Ketubot

spread beneath his feet and the poor followed behind him and rolled them up!  — If you wish I might reply: He did it for his own glorification — 2 And if you prefer I might reply: He did not act as he should have done,  as people say, 'In accordance with the camel is the burden'. It was taught: R. Eleazar the son of R. Zadok said, 'May I [not] behold the consolation [of Zion] if I have not seen her  picking barley grains among the horses' hoofs at Acco. [On seeing her plight] I applied to her this Scriptural text: If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed thy kids;  read not thy kids  but thy 'bodies'. R. Shaman b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: If a wife brought to her husband  [a bar of] gold, it is to be assessed and [entered in her kethubah] according to its actual value. An objection was raised: '[Broken pieces of] gold are like vessels'.  Does not this imply  'like silver vessels' which wear out?  — No, 'like gold vessels' which do not wear out. If so, [the expression] should have been 'like vessels [made] thereof'! And, furthermore, it was taught: [A bar of] gold is like vessels; gold denarii are like ready money.  R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Where the usage is not to change them  they are valued and are [to be entered in the kethubah] at the rate of their actual value.  Now, to what is R. Simeon b. Gamaliel referring? If it be suggested [that he refers] to the final clause,  the inference [it may be pointed out would be] that the first Tanna maintains his opinion  even when the usage is not to change them, but, surely, [it may be objected] they can not be used as currency!  It must consequently be assumed  [that he  referred] to the first clause and that it is this that was meant: [A bar of] gold is like vessels; and what [is meant by] vessels? silver vessels;  and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: It is like gold denarii where the usage is not to change them!  — No;  he  may still refer to the final clause but [it is a case where] with difficulty they can be used as currency; and the principles on which they differ is this: One Master  holds the view that since they can be used as currency we allow her the increase  and the other Master  is of the opinion that since they can be used as currency only with difficulty, she is not to have the increase. If you prefer I might reply: All the statement  is that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but a clause therein is missing, and the proper reading is as follows: [A bar of] gold is like vessels,  gold denarii are like ready money. This is the case only where it is the usage to change them,  but where it is the usage not to change them  they are to be valued and entered in the kethubah at the rate of their actual value; so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel for R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds the view that where it is the usage not to change them they are to be valued and [entered in the kethubah] at the rate of their actual value. But [the difficulty] nevertheless [remains that the expression] should have been, 'like vessels [made] thereof'! — This is indeed a difficulty. And if you prefer I might reply: We are here  dealing with a case of broken pieces of gold.  R. Ashi said: [We deal here  with] gold leaf.  R. Jannai stated: The spices of Antioch  are  like ready money.  R. Samuel b. Nahmani stated in the name of R. Johanan:  A woman  is entitled to seize Arabian camels in settlement of her kethubah. R. Papi stated: A woman  may seize clothes  manufactured at Be Mikse  for her kethubah. R. Papi further stated: A woman  may seize sacks made at Rodya  and the ropes of Kamhunya  for her kethubah. Raba stated: At first I said: A woman  is entitled to seize money bags  of Mahuza  for her kethubah.  What was [my] reason? Because [women] relied upon them.  When I observed, however, that they  took them and went out with them into the market  and as soon as a plot of land came their way they purchased it with this money I formed the opinion that they rely  only upon land. MISHNAH. IF A MAN GAVE HIS DAUGHTER IN MARRIAGE WITHOUT SPECIFYING ANY CONDITIONS, HE MUST GIVE HER NOT LESS THAN FIFTY ZUZ. IF THE [BRIDEGROOM] AGREED TO TAKE HER IN NAKED HE  MAY NOT SAY, 'WHEN I HAVE TAKEN HER INTO MY HOUSE I SHALL CLOTHE HER WITH CLOTHES OF MY OWN', BUT HE MUST PROVIDE HER WITH CLOTHING WHILE SHE IS STILL IN HER FATHER'S HOUSE. SIMILARLY IF AN ORPHAN IS GIVEN IN MARRIAGE  SHE MUST BE GIVEN NOT LESS THAN FIFTY ZUZ. IF [CHARITY] FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE  SHE IS TO BE FITTED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIGNITY OF HER POSITION. GEMARA. Abaye stated: By FIFTY ZUZ small coins  [were meant]. Whence is this statement inferred? — From the statement in the final clause: IF [CHARITY] FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE SHE IS FITTED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIGNITY OF HER POSITION [concerning which], when it was asked, 'What was meant by FUNDS'.  Rehaba explained: Charity funds.  Now if we should imagine that by FIFTY ZUZ the actual  [coins were meant], how much [it may be asked] ought we to give her even IF CHARITY FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE! Consequently it must be inferred that by FIFTY ZUZ small coins [were meant]. Our Rabbis taught: If an orphan boy and an orphan girl applied for maintenance,  the girl orphan is to be maintained first and the boy orphan afterwards,  because it is not unusual for a man to go begging  but it is unusual for a woman to do so.  If an orphan boy and an orphan girl