Ketubot, Daf Samekh Zayin, Part 1
Introduction
To recall, last week’s daf discussed money brought by the wife into the marriage as dowry.
The general idea is that if she brings cash, the amount written in the ketubah is fifty per cent
more than the cash. If she brings goods, the amount written is 1/5 less. Today’s sugya and
tomorrow’s discuss a woman who brings gold as part of her dowry—is this treated like cash
or goods?
.‫ והרי הוא כשוויו‬,‫ שמין אותו‬- ‫ הכניסה לו זהב‬:‫אמר רב שמן בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן‬
R. Shemen b. Abba stated in the name of R. Yohanan: If a wife brought to her
husband gold, it is to be assessed and [entered in her ketubah] according to its
actual value.
Gold is not to be overvalued or undervalued in the ketubah. Rather its real value is to be
entered into the ketubah.
‫ ככלים של זהב דלא‬,‫ הרי הוא ככלים; מאי לאו ככלים של כסף דפחתי! לא‬- ‫ הזהב‬:‫מיתיבי‬
.‫פחתי‬
They objected: “[Pieces] of gold are like vessels.” Does this not mean, “like
silver vessels” which diminish in value
No, “like gold vessels” which do not diminish.
The baraita seems to say that pieces of gold are treated like vessels of silver. This means that
since they wear out, their value diminishes over time. Thus in the ketubah a lower value for
the gold should be written.
The Talmud resolves this by saying that gold is like gold vessels—the value does not
diminish over time.
!‫א"כ ככליו מיבעי ליה‬
If so, [the expression] should have been “like vessels [made] from it”!
The Talmud now rejects this understanding of the baraita. First of all, if it meant to say that
pieces of gold are like gold vessels, then it should have said “like vessels made from it” and
not “like vessels,” which implies like gold vessels.
‫ הרי הן ככספים; רבן שמעון בן גמליאל‬- ‫ דינרי זהב‬,‫ הרי הוא ככלים‬- ‫ זהב‬:‫ועוד תניא‬
‫ והרי הן בשוויהן; רשב"ג אהייא? אילימא‬,‫ שמין אותן‬- ‫ במקום שנהגו שלא לפורטן‬:‫אומר‬
‫ הא לא נפקי! אלא לאו‬,‫ אפי' במקום שנהגו שלא לפורטן‬:‫ מכלל דתנא קמא סבר‬,‫אסיפא‬
‫ הרי‬:‫ מאי כלים? כלים של כסף; רשב"ג אומר‬,‫ הרי הוא ככלים‬- ‫ זהב‬:‫ והכי קאמר‬,‫ארישא‬
!‫הוא כדינרין של זהב במקום שנהגו שלא לפורטן‬
And, furthermore, it was taught: [Pieces of] gold are like vessels; gold denarii
are like money. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel said: In a place where they do not
exchange them, they are evaluated and are [entered in the ketubah] at the rate of
their actual value.
To what is R. Shimon b. Gamaliel referring? If you say [that he refers] to the
final clause, the inference [would be] that the first Tanna holds that even when
they do not exchange them, but, surely, they cannot be used as currency!
Rather, he must refer to the first clause and this is what he meant: [Pieces of]
gold are like vessels; and what [is meant by] vessels? Silver vessels. R. Shimon
b. Gamaliel said: They are like gold denarii where the usage is not to change
them.
The Talmud now cites a longer baraita as a difficulty against R. Shemen. The first opinion
holds that that gold is treated like silver vessels. Just as silver vessels are devaluated in the
ketubah, so too is gold. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel would say that they are like gold denarii
in a place where such coins cannot be exchanged for smaller coins. The problem is that R.
Shemen seems to hold like Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel. Stay tuned for the continuation of
the sugya tomorrow.