משנה- המשיא את בתו סתם, לא יפחות לה מחמשים זוז. פסק להכניסה ערומה- לא יאמר הבעל "כשאכניסנה לביתי אכסנה בכסותי" אלא מכסה ועודה בבית אביה. וכן המשיא את היתומה לא יפחות לה מחמשים זוז. אם יש בכיס מפרנסין אותה לפי כבודה ...גמרא
Mishnah- The one who marries off his daughter may not give her a dowry of less than 50 zuz. If he agrees to bring her in naked, the husband may not say 'When she comes into my house, I will clothe her in my clothes,' rather he must clothe her while she is still in her father's house. And so too the one who marries an orphan girl may not give her less than 50 zuz. If there is enough in the kis , they provide her according to her kavod.
Read the text and write a comment, קשא, idea, digression, or anything that will help explore the topic.
ReplyDeleteIn the second sentence it is unclear whether the he in "...he agrees to bring her in naked..." is referring to the husband or the father of the bride. If it is the father then we should take it to mean: the father agreed to marry his daughter off with out any possessions and is agreeing to take care of her until she moves into her husbands house. If it is her husband speaking we should understand it like this: the husband is agreeing to take care and clothe his bride even though she doesn't have any possessions and regardless of where she lives. Another think that greatly alters our understanding of this sentence is the meaning of "naked". It could mean that she doesn't have any possessions or literally clothes but it could also mean that she is being married off with out a dowry.
ReplyDeleteInstead of the 50 zuz, the minimum should be a percentage of the father's income. At different points in time, 50 zuz could be very little or a lot. However, percentages would always work.
ReplyDeleteDoes the text mean only the orphan should be provided according to her kavod?
When the text says that the orphan bride's dowry (if possible) is according to her kavod,
it could mean either that the better the bride, the more money or it could mean the worse the bride, the more money. If the bride is kind, honorable, and beautiful, she deserves a bigger dowry. If the bride is a mean, ugly, cripple with no honor and a horrible temper, no one will want to marry her if they get no money for it; also, the husband would deserve more money to put up with her.
"And so too the one who marries an orphan girl may not give her less than 50 zuz." Obviously here there is a minimum as to how much money one can give to his wife for clothes, but is there a maximum? Even when you are married and are supposed to take care of your wife, are you allowed or forbidden to spend all your money on her? Is it similar to the mitzvah of giving your money to Tzedakkah, but not allowing you to give all your money away? Also, concerning the orphan girls honor, can her (past) family help/hinder her chances of getting a larger dowry? Like if her father was the leader of the town, would that help her with dowery more then if her father was a beggar? Or would it make no difference?
ReplyDelete"If there is enough in the kis..." What does this mean? Does it literally mean "If there is enough in the pocket"? If so, whose pocket? It could mean either the father's or the husband's. If one provides from their pocket according to the wife's kavod, how much is that? Who decides this amount? As Roza said, it could either be the worse the bride the bigger the dowry, or the better the bride the bigger the dowry. Which one do you know to pick? Should it depend on the situation? (Like what Zoe L. said about status)
ReplyDelete"If there is enough in the kis, they provide her according to her kavod." Referring to the question of what/whose is the kis, Rehaba explains that the kis can translate as "bag of charity" or Tzeddakah fund. Another difficulty that arises out of this statement is the meaning of kavod. What is kavod; how does one determine it? Kavod translates as 'honor', but honor can relate to fairness as well (going off on Zoe L's and Beth's idea). Perhaps what the last statement is saying is that if the fund has money to give, it gives a fair amount to provide for the basic needs, and this amount is determined according to the orphan's individual situation. For example, if an orphan is slightly better off than another, it wouldn't be fair to give her the same amount of money as the less fortunate one. You don't need to make her rich, but the less fortunate orphan needs more funds in order to pay for the basic necessities.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the quote "אלא מכסה ועודה בבית אביה", which translates to "rather he must clothe her while she is still in her father's house" is a logical requirement. If a man marries his wife, but is not yet ready (financially) to bring her into his house, or to buy themselves a new house to live in, his wife will live with her father, yet the husband is still expected to provide for her. However, is there a maximum amount of days that a newly wedded wife can live with her father for? More importantly, even though the husband is providing for his wife, does the father or family of the wife still need to provide for her? Traditionally, a family or rather father is required or expected to support his daughter until the day that she moves out. Even still, it would be difficult for a daughter to live with her family or father, while not receiving financial support from them. To connect these two questions; if there is not a maximum amount of time for a newly wedded daughter to live with her father, what is stopping the husband from never moving in with his wife? Part of the purposes of marrying off your daughter, is to give up the responsibility of financially supporting her. If there is no limit, the husband could easily take advantage of that and prolong them moving in together; which in turn adds a financial burden on her family and takes the burden off of him.
ReplyDeleteMalkie, good job answering Beth's question! Regarding the maximum dowry, none seems to exist. But this rule is in the Talmud on Ketubot 66a: 'IF A WOMAN UNDERTOOK TO BRING HER HUSBAND ONE THOUSAND DINARII (zuz) HE
ReplyDeleteMUST ASSIGN TO HER A CORRESPONDING SUM OF FIFTEEN MANEH.' Which means if a woman brings 1000 zuz into the marriage, the husband is required to give a Ketubah of 1500 zuz! I wonder why...
I have a question: in the first sentence it says that a man is not permitted to marry off his daughter with a dowry of less than 50 Zuz, and in the second sentence it says that the husband and father agree she will come in naked. If we assume that naked refers to her lack of dowry, rather than her physical lack of clothing, then I find it contradictory. How is it possible that she cannot have a dowry for less than 50 zuz, but the husband and father can agree she comes in for 0 zuz? This does not make sense, but I have a guess to an answer: the minimum of 50 zuz is to protect the husband from coming into the marriage without enough money to support the wife, but if the husband does indeed have enough money then it makes sense that the husband could tell the father that no dowry is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI woud like to understand if there are any other circumstances in which 50 zuz are not required. What if there is no כבודה or charity to be had? What if someone is ritually impure? What if one of the parties is a R' Elezar type person, who while not violating the non existant maximum, is putting way more than is common sense to the קיס?
ReplyDeleteI also wonder: Who first decided the the orphan girl bride was to be treated the same as the bride with parents?
And finally, upon marriage, why do they not simply move out immediately, and not have to worry about who takes care of the bride? It would be obvious who must take care of her if the father would not be involved. And furthermore, funds could still be directed to the new couple, without hassle. I would also agree with what Sophie Navarro said about the father prolonging the process. So, What's the significance of this method of marital process?
In the text it states "and shoes from festival to festival" we know that, that refers to the three festivals Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot. So the text tells us that the Husband most buy the Wife at least three pairs of shoes so my question is, is that the minimum and maximum or just the minimum? And if it is just the minimum how much is the max? As many as the Wife wants or as many as he wants to buy/can afford? And what happens if an orphan man marries an orphan woman? He probably can't afford as many as the a rich man and what happens if the wife wants more pairs of shoes, what are the laws on that? Another question is what happens if an orphan man or not even an orphan cant afford three pairs of shoes for his wife what are the consequences for not being able to fully provide for his wife?
ReplyDeleteIn responce to Elijah Post: Someone may not pay an absurd amount of money because it is stated that "they provide her according to her kavod." Kavod means wealth of honor, therefore one will never end up spending more money then is necessary for his wife's honor.
ReplyDeleteThe responce to Zoe Robins is also according to this law :"they provide her according to her kavod." If the wife's honor and wealth is more than three pairs of shoes, I think that he would have to buy her more than three pairs of shoes.
There would probably be no consequence for not being able to afford three pairs of shoes for a poor man because it is stated: "If there is enough in the kis, they provide her according to her kavod." Note that kis means something along the lines of money bag or purse, so if the orphan does not have enough money for three new peairs of shoes he is probably allowed to just clean or polish the same pair of shoes and have her reuse them for each festival.
I have a problem with what Eric stated, "if the orphan does not have enough money for three new peairs of shoes he is probably allowed to just clean or polish the same pair of shoes and have her reuse them for each festival" due to the fact that it is not fair! Just because her father and possibly mother died does not mean the orphan should have herself be publicly embarrassed by having one pair of shoes.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Zoe Robins, the community and tzedakkah collectors should and could probably find a way to provide the money for her and her husband, so she could have the MINIMUM three pairs of shoes. If there is a bare minimum of having three pairs of shoes, they should be able to figure out a way to follow and be a seemingly normal part of society. How crazy would it look if someone came to winter formal in the same thing they wore to prom the year before? Same thing; it would look absurd if someone wore the same shoes three times to the three festivals.
Also, does 'naked' here mean literally naked? Or does it mean that she just comes in with no money or belongings? This question has not been asked yet and has been a major confusion to me. If she comes in naked literally, is there any law that states he should provide MORE than he would if she came in with clothing on her back and no other belongings? Does that one pair of clothes mean ANYTHING at all, or help in any way, if she has it?
To answer Ari's question about naked, I think that it doesn't mean literally naked. I think it means she doesn't have a lot, maybe just the clothes on her back.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is, how can they be talking about this ORPHAN girl having a father, and the father making arangments and planning things out with the husband when it is an ORPHAN girl. It says "...rather he must clothe her while she is still in her father's house." how is it even possible for an orphan to still be living in her father's house? Or is the story more seperated, the first half just talking about any daughter and the second half talking about an orphan's case? I am just very confused about that.
In response to Ari's question, "Also, does 'naked' here mean literally naked?", I agree with Jael, and I think that naked is NOT literal, and just means the bride comes into the marriage with just the clothes on her back. It would be illogical for the bride to strip of all her clothes just to receive new ones, when, instead, she could keep her clothes she was originally wearing, and also receive new clothes.
ReplyDeleteTo clear up Jael's confusion, the story is separated-- the first half is talking about a daughter who has parents, and the second half is talking about an orphan's case.
One question I have is, what happens to the clothes the husband gives to the bride if the bride dies in her fathers' house? In other words, if the husband gives the bride clothes while she is still in her fathers' house, and she dies, to whom to the clothes go to? Would they go to the husband, because he bought the close, or to the father, because the bride was still in his house?
In response to Ari: I was referring to the fact that if the man who is trying to provide for his wife is an orphan, he would not be able to afford buying his wife three pairs of shoes, and therefore have to resort to find cheaper solutions. I think you thought I meant that if the wife is an orphan she should not have to be provided for, which is not what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
ReplyDeleteIn response to rabbi Goodman’s problem: “if a woman brings 1000 zuz into the marriage, the husband is required to give a Ketubah of 1500 zuz! I wonder why...” without this rule, it would be possible to marry a woman for her wealth only, leading to the man not caring for her, and possibly divorcing her. Because women were mostly powerless in terms of divorces, this ketubah protects her from having her money stolen through marriage. Although a ketubah of 150% of the money she brings in seems excessive, it stops a potentially large problem.
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with the first text when it says, “If there is enough in the ‘kis’ (pocket), they provide her (an orphan girl) according to her kavod (wealth).” Assuming that “kis” means the husbands pocket, this makes sense because without this rule if a rich woman married a poor man, he could go broke buying her shoes. Although it does fix this problem, it doesn’t address what happens if a rich man marries a poor woman. He could potentially marry a poor woman and give her according to her wealth which percentage wise would be very small for him. It seems strange to me the Talmud should have a varying maximum “if its in the kis” but no minimum in terms of percent on what to give. It would be easy for a man to abuse this rule by cheaply marrying an orphan without a lot of “kavod,” while maintaining a richer lifestyle for himself. I would be interested if anyone knows either how to solve this problem, or why the Talmud doesn’t include this rule.
In response to Isaac, in the Gemara, Rachbah says that the kis is the sack of tzedakkah. Therefore, it is not the husband's pocket, but rather the tzedakkah fund that gives the money. When speaking of an orphan girl, they are most likely someone in need, seeming as the men were the ones who were expected to have jobs, and she is alone. This gets rid of the problem of giving a sum of money to a rich woman marrying a poor man.
ReplyDeleteI think that "according to her kavod" is not considered as much of a specific amount as we might think. Rather, it is a way of telling the tzedakkah collectors who are giving the orphan girl the money that they should give her a substantial amount of money while still having more to give to others in need.
Responding to Isaac's: Though the woman who brings a 1000 zuz dowry with her is from a wealthy family, that 1000 zuz is (i think) all he will get from her out of the marriage in terms of money. Unless the father/brother of the bride gives lots of money as frequent gifts, i don't think the husband can control that. And back then there was no alimony from the wife's side of a divorce. The wife, not being able to have an easy income would take from the ex-husband once, enabling her to get back on her feet. That or (please, please correct me if I'm wrong) the husband would give back the full dowry that he originally received from the father of the bride. Very good question by the way! :)
ReplyDeletei read in the new york times that in north korea dowries are still given. in their tradition (maybe like the theory of old Jewish tradition) it is said that the bigger the dowry the higher status the family looks like they have. It is said that these days they have to bring plasma Tv's and other electronics. the bigger the dowry the bride's family would hope that she would be more appreciated in the groom's family.
ReplyDeletea husband is also expected to prepare a nice house with furniture and everything necessary. like it is mentioned in the other text about the orphan boy needing help to provide all necessary things
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/05/world/asia/05iht-dowry.html
What happens if the Bride is from a poor background and her father cant provide for her because he either lost his money from his doing or a misfortune in the family's wealth that causes the family to have insufficient funds and living space. Would this then move on to the husband to become his responsibility?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Josh's question, I do not think that the family's poor background would then move onto the husbands and become his responsibility. Unless the bride literally had nothing, and when the bride was transferred over to the husband he of course had to provide for her, even without the 50 zuz dowry. But the reason this seems unlikely is because back in the day the less money the girl had the less worth and status she held in the wedding/bride market. THe more money she had, of course the more valuable she becomes as a bride, a more valuable bride. So I doubt that their would even be a case of this, or very few ones because of this exact situation and fear of having to take care of your wife, more than enjoying her. THe only cases that I could think of this happening is only if it were true love, but then again I don't know if that happened in the olden days, with all these set up marriages.
ReplyDeleteI think that Grants answer to his own question about the contridictary within the excerpt on coming in without money, but being given money is interesting. But I also saw it a different way. I thought maybe that the daughter was the one coming in with nothing on her, but the father was the one still giving the dowry. But then I thought that the father is the one that provides for his daughter until now. So then, she no longer has any money to work with, from her father because she is being transferred into the husbands home, but the father is giving the husband a starting off amount for her. Since the husband is not really used to providing for both himself and her, he is graciously given a small amount, that is like the amount the daughter has been given for most of her life.