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. Make sure you read other students comments, too, before you offer your opinion.
Mia Comment #1:
ReplyDeleteThis text brings up a lot of questions, and one that i felt was unanswered was why the husband could not "clothe her" in his clothes when she came in, while he was naked. The face that he is going to take responsibility and marry her is a big step, but its even bigger when he then says that even though he doesn't have any money, he will try his best to obtain that money to take care of her. I don't understand why in this text money is a roadblock in the way of getting married. If a young and respectable jewish boy wanted to marry a young jewish girl thats fine, if he doesn't have enough money but says he will try to work to get the money then isn't that good enough?
Ely Comment #1:
DeleteInteresting. As we have all talked about in class the dowry was a way to get the man convinced to marry the woman. If you think about it, though, the dowry is also for another reason. Why would the man want the dowry? Well, let's back up. As Rabbi Goodman has said multiple times, marriage is when the woman goes from the dad's responsibility to the husband's responsibility. What does responsibility mean? It means that they provide for her. It means that they pay for her expenses. So, the reason the dowry is such a good incentive for marriage for the husband is because the large amount of fifty Zuz could seriously help with those expenses. So, even if the husband is poor, I agree with Mia; the poor husband should be able to marry the woman because of the law about the dowry.
Leah comment 1
ReplyDeleteOne of the things we are taught as young girls is about true love. Cinderella and Ariel haves trained us to think that's e are all going to grow up and find our true loves and live happily ever after! It's text contradicts this childhood dream. This texts says that a father will have to give his daughter along with a dowry of 50 zuz. One of the sections of this text says "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." This means that even if the husband loves the woman, he will not accept her without the 50 zuz. Cinderella would feel that this completely contradicts her whole life. She grew up having a hard life but all was better once she found her true love. The Talmudic women live in their fathers houses until they are ready to be given to a man, along with 50 zuz. The Talmudic women were treated just the same as the 50 zuz. I would not recommend this text to young, hopeful children for the reason that it would spoil their hopes of finding their Prince Charming in the future. This text has been rated PG.
I see your point, but disagree. The woman is not 'worth' 50 zuz, she must bring 50 zuz with her into the marriage, to offset the cost her husband will spend to care for her for the next 50+ years.
DeleteMichelle's comment #1
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mia in the sense that money should not be an issue if two people wanted to get married. One of the questions I had was what is the consequence if you don't have 50 zuzim? Does that mean they can't get married? I also think its strange that the man must wait to clothe her in his own house, and clothe her in her fathers house. That brings up the question, what if she doesn't have a father? What does he do then? I think that if the love was strong enough between two people, he would allow her to come into his house "naked," meaning that he is okay without the the dowry being paid. If he still wants the dowry, then the wedding would have to be called off.
Daniel comment 1
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what Mia is saying. I believe there is nothing wrong with getting married young. I do disagree with the statement that is about trying to find work to support a family. Once a couple gets married they are then responsible for each other, and in the future a family. Having no money when married is one thing, but i believe that bringing a child into a family with no money is not only a poor choice, but it becomes unfair to the child. There is no reason to bring a child into a family with no money. It will only negatively affect the child, and can ruin the child's life. What if the job doesn't come? Then a family becomes responsible for three or more people and can't support themselves. I believe it is okay to marry if the money is there or guaranteed to be there in the near future, but otherwise i would be very cautious about getting married young and without money.
Rachel Wechsler Comment:1
ReplyDeleteOne question that I had on the text had to do with the line that talks about her being naked. It says that'll she enters into the marriage naked, then the man will clothe her when they get married. Clearly, this is not literal, and the woman is not naked. My question was, what does it mean if she enters naked? And, how is she clothed?
As I kept reading, I realized that this is referring to a dowry. A dowry is when the father of his daughter gives a gift or money to the husband. According to this text, usually its not less than 50 zuzim. So I realized that when it says she's "naked" it means she doesn't have enough money to give her husband for the dowry. Then its says, he brings her into the house anyways, and he will "clothe" her, which means that he will agree to this lack of money.
However, what if he doesn't agree, and only wants to marry her if she has enough money? If this happened, then it would be unfair for the women who didn't have enough money. So would a dowry be fair? Well, back then it probably was, because women weren't worth much.
My question is similar to Michelle's, because this how is this fair? My answer is that it really isn't, but as hard as it is to admit, life isn't fair. Women weren't
treated fairly, but there is nothing to do about it.
As I read this text, I noticed that "clothing" holds a strong presence in an entry unrelated to clothes. It is understandable about the clothes being a metaphor for "dowry", but this can be easily misinterpreted. When it mentions entering the house "naked", it could be easily misread of it being "literally entering the house naked" when it really means without a dowry. The question I have to ask is: why use "naked" as an easily misunderstood metaphor, when using "without a dowry" is a simpler way. It could result in a lack of confusion and would help those who do not fully understand the text comprehend it easily.
ReplyDelete(Comment #1, Pierce)
That's a great kasha.
DeleteSamuel Comment 1:
ReplyDeleteThroughout history and in todays world money has always been a problem. Weather it's moving in to a new house or buying and awesome bike money can very often be a huge barrier. However one circumstance where I would most defiantly agree with Mia on is that money should not be a blockade in marriage. You don't have to get married on the remote island Molokini and have a a honey moon in Spain for the marriage to "count." Why should money have such a big role in marriage. Specifically, the Mishnah states that to be married the father of the daughter has to pay 50 zuz which is almost half a years earning for the average being back in those times. I feel that it is an unnecessary law and can easily be compromised. For example, a person should be able to pay back in increments or save up until they have the money and in the mean time the couple can marry. Thank g-d it does not work like this today since its not easy to pull out 50 zuz for the average citizen in todays world.
Alana Commet #1
ReplyDeleteIn this text many ideas and questions are brought up. While reading the text I found it interesting that it only mentioned the orphan and not the widow. It seems like an all the previous texts we've learned like Orlah, the two are always somehow connected. My question is, does this text apply to the widow and if so how?
In my opinion it is very hard to compare the two in this text if it does apply to both the widow and the orphan. I think that although one must treat a widow and an orphan both with respect they are both coming from different backgrounds. However, I do think that a father of a widow should owe a dowry to her husband if she gets married again, but I think that it should be less then 50 zuzim because it is her second marriage and he has already lost 50 zuzim on her first marriage.
Natasha comment #1
ReplyDeleteIf the woman is living with her father, then why would the husband have to clothe her when she isn't living with him? Also if they aren't married yet why would he have to clothe her? Is it because when he signed the contract he agreed to take care of her? Or would it be because he needs to show that he is committed to taking care of her and her needs? I just don't think that it makes much sense, to start clothing her with your money before she is you're wife and before you're married. In a way it might be rude to only clothe her when she is your wife, but you shouldn't have to be responsible for her until you are married and she is living with you. On the other hand, if you need to prove that you are going to be committed to your relationship with her to her father, maybe that was the way to show it in those days. But even though its a good way to show commitment would the father really care as long as you took good care of his daughter? I mean in those days a woman was kind of considered as a burden since she never worked so is it really that important to clothe her before she's living with you? Or is it just one of those rules we have like giving the 50 Zuz?
Jason comment #1
ReplyDeleteThis text is very interesting in the fact that the text contradicts itself. In the first part of the text, it says that the one who marries off his daughter has to pay the husband a dowry of 50 zuz. But, a few lines later, it says that you can enter the daughter 'naked' . This says that the daughter can be entered in without a dowry, even though it says you can't. Also, what if the Father and the Daughter are not Jewish? Do they still have to pay a dowry? I agree with michelle here in the fact that why the Husband has to clothe the daughter in the father's house. This text, like a lot of talmudic texts, really is confusing and leaves the reader with a lot of questions. I think that this dowry law was enforced by how the text was interpreted. So, that means different people will have different opinions on how this text should be enforced.
The key phrase you missed is 'if he agrees'- i.e. a bride pays 50, UNLESS he agrees to forgo the money.
DeleteMy understanding that the term "naked" means without one's personal possessions or without anything that she could use to support herself. The question I have is if the woman's father does not have the 50 zuz and the man truly loves her can he overlook that and still marry her? At this point I would agree with Leah's comments about questioning true love and did they marry for love or money? Did they have a choice. Is this a strict law or is there room to vary it? I noticed that there is a difference of where a man takes responsibility for the woman depending on if she comes in "naked" versus "not naked". If she comes in naked he starts to take resposiblity at her father's house which is before they are actually married. Why is there a difference in the time frame of when they get married? Furthermore, "naked" could mean to find out what you are truly getting into with that person. That secrets are revealed. Therefore, this text leaves definite room for interpretation so that people can actually get married for love rather than money.
ReplyDeleteZachary comment #1
ReplyDeleteThere are many questions that can be asked about this text. For example, one of the questions can be, why must it be 50 zuz? Why not anything less or more? However, that is not the question that was confusing to me. The question that made me have to think a little was, "What does it mean to marry normal"? That is a good question. What does it mean to marry normal? What would it mean to marry abnormally? Maybe normal marriage means the appropriate age, time... who knows!? I think it would mean not to marry to young or to old. That's what an abnormal marriage might mean! For example, if you are at the age 90 and your husband or wife has past away, getting remarried isn't probably the best way to go. In other words, an abnormal way to go. Also, if the girl or man is to young to be married, it is also abnormal. I know that in the past, people got married at the age 14-17. However, that is not the case now. In these days that would be an abnormal marriage. I would say the normal marriage age is 22-35.
Gabi Comment #1
ReplyDeleteAs everyone else has said, this text brings up many questions. However, one questions that has not yet been brought up is why does the text tell the man what NOT to say? It says a man may not say "When she comes in to my house, I will clothe her with my clothes." But why wouldn't this text just say that the man must begin to provide for his wife before they are married, when she is still in her father's house, instead of saying what he shouldn't say? The only answer to this question I could think of was that this text is being very specific. Maybe if it only said what a man SHOULD do, people would not know what the alternative was. It would be less specific and therefore less limiting, and people would be more likely to make mistakes.In the case of the Torah, I think it is better for it to be specific so people do not accidentally break any laws.
Molly Comment #1
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mia in this case, that money should not be an obstacle regarding marriage, and should not get in between true love. However, I more so agree with Daniel because I think that a very important part of marriage is being able to provide for each other and your family. I think that when you initially get married, it is not a problem to not have very much money. But I also think that when you decide to start a family, you should be able to provide for your family, because if you can't, the family will not end up in good shape. It would also not be responsible to start a family without any money, because you will only suffer from that. The dowry also symbolizes the father not being responsible for the daughter anymore, and the husband taking over that role. When I think of a father taking care of his daughter, I think of him paying for all of her actions including food, shelter, and basic everyday needs. If the husband is not able to care for the wife like that, it might not end up in a good relationship.
Another question that came to mind was how would an orphan even be able to pay the 50 zuz, if they never really had a fatherly figure in their lives to teach them the skills of being able to make money? Also, if they do have a fatherly figure in their lives, why are they even considered an orphan? I do not think that the orphan should have the same requirement of paying 50 zuz. If they are an orphan, they most likely do not have very much money and if they are lucky enough to have found their love of their life money should not hold her back. I also think that the orphan should have extra time to pay the 50 zuz, if it still is 50 zuz, because it might take them longer to pay that money. I think that another option would be to pa in increments, like Sam said, so that way they can still get married.
When the father of the wife gives money to the husband to take care of his daughter, the husband uses the 50 zuz on taking care of the wife. If the wife is an orphan, who will give the money to the husband to take care of the wife? If the husband has no money for the wife, and the woman has no father, how would the zuz be provided? This is a topic question the confused me very much. It confused me because it is a income issue. Income issues are the worst, especially in the beginning of a marriage.
ReplyDeleteLiana Brown Comment #1:
ReplyDeleteThis text discusses many situations and problems concerning the marriage of orphaned women. One question that has not been asked is who is the 'they' in 'they who marry off a female orphan?' Who pays her dowry making her become her husband’s responsibility? These are some of the many questions I had concerning an orphaned women in this text, and I think the text was being unspecific for a reason. Although this idea somewhat conflicts with Gabi’s thoughts ion how the text was being very specific so that laws would be followed I still feel that this is the best explanation. In one case maybe a women has a close relative such as a grandparent or uncle who is willing to make her their responsibility after her parents have died, and finically support her. They would then pay the dowry allowing her to get married. Realistically, there will not be this kind of support from a non-committed relative. Maybe there was some form of Tzedakah fund that was specifically for these cases and that supported these women until they became the responsibilities of their husbands. The text was not specific in order to account for these special cases, allowing women to keep their finical problems private, and so that they wouldn’t feel bad that there was no one to give them away when they got married. 'They' is a non-specific group of people so that regardless of the supplier of the dowry an orphaned woman was still able to get married in whatever finical situation she was a part of.
Bruce Comment #6
ReplyDeleteIf its a prearranged marriage and the reason behind the agreement is one bennifititng the husband, is a Dowrey still necessary. This can be looked at in two ways 1.) that the Dowrey provides a bennifititng to the husband who is taking a wife as a "labor of love" in that case the Dowrey would be unnessicary. He doesn't something benefitting him because the arranged marriage is already positive for him and he's already gaining everything he wants.
or the second 2.) being that yes, the dowery is needed as some form of negotiation, but in a case where a deal on the marriage is pre determined the dowery should be lessened. this still manages to not address the issue of which type of Zuz