֵּיתוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ כְּלֵי מֵילָת הָיוּ