spread underneath him to walk on, and with his blessing, the poor would come and fold them up from behind him for themselves? Clearly he gave abundant charity. The Gemara offers two possible explanations: If you wish, say that he acted that way for his own honor, to demonstrate that he considered the exorbitant expense trivial. And if you wish, say that as he should have done, he did not do. As people say, according to the camel is the burden. The stronger the camel, the heavier the load it must bear. Even if he gave altruistically, Nakdimon ben Guryon did not give as much as he was expected to give.

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:8) with regard to the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said in the form of an oath: I pray that I will not see the consolation of the Jewish people if I did not see her gathering barley kernels from between the hooves of horses in Akko. I recited this verse about her: “If you know not, O you fairest among women, go your way forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed your kids, beside the shepherds’ tents” (Song of Songs 1:8). Do not read it as “your kids [gediyotayikh]” but rather read it as your bodies [geviyotayikh]. This woman is compelled to follow the sheep to the pastures in order to sustain her own body from the leftovers of their food.

§ The Gemara returns to the topic of how the groom records the bride’s dowry in the marriage contract: Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If she brings him gold in her dowry, the court appraises it, and it is recorded in the marriage contract according to its value, without additions or subtractions. The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: The halakha is that the gold is like utensils and not like cash for purposes of the dowry. The Gemara qualifies its objection: What, is it not that gold is like silver vessels, which diminish, so that they resemble all other goods in the dowry whose values are reduced in the marriage contract? The Gemara responds: No, the intent is that gold is like utensils of gold, which do not diminish. The Gemara asks: If so, the baraita should have stated that gold is like its own utensils, which would demonstrate that gold is appraised according to its true value. Evidently, then, this is not true of gold.

And moreover, one can ask: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:2) that the halakha is that gold is like utensils and that gold dinars are like silver coins. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where people were accustomed not to exchange them, the court appraises them, and they are recorded at their appraised worth, no more or less. The Gemara clarifies: To which clause is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel referring, when he comments that they are not exchanged? If we say he is commenting on the latter clause concerning the gold dinars, by inference it may be understood that the first tanna holds that gold dinars have the same status as cash, even in a place where people were accustomed not to exchange them. But they are not used and do not function as liquid money in a place where they are not exchanged. Why, then, does the husband need to raise the value as though they were functional cash?

Rather, is it not that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commented on the first clause of the baraita, and this is what the baraita is saying: The halakha is that gold is like utensils. What is meant by the ambiguous term utensils? Utensils of silver. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel qualifies this ruling and says: The halakha is that it is like gold dinars, whose value remains constant, in a place where they are accustomed not to exchange it or use it for business. In any event, the opinion of the first tanna in this baraita, that gold is treated like silver utensils, contradicts the previous assertion that gold must have the status of gold utensils, not silver utensils.

The Gemara responds: No, actually it must be that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commented on the latter clause of the baraita, which deals with gold dinars, and they are not exchanged because they are used as cash only with difficulty. They are not typically used for business, but they could be used when necessary. And consequently, they disagree about this: One Sage, the first tanna, holds since they are used when necessary, we increase the value of gold dinars for the wife in the dowry, and the husband writes an increased sum in the marriage contract. And one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds since they are used for commerce only with difficulty, we do not increase the value of gold dinars for her. According to this interpretation, the first opinion can still subscribe to the notion that gold pieces, like gold utensils, are appraised at their actual value.

If you wish, say instead that the entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The halakha is that a piece of gold is like utensils and gold dinars are like money. In what case is this statement said? In a place where the people were accustomed to exchange the dinars. However, in a place where the people were accustomed not to exchange the dinars, the court appraises their worth, and they are recorded at their appraised worth. This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a place where the people were accustomed not to exchange them, the court appraises their worth, and they are recorded at their appraised worth.

The contradiction from this baraita has been resolved, but in any case, a difficulty remains: If the status of gold is similar to that of gold utensils and it is appraised at its actual value, the baraita should have stated that gold is like its own utensils and not simply like any utensils. The Gemara answers: The language is difficult. If you wish, say the following answer instead: With what are we dealing here? With smashed gold fragments. Rav Ashi said: We are dealing with granules of gold. Certainly, then, they are not treated as gold utensils, but the novel element of the baraita is that they have the status of regular utensils and not of gold dinars.

§ Apropos the preceding discussion concerning the appraisal of objects used for commerce, the Gemara cites a series of related comments. Rabbi Yannai said: With regard to spices in Antioch, they are like money. Since in Antioch they would conduct business with spices, they should be treated like cash when a woman brings them in her dowry. Similarly, Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Concerning camels in Arabia, a woman may collect the amount of her marriage settlement from them. Since they conduct business using camels in Arabia, the camels are consequently given the status that money has in other places.

Similarly, Rav Pappi said: With regard to those robes in Bei Mikhsei, a woman may collect her marriage settlement from them because they use dresses for commerce. And Rav Pappi said: With regard to these sacks in Rodya and ropes in Kimḥonya, a woman may collect her marriage settlement from them. Rava said: Initially, I would have said that concerning those money pouches [arnakei] in Meḥoza, a woman may collect her marriage settlement from them. What is the reason? They rely on them, and they serve the commercial function served by real estate in other places. Once I saw that they take them and the pouches are used, and when they find land they buy it with them and do not retain them, I said that they too rely on land. The money pouches are used in a fluid manner, but these pouches do not serve the same role served by real estate.

MISHNA: With regard to one who marries off his daughter with the terms of the dowry unspecified, he must not give her less than fifty dinars. If the bride’s father pledged to bring her into the marriage bare, by saying that he refuses to give her anything, the husband should not say: When I bring her into my house, I will clothe her with my clothing, but not beforehand. Rather, he must clothe her while she is yet in her father’s house, and she enters the marriage with the clothing in hand. And similarly, with regard to a charity administrator who marries off an orphan girl, he must not give her less than fifty dinars. If there are sufficient resources in the charity fund, the charities provide even more for her, furnishing a dowry and her other needs according to her dignity.

GEMARA: Abaye said: The fifty dinars mentioned in the mishna is referring to fifty provincial dinars, each of which is worth one-eighth the amount of a standard dinar. From where do I know that this is so? From the fact that the latter clause teaches: If there are sufficient resources in the charity fund, the charities provide more for her, furnishing a dowry and her other needs according to her dignity. And we say: What is this fund? Raḥava said: The charity fund. And if it enters our minds to say that the mishna is referring to fifty actual, i.e., standard, dinars, if there are sufficient resources in the fund, how many standard dinars do we give him? Fifty standard dinars is already a sizable sum to distribute as charity. Rather, conclude from this comment that the mishna is referring to fifty provincial dinars.

The Sages taught: Concerning an orphan boy and an orphan girl who have come and appealed to be supported by the charity fund, the distributors provide for the orphan girl first and afterward they provide for the orphan boy. This is because it is the way of a man to circulate about the entryways to ask for charity, and it is not a woman’s way to circulate for charity. Therefore, her need is greater. Concerning an orphan boy and orphan girl