גמרא- אמר אביי: חמשים זוזי פשיטי. ממאי ? מדקתני סיפא: אם יש בכיס, מפרנסין אותה לפי כבודה. ואמרינן מאי כיס? אמר רחבה: ארנקי של צדקה. ואי סלקא דעתין חמשים זוזי ממש, אם יש בכיס כמה יהבינן לה? אלא שמע מינה חמשים זוזי פשיטי. ת"ר יתום ויתומה שבאו להתפרנס, מפרנסין את היתומה ואחר כך מפרנסין את היתום, מפני שהאיש דרכו לחזור על הפתחים, ואין אשה דרכה לחזור. ו
Gemara - Abaye said: 50 'simple' zuz. From what does he know this? From what is taught at the end (of this Mishnah): "if there is enough in the kis, they provide her according to her kavod." And they said: What is a kis? Rachba said: a fund (literally, a sack) for Tzedakah. And if you would have thought 50 'real' zuz, how much could be given from the Tzedakah fund? (i.e. how could the fund afford that much?) Rather, we learn from this that it is 50 simple zuz.
Our rabbis taught: An orphan boy and an orphan girl that come to be provided for, we provide the orphan girl, then afterwards we provide for the orphan boy, because it is normal for a manto return to the doors (i.e. to go begging door-to-door), but it is not customary for a woman to do so.
This in response to the line "if there is enough in the kis, they provide her according to her kavod." There are two ways that one might interpret the word kavod (wealth/honor). First of all, what is considered an honorable and wealthy person back then? One might assume that the bride is very wealthy and honorable, so should the husband provide more than 50 zuz in order to live up to her honor? On the other hand, if the bride isn’t very wealthy or honorable, should the husband provide the minimum of 50 zuz and no more? I believe that the Rabbi’s should have explained the word kavod more, since it has many possible interpretations.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Anthony: While I agree with the point that it is unclear as to what kavod means and that it is hard to really judge a person’s kavod (in the sense of honor, not wealth), I do believe the rabbis were wise in not picking apart what kavod really is. While the rabbis do question the meaning of the word kis they do not debate over the meaning of the word kavod. Although this might have been non-intentional I think the mystery about the meaning of kavod only adds to the foundation of a marriage. If one chooses to translate kavod as wealth, then their dowry will be that of the woman’s wealth, however if one chooses to interpret kavod as something else, it requires thought and judgment to go into the dowry. It is up to the parties involved in the marriage to decide what kavod means to them, and if the rabbis had told them what it means, there would not be a personal aspect to the dowry.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Elijah: I agree that this concept of “kavod” is very general. I believe a possible explanation for this generalization is that “kavod” might have meant something more specific back then. I believe that it probably meant a person’s wealth. I believe this because no one person can be a true judge on how much honor someone has. I don’t think the Rabbi’s would not have let the solution be that open-ended. In this particular case, the community probably doesn’t know the orphan extensively and therefore wouldn’t be able to accurately judge how honorable the orphan is. It is also more logical, in my opinion, that a community provide a smaller amount for an orphan even if she is a very respectable and honorable person because it would take a long time to marry off the orphan if they had to raise a great amount for her.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the last sentences: "Our rabbis taught: An orphan boy and an orphan girl that come to be provided for, we provide the orphan girl, then afterwards we provide for the orphan boy, because it is normal for a man to return to the doors (i.e. to go begging door-to-door), but it is not customary for a woman to do so." How was it decided that a man is more willing to beg for money than a girl? It would seem to me that in Talmudic times the man would need to find work to support the family, and while the man works the women would beg for money. So, I think that the Talmud's logic does not really make sense. Does anyone have an answer for why the Rabbis think I am is more likely to beg door to door?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Grant: If the couple is forced to resort to begging door to door for money, we can assume then that the Man does NOT have a stable job with shich to provide for the family. hus the Man's responsibility becomes providing for his family by any legal means necessary, even if that means begging. The woman probably had other household tasks with shich to occupy her time, and these needed to be done. Additionally, it wasn't necessarily practical for it to be dishonorable for women to go around collecting charity, but such was the culturally accepted way for things to be done.
ReplyDeleteIn response to this line of the Gemara "Rachba said: a fund (literally, a sack) for Tzedakah. And if you would have thought 50 'real' zuz, how much could be given from the Tzedakah fund?" Since the Tzedakah is the communities money, who is appointed to go from house to house asking for money. Also since the Tzedakah is colleting money house to house, wouldn’t they be competing with orphans? Who comes first the Fund at your door or the Orphans who are begging?
ReplyDeleteIn response to what Ben and Grant are talking about I don't think I fully agree with Ben's answer. He says “we can assume then that the Man does NOT have a stable job with which to provide for the family”. I don’t believe that’s what the text is referring to. The text refers to the fact that it’s more likely and most likely honorable for a man to go and beg door to door then for a woman. Whether he does or does not have a job. The point that I do agree with is that it’s the man responsibility to provide for the woman and the woman probably has work to do around the house. The point I’d like to raise is that maybe it’s the fact that the man can deal with the embarrassment of having to beg more than the woman can and that’s why he begs and she does not.
ReplyDeleteרחבה assumes that the צדקא כיס can't afford the big זוז. That's quite the generalization because in some places there is a lot of wealth.
ReplyDeleteרחבה is using a weak argument to say that the zuz we are talking about are the small זוז. But how does he prove this? What other than an across the board assumption does he use to prove that this is the kind of zuz we are using? If we are in wealthy place or situation is which there is a lot of money בכיס, is it not possible that the large זוז might be the currency we are talking about? What is one זוז (small or large) compared to one current US$? How far can you get with one זוז adjusted today? If we knew this, we would be able to understand how much money we are talking about. Two people starting their lives together on, say, a $1,000 dowery is radically different than an $8,000 dowery.
Why does the orphan girl be provided for before the orphan boy? Isn't it he that should be supplied with money to support his wife? Also, must she support him with the money she receives?
ReplyDeleteIt is the man's responsibility to provide for his wife. Like Ben Oreper, I think that the man must not have a stable job, otherwise he wouldn't have to beg. If he does not have the money to support his wife with, he should be the one to go beg. This can NOT be a double standard, the wife has to live in poverty AND go beg? I don't think so! If the man can not provide, he should be the one to go beg. His fault, not her's...
When it says:
ReplyDelete"And if you would have thought 50 'real' zuz, how much could be given from the Tzedakah fund?" I was wondering how anyone could afford 50 'real' zuz because i translate that as the ones that are worth eigth times more. So that would really be worth 400 zuz? That is where I am confused. When it says 'real' zuz what does it mean? Does it mean the cheaper zuz? Or the 'real' zuz-the more expensive one?
In response to Elijah Post: I do not think there is a way for us to find out how much 50 zuz is worth in relation to dollars worth today. I think the rabbis purposely do not go in to detail about this because there was no way for them to predict how valuable anything would be in the future, especially a couple thousand years in to the future. The only way the could have made a relation that would still be of use today is saying a zuz is 1/x amount of an average priced house but even then that is very broad.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ari’s question, I think that the orphan girl is to be provided for by the Tzedakah fund before the orphan boy because, like Grant mentioned above, it is more socially acceptable for a man to go door to door begging than a woman. I also think that this is because the woman needs the money to pay for the dowry, and without it she might not be able to get married, while an orphan boy might be coming to get money to buy other things that are not as important. I also think that she does not need to “support” him with the money she receives because if it is for a dowry, he will receive it eventually.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don’t agree with the comments that state that it is more acceptable for a man to go begging door to door because he doesn’t have a stable job. I think that in this time, a small percentage of the population had a lot of money, but the majority of the people didn’t. This boy is also an orphan, so he doesn’t have a family to support him financially, and he is probably working and doing the best he can, but he may need some help from the Tzedakah fund for extra things.
My question involves the use of the word “kavod”. While it is literally translated as honor, we don’t know what exactly honor here. The two main possibilities that I think it could be are wealth and beauty. I think it could be wealth because if they have to provide according to her wealth, they might be trying not to change her preexisting standard of living by making her life less comfortable than it was before marriage. Then the question becomes: If she is an orphan and has to get a dowry from Tzedakah, how could her standard of living be very high before marraige? I think kavod could also be beauty because in these times women were viewed as property. Due to this, a more beautiful woman could be considered more “valuable”, and would receive a larger dowry if there was enough Tzedakah in the kis.
Responding to Josh's inquiries, in which he asked: "Since the Tzedakah is collecting money house to house, wouldn’t they be competing with orphans? Who comes first the Fund at your door or the Orphans who are begging?" First, I wouldn’t necessarily say that the Tzedakah fund is competing with orphans for donations. The orphans who beg door-to-door choose not to go to the Tzedakah fund for assistance, and if they were to change their mind and ask for money from Tzedakah, I’m sure the Tzedakah fund would be glad to assist. This situation, however, does bring up the second difficulty mentioned; if faced with a begging orphan or the Tzedakah fund, who should one donate their money to? Ideally both should be donated to, but in reality few people have the wealth to be able to do so. How do you choose who to donate to? You could take into account the immense shame the beggar must feel when they beg for their daily livings. The Talmud teaches that “he who publicly puts his neighbour to shame has no portion in the world to come” (Bava Metziah 59a). By turning down the beggar, who has made himself vulnerable to you already, you could arguably be increasing his shame. In order to help the orphan and not put him to shame, you could choose to donate to him. However, if everyone decided to give their money to begging orphans, as opposed to the Tzeddakah fund, the Tzeddakah fund would have no money for their other services. By giving to the Tzeddakah fund, you know that your money is going to a variety of causes, so one could be inclined to give to them instead of individual beggars.
ReplyDeletewhat if there is not enough in the kis? do they give all the orphan brides less? because if they do then they all have to suffer. Even changing it from 50 "big/normal' zuz is taking money away from each of them so others can have some. It's like the story about the 2 travelers and the water bottle only having enough money for one of them. how did they decide it would be fair that they all get this price of 50 "simple zuz, even though it is a small price? if the "Kis" can only afford a few orphan brides to support how do they choose which brides to choose?
ReplyDeleteWhy not just limit the amount of marriages per year?
also it says "how much should come from the Tzedakah fund."
-where else would it come from?
i also like how the Tzedakah fund pays for the orphan's dowry, i think it's a smart idea. It seems to be a nice sense of community and shows that all the people are there to help sustain and support the orphan girl.
i also think it's its funny how the rabbi's say it is common for a orphan guy to return begging, but not for a girl. It's so different these days like Grant had said earlier.
I believe that Tina brings up an interesting point in that the word "kavod" could be related to how beautiful the orphan girl is. Since the orphan girl has no family to help support her, she has no money and no one to help spread the word of her "honor" other than the honor that her parents left for her when they died. Would it be fair if a woman were to be judged on her dead parent's honor? Or would it be fairer to judge her based on HER honor that she herself would work to build? Women were viewed as property in the time of the Talmud. However, I do not agree with Tina's assumption that a more beautiful girl would receive a larger dowry, seeing as she is attractive and men may be willing to marry her for less. I would guess that the more beautiful she is, the less money she needs for her dowry because more people would be willing to marry her.
ReplyDeleteIt will error on the side of caution. If the minimum was required to be fifty big zuz it would not say fifty zuz, it would say four hundred zuz.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be those who want to get out the easy way, so no matter what the amount is intended as, some will always choose the lower amount. Therefor, the rabbis meant to say fifty small zuz because this is the smallest amount that one could pay while strictly adhering to the text.
If they wanted it to be fifty large zuz they would have said four hundred zuz because then the smallest amount anyone could understand the text as saying would be four hundred small zuz, equivalent to fifty large zuz and if someone misunderstood and payed four hundred large zuz they would still be obeying the minimum payment.
I agree with the difficulty of trying to understand the reasoning behind the statement "we provide the orphan girl, then afterwards we provide for the orphan boy, because it is normal for a manto return to the doors"; however what if two orphan women are both trying to marry off? Referring back to Maya's theory "do they give all the orphan brides less?", I was curious as to whether or not age plays a part in the selection. In class today (A Block) we discussed possible reasons that a girl orphan may be supported because women at that time, had to married off by a certain age, while men had more freedom to chose when they wanted to settle down. Can we apply this rule or concept in a situation where we have two orphan brides? Should the older one be married off first?
ReplyDeleteAgain, I agree with the confusion as to what specifically a כיס is, though I wonder as well, which situations are a top priority for the כיס. A wedding verses a funeral?
Looking back a Maya's comments, what if there is not enough money in the כיס? Should they disperse the money evenly, but not give any one enough to fulfill their needs? More specifically, what if an orphan girl is planning to marry a man from another town, but her own town does not have the funds to pay for her dowry? Should the husband's town's כיס pay for the dowry? A more general question being, what are the כיס first responsibilities? If one town has more in their כיס, should they help out their less fortunate neighboring towns?
To answer a few of Sophie’s questions we can imagine a situation in which two orphan girls of different ages ask for dowry money from their towns “kis,” at the same time. The older is marrying a local, the younger a man from another town. If the tzedakah fund only has enough money for one of the dowries, the first thing to consider is if the money should be split, or pay for one of the dowries. Because they both came asking for dowry money, we can assume they are provided for in terms of food and shelter, so it would be better to give them dowry than to give both a smaller sum. To decide who it goes to, we should first consider age. In this period women had a short span of when they were best for marriage, so the older would be closer to “expiring” and may not get another chance making her more worthy of the tzedakah funds money. The next thing to consider is where she will be living. The “kis” would be less inclined to give to a girl who will be moving away. This is because she wont be contributing to her hometown. Because she will be contributing to her new town, the second towns “kis” should provide for her instead. It is the same logic behind the husband clothing his bride while she is still in her father’s home. Lastly they would consider the amount of the dowry. If one girl’s dowry would use up all of the money, while one would leave enough to help another person, they should be inclined to give to the cheaper one. What I want to know is how is begging from a “kis” different than begging door to door” can orphan boys also beg from a tzedakah fund or can they only go door to door?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Isaacs question, "begging door to door" the giver knows who their giving to, one of the lowest forms of tzedakkah, and also it is harder going door-to-door asking for money when you can go to one place and ask one time. Getting money for the "kis" the giving does not know who they are giving to. Another difference between these to one is more acceptable in the communities eyes, but so is begging door-to-door, but only for a boy. A boy can beg for money from the "kis" but the "kis" is more likely to give the money to and orphan girl. What i want to know, is if there are two orphan couples asking for a dowry from the "kis" would the "kis" give what they have to both the women first or would they give money to the first women in line and then her husband and then the give some money to the second women and then her husband?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brooke's question, if there are 2 couples asking for money from the "kis," would they give to both women first, or one woman and then her husband, and then the next woman and then her husband. The Gemara says, "We provide the orphan girl, then afterwards we provide for the orphan boy, because it is normal for a man to return to the doors (i.e. to go begging door-to-door), but it is not customary for a woman to do so." My interpretation of this is that they provide for all the women that need dowry money, and then, whatever is left over goes to the orphan boys. Even if the boys are getting married to and “in-line” with the orphan girls who get provided for first, it is still more accepted for them (the orphan boys) to go beg door-to-door. So they are put off until all the dowries are paid for, and given the leftover zuz from the “kis.”
ReplyDeleteI was wondering though if girls/women also begged door-to-door but maybe it was looked down upon, and the ideal situation was that only men/boys would “return to the doors,” but the realistic situation was that orphan girls did the same amount of begging at people’s doors.
Ben Heyman (Behn for some reason?!?)
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sofi's question, I don't think women were allowed to beg because that was a form of work for the men. It would seem completely out of character for a woman to do that probably. For that reason, the rule was set up by the Rabbis saying the woman gets married first, rather than the man.
This can also lead to another question, If the woman has no home and is orphaned (rare case I know) at what age would the Rabbis say it would be fine to marry her off? What if she was just a child and had no where to go or no one was able to take care of her?
In response to Ben's statement, maybe women weren't allowed to beg for their own, personal safety. In present day, depending on where she is, a woman could be in danger if she begs at doors. She could be taken advantage of or be hurt. In the time of the Talmud, women already had no rights. Most likely, men wouldn't care if they took advantage of a women and her honor was tarnished thus making her less valuable. Perhaps the rabbis were sheltering women against men who might hurt them.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sofi's question, I think that ideal vs. practical definitely comes into play. Like we saw in the Torah text, it says that God gives all things to the people but immediately after states that you must take care of your brother. Here the ideal is that her father, husband or community via kis will provide all necessities for a woman. Practically speaking, a woman probably will not have all those resources. If the woman is also an orphan then she very well may have to resort to begging.
In response to Josh’s question (Also since the Tzedakah is colleting money house to house, wouldn’t they be competing with orphans? Who comes first the Fund at your door or the Orphans who are begging?): I don’t think the Tzedakah collectors are necessarily “competing” with the orphans because the money given to Tzedakah would probably go to the orphans. When an orphan begs door-to-door, the giver knows whom they are giving to, and likewise, the receiver knows who gave them money. Like Brooke said, this is one of the lowest forms of Tzedakah. This is because the receiver knows who gave them their charity and therefore they could be inclined to think that they “owe” that person. If an orphan receives money from a Tzedakah fund, they do not know where that money originally came from, so they don’t “owe” anyone. This adds to the embarrassment factor. It is much more embarrassing to beg from a person (who also has to provide for himself/his family) than asking for money from a Tzedakah fund (whose soul purpose is providing for the needy). But when deciding whether to give to orphans at your door or a Tzedakah fund, it really depends on the situation. For example, it would be much easier to give fifty zuz to an orphan boy trying to provide for his wife when he comes to your door, rather than giving to Tzedakah and having the orphan boy wait until all the orphan girls are provided for.
ReplyDeleteAlex, I completely agree with your statement: ". This is because the receiver knows who gave them their charity and therefore they could be inclined to think that they “owe” that person."
ReplyDeleteThis is why I think that men are the ones that are able to beg door-to-door; they are the workers and the supporters of their wives. If they feel the need to pay someone back that has given them money, they are free to do so. Unlike men, women can NOT work and can NOT provide for the family or other people in need. Why, then, would she have to beg door-to-door? She's already been degraded into being the child-bearer and cook! The man, THE ONE THAT PROVIDES FOR HIS WIFE, has to be willing to beg if they are in need. They should be able to give tzedakkah, while providing comfortably for his family. If he feels "too embarrassed" or too low, then he must find a new skill. Women could have probably helped a lot, if only they were allowed in that society, but because they're not, the men just have to suck it up and deal with the embarrassment. It is not fair and a complete double standard if the wife is made to bear kids and be as property, in some ways, and also have to beg.
A comment I disagree with is Tina's third part of her comment. I agree with the fact that "kavod" could mean wealth because "the Husband should provide for his wife according to her wealth" makes sense because he is providing either money, food, clothes, etc. but I do not think that "kavod" could be viewed as beauty because you don't necessarily provide for someone based on how beautiful they are. I have trouble when you say: "I think kavod could also be beauty because in these times women were viewed as property. Due to this, a more beautiful woman could be considered more “valuable”, and would receive a larger dowry if there was enough Tzedakah in the kis." I disagree with this statement because first of all, women weren't necessarily viewed AS property, they were like property but they weren't viewed as an actual possession. Yes, they didn't have a lot of say in many matters, and back then, could not fend for themselves,but this doesn't make them property. I agree with LIla when she says "However, I do not agree with Tina's assumption that a more beautiful girl would receive a larger dowry, seeing as she is attractive and men may be willing to marry her for less. I would guess that the more beautiful she is, the less money she needs for her dowry because more people would be willing to marry her." I feel like beauty and dowry could go hand in hand, but i find it more probable that the dowry was provided and decided according it her wealth, as oppose to her beauty.
ReplyDelete