Resources for Kesubos 66
1. The גמרא discusses why the husband should be entitled to בושת when if his horse is shamed he doesn’t get any remuneration. The גמרא’s entire discussion is clearly going according to רבי יהודה בן בתירא. Based on this, the ר"ח, רי"ף and רמב"ם in הלכות חובל פּרק ד הל׳ ט"ו all pasken like רבי יהודה בן בתירא. The תוספות רי"ד as well as the גר"א in אבן העזר סימן פּ"ג ס"ק ג disagree and say the הלכה is like the חכמים since יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים. The גר"א brings many proofs all over shas where the גמרא is only going according to one שיטה yet the רי"ף himself doesn’t pasken that way. The תוספות רי"ד adds a yesodosik point: the only time we say that a גמרא discussing a specific תנא means that the גמרא paskens that way is if we have nothing else to go with. However, when an established כלל like יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים then we go with the established כלל.
2. There is an often quoted רמב"ם in הלכות חובל פּרק ד הל׳ ט"ז that says a man is entitled to some of his wife’s בושת but only if someone else did it to her. If the husband himself was מבייש her then he gets nothing and has to pay her the full amount. The ראב"ד there argues and says even if the husband did it himself he is still entitled to keep his portion. The ברכת שמואל brings from the גר"ח that explains the מחלוקת based on the following חקירה: do we say that the husband gets his third because he is entitled to a portion of the wife’s payment or is the reason the husband gets some of the money because he is also embarrassed when his wife is humiliated? If you say the latter then when he is the one doing the ביוש he must not be embarrassed so he would not be entitled to any payment (like the רמב"ם ). However, if you say he simply has right to the payment then even if he did the ביוש he would be entitled to it (like the ראב"ד). This comes up again later when the גמרא says that if someone spits on a בגד they have no זילותא but by his wife אית לה זילותא. According to that גירסא it sounds like it is only the woman who has זילותא and the husband just is just entitled to some of the payment. However, the שיטה brings another גורסא that says אית ליה זילותא meaning the husband is embarrassed when the wife is embarrassed and that is why he gets the payment.
3. The משנה says that you have to give a woman money for her בשמים. The גמרא says that this requirement was only for people in ירושלים which רש"י says means that people there were simply used to that way of living. תוספות in ד"ה לא נאמרו asks that the גמרא in יומא on דף ל"ט ע"ב says that no כלה in ירושלים ever needed to wear perfume because of the pleasant smell of the קטורת everywhere. If so, why would people in ירושלים need perfume more than anywhere else? Therefore he says it must be that it isn’t perfume but rather other beauty products. The יעב"ץ has an amazing הערה—תוספות question proves that it was perfume! In other words, the קטורת in ירושלים is הקדש so you aren’t allowed to get הנאה from it. If so, everyone in ירושלים would have to use perfume to make sure they weren’t being נהנה from the ריח הקטורת! תוספות himself in יומא says that it is אסור to try to smell the ריח הקטורת so how would we explain תוספות by our גמרא? Perhaps תוספות understood that women used perfume to remove foul smells and if every place smells nice it will mask the bad smell so there would be no need for perfume. Interestingly, in the גמרא in יומא itself the יעב"ץ says that regular women didn’t have to put on perfume to counteract the קטורת since they weren’t having כוונה ליהנות. However, a כלה had to do it since for her it was considered מכוון. That sounds inconsistent with our יעב"ץ who says that they all would use בשמים.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander
Rabbi Ari Keilson - Maarei Mekomos