Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 22, 2022 | ื›ืดื” ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 47

This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of his wife, Rena on the occasion of their 40th anniversary!ย 

ืžืฉื•ื ืื™ื‘ื”

The Gemara explains: The reason is due to enmity, so that he should not bear a grudge against her for finding articles and withholding them from him, which might lead him to become reluctant to provide her with sustenance.

ื‘ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืžืขืฉื” ื”ื‘ืช ืœืื‘ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื›ื•ืจ ืื™ืฉ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืœืืžื” ืžื” ืืžื” ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื” ืืฃ ื‘ืช ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืžืฆื™ ืžื–ื‘ืŸ ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื ืขืจื” ื“ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžื–ื‘ืŸ ืœื” ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื” ื”ื•ื•

ยง The mishna further taught that a father is entitled to his daughterโ€™s earnings. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: As Rav Huna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the earnings of a daughter belong to her father? As it is stated: โ€œAnd if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservantโ€ (Exodus 21:7), which indicates that just as with regard to a maidservant, her earnings belong to her master, as she was sold for this purpose, so too with regard to a daughter, her earnings go to her father. The Gemara asks: But one can say that this applies only to a minor, as a father can sell her as a maidservant. However, with regard to a young woman, whom he cannot sell, perhaps her earnings should belong to her.

ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื‘ื™ื” ื”ื•ื• ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืื• ื“ืื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ื”ื ื“ื–ื›ื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืื‘ ืœืžื™ืžืกืจื” ืœื—ื•ืคื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžืกืจ ืœื” ื”ื ืงืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืœื” ืžืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื”

The Gemara responds: It is reasonable that her earnings should go to her father, as, if it should enter your mind to say that her earnings do not belong to her father, what about the fact that the Merciful One entitles a father to bring his daughter, when she is a young woman, to the wedding canopy? How can he bring her to the wedding canopy? Doesnโ€™t he thereby cause her to neglect her earnings at that time, as she cannot work while getting married? If she has the rights to her own earnings, she can object on these grounds.

ืคืจื™ืš ืจื‘ ืื—ืื™ ืื™ืžื ื“ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื” ืฉื›ืจ ืคืงืขืชื” ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžืกืจ ืœื” ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžืกืจ ืœื” ื‘ืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื•ื™ืžื™ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื

Rav Aแธฅai refutes this claim: Say that when he brings her to the wedding canopy, he gives her the wages she neglects by taking a break from her work, and therefore the above objection does not apply. Alternatively, it is referring to a case where he brought her to the wedding canopy at night, when she does not work. Alternatively, it means that he brought her to the wedding canopy on Shabbatot or Festivals, when it is prohibited to work.

ืืœื ืงื˜ื ื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืงืจื ื”ืฉืชื ื–ื‘ื•ื ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ [ืืœื] ื›ื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื ืœื ืขืจื”

Rather, the Gemara reverts to the original exposition based upon the case of a Hebrew maidservant, and argues that with regard to a minor, it is not necessary to derive from a verse that her father is entitled to her earnings, for the following reason: Now, if her father has the right to sell her as a maidservant, is it necessary to state that her earnings belong to him? Rather, when the verse was necessary, it was to teach that the earnings of a young woman also belong to her father.

ื‘ื”ืคืจืช ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื ืขื•ืจื™ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื”

ยง The mishna taught that a father is entitled to effect the nullification of his daughterโ€™s vows. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that it is written: โ€œBeing in her youth, in her fatherโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:17), and the Torah proceeds to explain that during this period a father can nullify his daughterโ€™s vows.

ื•ืžืงื‘ืœ ืืช ื’ื™ื˜ื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ืื™ืชืงื•ืฉ ื™ืฆื™ืื” ืœื”ื•ื™ื™ื”

The mishna further taught: And he accepts her bill of divorce on her behalf. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that it is written: โ€œAnd she departs out of his house and goes and becomes another manโ€™s wifeโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:2). This verse juxtaposes departing a marriage and becoming a wife, which teaches that the halakhot of betrothal apply to her departing her husbandโ€™s home via a bill of divorce. Consequently, just as a father has the right to accept betrothal on his daughterโ€™s behalf, he can also receive a bill of divorce on her behalf.

ื•ืื™ื ื• ืื•ื›ืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื” ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืื‘ ืื™ื ื• ืื•ื›ืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืชื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืื‘ ืื•ื›ืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืขืœ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืคื™ืจื™ ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื™ืžื ืข ื•ืœื ืคืจื™ืง

ยง The mishna taught that a father may not consume the produce of his daughterโ€™s property during her lifetime. The Sages taught in a baraita: A father may not consume the produce of his daughterโ€™s property during his daughterโ€™s lifetime. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A father may consume this produce during his daughterโ€™s lifetime. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains that the first tanna holds: Granted, in the case of a husband, the Sages decreed for him that he should consume her produce, as if this were not so, he would refrain from redeeming her if she were captured. The right of a husband to consume the produce of his wifeโ€™s property was instituted in order to correspond to his obligation to redeem his wife from captivity.

ืืœื ืื‘ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื“ืžื™ืžื ืข ื•ืœื ืคืจื™ืง ื‘ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ืคืจื™ืง ืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืื‘ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ืžื ืข ื•ืœื ืคืจื™ืง ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ืกื ื ืงื™ื˜ื ืขื™ืœื•ื” ืชื™ื–ื™ืœ ื•ืชืคืจื•ืง ื ืคืฉื”

However, in the case of a father, what is there to say? That he will refrain from redeeming her? Even without this right to the produce of her property he will redeem her, as she is his daughter and he will certainly not turn a blind eye to his own flesh and blood. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: If he is deprived of the right to the produce of his daughterโ€™s property, a father will also refrain from redeeming her, as he will reason: A pouch of money is held in her hand for a time of need, so let her go and redeem herself.

ื ื™ืกืช ื™ืชืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ื›ืœ ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืกื•ืช ื•ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื™ื‘ื•ืื• ืขืžื” ืžื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืชื” ืœื ื–ื›ื” ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืœืœื• ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืืžืจื• ื–ื›ื” ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืœืœื•

ยง The mishna further taught that if the daughter married, the husband has more rights than her father, as he consumes the produce of her property. The Sages taught in a baraita: If the father wrote for her in her marriage contract that he was providing produce, clothing, and vessels that would come with her as a dowry from her fatherโ€™s house to her husbandโ€™s house, and she died during the betrothal period, the husband does not have the right to these objects. They said in the name of Rabbi Natan: The husband does have the right to these objects.

ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื ืชืืจืžืœื” ืื• ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืœืžื ื” ืžื ื”

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the dispute of these tannaโ€™im is parallel to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (54b): If a woman was widowed or divorced, whether from marriage or from betrothal, she collects the entire sum specified in her marriage contract, including any extra amount her husband added to the standard sum required by the Sages. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: If she was widowed or divorced from marriage, she collects the entire amount. But if she was widowed or divorced from betrothal, she is entitled to collect only the standard minimum sum required by the Sages: If she was betrothed as a virgin she collects two hundred dinars, and if she was a widow she is entitled to one hundred dinars.

ืฉืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืืœื ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœื›ื•ื ืกื” ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื–ื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The reason is that he wrote that she would be entitled to the additional amount only on the condition that he would marry her, and since he did not marry her, she is not entitled to the extra amount. The Gemara compares the respective opinions: The one who says that the husband does not have the right to her dowry holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and therefore he rules that just as a husband guarantees his wife an extra sum in her marriage contract only if they actually get married, the wifeโ€™s father also gives the dowry only the condition that the couple marries. And the one who said that the husband does have the right to her dowry holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, because the document is fully in effect even before marriage.

ืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื–ื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ื” ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืืœื ืžื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ืฉืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืืœื ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœื›ื•ื ืกื”

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, everyone agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and the explanation is as follows: The one who said that he does not have the right to the dowry clearly holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as stated above; and the one who says the husband does have the right to her dowry would distinguish between the two cases: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya states that the marriage contract is not fully in effect until marriage only with regard to a bestowal from him to her, i.e., the extra sum that the husband adds to her marriage contract, as he wrote it for her only on the condition that he would marry her, and he did not intend to give her anything before she became his wife.

ืื‘ืœ ืžื“ื™ื“ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืžื•ื“ื™ ื“ืžืฉื•ื ืื™ื—ืชื•ื ื™ ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ื ืื™ื—ืชื ื™ ืœื”ื•

However, with regard to that which is given from her father to him, i.e., the dowry, even Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya concedes that the husband is entitled to this money, as the gift of a father is due to marriage, i.e., he wants the families to be joined in matrimony, and they have already become linked in marriage. The dowry given by the father has nothing to do with the transition from betrothal to actual marriage.

ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืชื™ื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชื™ืงื ื• ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืชื™ื” ืชื—ืช ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืงื‘ื•ืจืชื” ืชื—ืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื‘ืขืœ ืื•ื›ืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช

ยง The mishna teaches that a husband is obligated to provide his wife with sustenance, redemption from captivity, and burial. The Sages taught in a baraita: The Rabbis instituted that a husband must provide his wife with her sustenance in exchange for his rights to her earnings, and similarly they decreed that a husband must tend to her burial in exchange for the fact that he inherits the dowry that she brought into the marriage and which is written in her marriage contract. Consequently, the husband may consume the produce of her property.

ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืจ ืฉืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืชื™ืงื ื• ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืชื™ื” ืชื—ืช ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืคื™ืจืงื•ื ื” ืชื—ืช ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืงื‘ื•ืจืชื” ืชื—ืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื‘ืขืœ ืื•ื›ืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช

The Gemara expresses surprise at this last statement: Produce, who mentioned anything about that? The baraita did not previously mention produce at all, so how did it arrive at a halakhic conclusion with regard to produce? The Gemara explains that the baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: They instituted that a husband must provide his wife with her sustenance in exchange for his rights to her earnings; and it is his duty to provide her with redemption from captivity in exchange for his right to consume the produce of her property; and it is his obligation to attend to her burial in exchange for the fact that he inherits the dowry that she brought into the marriage and which is written in her marriage contract. Consequently, a husband may consume the produce of her property.

ืžืื™ ืœืคื™ื›ืš

Although the Gemara has explained how the tanna came to speak about produce, the wording of the baraita remains problematic. What is the significance of the word consequently in this context?

ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื™ื›ืœ ืœื ื ื›ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืื ื•ื—ื™ ื ื ื—ื™ื ื”ื• ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื™ืžื ืข ื•ืœื ืคืจื™ืง ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื ืขื“ื™ืคื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ืžืœื• ื•ืคืจื™ืง ืœื” ืžื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the husband should not consume the produce but leave it so that if he requires funds to redeem his wife he will have them available, as, if he is not compelled to do so he will refrain from redeeming her, as he will be unwilling to spend his own money for that purpose; the tanna therefore teaches us that this arrangement is preferable, because sometimes the produce will not amount to the funds necessary to redeem her from captivity, and he would not redeem her if he was expected to use the funds produced by her property. Consequently, the Sages decreed that he consumes the produce immediately and that he must redeem her from his own funds if she is taken into captivity.

ื•ืื™ืคื•ืš ืื ื

After analyzing the language of the baraita, the Gemara turns its attention to the halakha itself. But I can reverse these connections; why does the baraita say that a husbandโ€™s obligation to provide his wife with sustenance was instituted in exchange for his right to her earnings, as opposed to another of his rights, e.g., his right to consume the produce of her property?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชื™ืงื ื• ืžืฆื•ื™ ืœืžืฆื•ื™ ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืฆื•ื™ ืœืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืฆื•ื™

Abaye said: The Sages instituted a common obligation in exchange for a common right, and they instituted an uncommon obligation in exchange for an uncommon right. In other words, the Sages instituted a husbandโ€™s obligation to provide his wife with sustenance, which is relevant on a regular basis, in exchange for his right to her earnings, which also applies regularly. The other obligations and rights of a husband are relevant less frequently.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืกื‘ืจ ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉืืจื” ืืœื• ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืืฉืจ ืื›ืœื• ืฉืืจ ืขืžื™ ื›ืกื•ืชื” ื›ืžืฉืžืขื• ืขื•ื ืชื” ื–ื• ืขื•ื ื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืชืขื ื” ืืช ื‘ื ื•ืชื™

ยง Rava said: This tanna, in the baraita cited below, maintains that the obligation of a husband to provide his wifeโ€™s sustenance applies by Torah law, as it is taught with regard to the verse pertaining to a husbandโ€™s obligations toward his wife: โ€œIf he takes another wife for himself, her food [sheโ€™era], her clothing [kesuta], and her conjugal rights [onata], he shall not diminishโ€ (Exodus 21:10). โ€œSheโ€™eraโ€; this is sustenance, and it likewise states: โ€œWho also eat the flesh [sheโ€™er] of my peopleโ€ (Micah 3:3). โ€œKesutaโ€ is understood in its literal sense as referring to clothing. โ€œOnataโ€; this is her conjugal rights, which is stated in the Torah, and so it says: โ€œIf you shall afflict [teโ€™aneh] my daughtersโ€ (Genesis 31:50), which indicates that a husband may not deprive his wife of her conjugal rights.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืืจื” ื–ื• ืขื•ื ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืืจ ื‘ืฉืจื• ืœื ืชืงืจื‘ื• ืœื’ืœื•ืช ืขืจื•ื” ื›ืกื•ืชื” ื›ืžืฉืžืขื• ืขื•ื ืชื” ืืœื• ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื™ืขื ืš ื•ื™ืจืขื™ื‘ืš

The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar says: โ€œSheโ€™eraโ€; this is her conjugal rights, and so it says: โ€œNone of you shall approach to any who is near [sheโ€™er] of kin to him, to uncover their nakednessโ€ (Leviticus 18:6), which demonstrates that the word sheโ€™er is used in the context of sexual relations. โ€œKesutaโ€ is understood in its literal sense as referring to clothing. โ€œOnataโ€; this is sustenance, and so it says: โ€œAnd He afflicted you [vayanekha], and made you suffer hunger, and fed you with mannaโ€ (Deuteronomy 8:3).

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 42-48 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The fourth chapter continues discussing the maiden who is seduced or raped. We will learn what payments are made and...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 47: A Wife’s Monies

Contractual relationships that a woman (even a girl) has with her father and then, presumably, eventually, her husband. Including the...

Ketubot 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 47

ืžืฉื•ื ืื™ื‘ื”

The Gemara explains: The reason is due to enmity, so that he should not bear a grudge against her for finding articles and withholding them from him, which might lead him to become reluctant to provide her with sustenance.

ื‘ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืžืขืฉื” ื”ื‘ืช ืœืื‘ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื›ื•ืจ ืื™ืฉ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืœืืžื” ืžื” ืืžื” ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื” ืืฃ ื‘ืช ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืžืฆื™ ืžื–ื‘ืŸ ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื ืขืจื” ื“ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžื–ื‘ืŸ ืœื” ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื” ื”ื•ื•

ยง The mishna further taught that a father is entitled to his daughterโ€™s earnings. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: As Rav Huna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the earnings of a daughter belong to her father? As it is stated: โ€œAnd if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservantโ€ (Exodus 21:7), which indicates that just as with regard to a maidservant, her earnings belong to her master, as she was sold for this purpose, so too with regard to a daughter, her earnings go to her father. The Gemara asks: But one can say that this applies only to a minor, as a father can sell her as a maidservant. However, with regard to a young woman, whom he cannot sell, perhaps her earnings should belong to her.

ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื‘ื™ื” ื”ื•ื• ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืื• ื“ืื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ื”ื ื“ื–ื›ื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืื‘ ืœืžื™ืžืกืจื” ืœื—ื•ืคื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžืกืจ ืœื” ื”ื ืงืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืœื” ืžืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื”

The Gemara responds: It is reasonable that her earnings should go to her father, as, if it should enter your mind to say that her earnings do not belong to her father, what about the fact that the Merciful One entitles a father to bring his daughter, when she is a young woman, to the wedding canopy? How can he bring her to the wedding canopy? Doesnโ€™t he thereby cause her to neglect her earnings at that time, as she cannot work while getting married? If she has the rights to her own earnings, she can object on these grounds.

ืคืจื™ืš ืจื‘ ืื—ืื™ ืื™ืžื ื“ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื” ืฉื›ืจ ืคืงืขืชื” ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžืกืจ ืœื” ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžืกืจ ืœื” ื‘ืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื•ื™ืžื™ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื

Rav Aแธฅai refutes this claim: Say that when he brings her to the wedding canopy, he gives her the wages she neglects by taking a break from her work, and therefore the above objection does not apply. Alternatively, it is referring to a case where he brought her to the wedding canopy at night, when she does not work. Alternatively, it means that he brought her to the wedding canopy on Shabbatot or Festivals, when it is prohibited to work.

ืืœื ืงื˜ื ื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืงืจื ื”ืฉืชื ื–ื‘ื•ื ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ [ืืœื] ื›ื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื ืœื ืขืจื”

Rather, the Gemara reverts to the original exposition based upon the case of a Hebrew maidservant, and argues that with regard to a minor, it is not necessary to derive from a verse that her father is entitled to her earnings, for the following reason: Now, if her father has the right to sell her as a maidservant, is it necessary to state that her earnings belong to him? Rather, when the verse was necessary, it was to teach that the earnings of a young woman also belong to her father.

ื‘ื”ืคืจืช ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื ืขื•ืจื™ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื”

ยง The mishna taught that a father is entitled to effect the nullification of his daughterโ€™s vows. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that it is written: โ€œBeing in her youth, in her fatherโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:17), and the Torah proceeds to explain that during this period a father can nullify his daughterโ€™s vows.

ื•ืžืงื‘ืœ ืืช ื’ื™ื˜ื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืฆืื” ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ืื™ืชืงื•ืฉ ื™ืฆื™ืื” ืœื”ื•ื™ื™ื”

The mishna further taught: And he accepts her bill of divorce on her behalf. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that it is written: โ€œAnd she departs out of his house and goes and becomes another manโ€™s wifeโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:2). This verse juxtaposes departing a marriage and becoming a wife, which teaches that the halakhot of betrothal apply to her departing her husbandโ€™s home via a bill of divorce. Consequently, just as a father has the right to accept betrothal on his daughterโ€™s behalf, he can also receive a bill of divorce on her behalf.

ื•ืื™ื ื• ืื•ื›ืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื” ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืื‘ ืื™ื ื• ืื•ื›ืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืชื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืื‘ ืื•ื›ืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืขืœ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืคื™ืจื™ ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื™ืžื ืข ื•ืœื ืคืจื™ืง

ยง The mishna taught that a father may not consume the produce of his daughterโ€™s property during her lifetime. The Sages taught in a baraita: A father may not consume the produce of his daughterโ€™s property during his daughterโ€™s lifetime. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A father may consume this produce during his daughterโ€™s lifetime. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains that the first tanna holds: Granted, in the case of a husband, the Sages decreed for him that he should consume her produce, as if this were not so, he would refrain from redeeming her if she were captured. The right of a husband to consume the produce of his wifeโ€™s property was instituted in order to correspond to his obligation to redeem his wife from captivity.

ืืœื ืื‘ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื“ืžื™ืžื ืข ื•ืœื ืคืจื™ืง ื‘ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ืคืจื™ืง ืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืื‘ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ืžื ืข ื•ืœื ืคืจื™ืง ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ืกื ื ืงื™ื˜ื ืขื™ืœื•ื” ืชื™ื–ื™ืœ ื•ืชืคืจื•ืง ื ืคืฉื”

However, in the case of a father, what is there to say? That he will refrain from redeeming her? Even without this right to the produce of her property he will redeem her, as she is his daughter and he will certainly not turn a blind eye to his own flesh and blood. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: If he is deprived of the right to the produce of his daughterโ€™s property, a father will also refrain from redeeming her, as he will reason: A pouch of money is held in her hand for a time of need, so let her go and redeem herself.

ื ื™ืกืช ื™ืชืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ื›ืœ ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืกื•ืช ื•ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื™ื‘ื•ืื• ืขืžื” ืžื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืชื” ืœื ื–ื›ื” ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืœืœื• ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืืžืจื• ื–ื›ื” ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืœืœื•

ยง The mishna further taught that if the daughter married, the husband has more rights than her father, as he consumes the produce of her property. The Sages taught in a baraita: If the father wrote for her in her marriage contract that he was providing produce, clothing, and vessels that would come with her as a dowry from her fatherโ€™s house to her husbandโ€™s house, and she died during the betrothal period, the husband does not have the right to these objects. They said in the name of Rabbi Natan: The husband does have the right to these objects.

ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื ืชืืจืžืœื” ืื• ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืœืžื ื” ืžื ื”

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the dispute of these tannaโ€™im is parallel to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (54b): If a woman was widowed or divorced, whether from marriage or from betrothal, she collects the entire sum specified in her marriage contract, including any extra amount her husband added to the standard sum required by the Sages. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: If she was widowed or divorced from marriage, she collects the entire amount. But if she was widowed or divorced from betrothal, she is entitled to collect only the standard minimum sum required by the Sages: If she was betrothed as a virgin she collects two hundred dinars, and if she was a widow she is entitled to one hundred dinars.

ืฉืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืืœื ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœื›ื•ื ืกื” ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื–ื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The reason is that he wrote that she would be entitled to the additional amount only on the condition that he would marry her, and since he did not marry her, she is not entitled to the extra amount. The Gemara compares the respective opinions: The one who says that the husband does not have the right to her dowry holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and therefore he rules that just as a husband guarantees his wife an extra sum in her marriage contract only if they actually get married, the wifeโ€™s father also gives the dowry only the condition that the couple marries. And the one who said that the husband does have the right to her dowry holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, because the document is fully in effect even before marriage.

ืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื–ื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ื” ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืืœื ืžื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ืฉืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืืœื ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœื›ื•ื ืกื”

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, everyone agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and the explanation is as follows: The one who said that he does not have the right to the dowry clearly holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as stated above; and the one who says the husband does have the right to her dowry would distinguish between the two cases: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya states that the marriage contract is not fully in effect until marriage only with regard to a bestowal from him to her, i.e., the extra sum that the husband adds to her marriage contract, as he wrote it for her only on the condition that he would marry her, and he did not intend to give her anything before she became his wife.

ืื‘ืœ ืžื“ื™ื“ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืžื•ื“ื™ ื“ืžืฉื•ื ืื™ื—ืชื•ื ื™ ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ื ืื™ื—ืชื ื™ ืœื”ื•

However, with regard to that which is given from her father to him, i.e., the dowry, even Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya concedes that the husband is entitled to this money, as the gift of a father is due to marriage, i.e., he wants the families to be joined in matrimony, and they have already become linked in marriage. The dowry given by the father has nothing to do with the transition from betrothal to actual marriage.

ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืชื™ื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชื™ืงื ื• ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืชื™ื” ืชื—ืช ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืงื‘ื•ืจืชื” ืชื—ืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื‘ืขืœ ืื•ื›ืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช

ยง The mishna teaches that a husband is obligated to provide his wife with sustenance, redemption from captivity, and burial. The Sages taught in a baraita: The Rabbis instituted that a husband must provide his wife with her sustenance in exchange for his rights to her earnings, and similarly they decreed that a husband must tend to her burial in exchange for the fact that he inherits the dowry that she brought into the marriage and which is written in her marriage contract. Consequently, the husband may consume the produce of her property.

ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืจ ืฉืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืชื™ืงื ื• ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืชื™ื” ืชื—ืช ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืคื™ืจืงื•ื ื” ืชื—ืช ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืงื‘ื•ืจืชื” ืชื—ืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื‘ืขืœ ืื•ื›ืœ ืคื™ืจื•ืช

The Gemara expresses surprise at this last statement: Produce, who mentioned anything about that? The baraita did not previously mention produce at all, so how did it arrive at a halakhic conclusion with regard to produce? The Gemara explains that the baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: They instituted that a husband must provide his wife with her sustenance in exchange for his rights to her earnings; and it is his duty to provide her with redemption from captivity in exchange for his right to consume the produce of her property; and it is his obligation to attend to her burial in exchange for the fact that he inherits the dowry that she brought into the marriage and which is written in her marriage contract. Consequently, a husband may consume the produce of her property.

ืžืื™ ืœืคื™ื›ืš

Although the Gemara has explained how the tanna came to speak about produce, the wording of the baraita remains problematic. What is the significance of the word consequently in this context?

ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื™ื›ืœ ืœื ื ื›ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืื ื•ื—ื™ ื ื ื—ื™ื ื”ื• ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื™ืžื ืข ื•ืœื ืคืจื™ืง ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื ืขื“ื™ืคื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ืžืœื• ื•ืคืจื™ืง ืœื” ืžื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the husband should not consume the produce but leave it so that if he requires funds to redeem his wife he will have them available, as, if he is not compelled to do so he will refrain from redeeming her, as he will be unwilling to spend his own money for that purpose; the tanna therefore teaches us that this arrangement is preferable, because sometimes the produce will not amount to the funds necessary to redeem her from captivity, and he would not redeem her if he was expected to use the funds produced by her property. Consequently, the Sages decreed that he consumes the produce immediately and that he must redeem her from his own funds if she is taken into captivity.

ื•ืื™ืคื•ืš ืื ื

After analyzing the language of the baraita, the Gemara turns its attention to the halakha itself. But I can reverse these connections; why does the baraita say that a husbandโ€™s obligation to provide his wife with sustenance was instituted in exchange for his right to her earnings, as opposed to another of his rights, e.g., his right to consume the produce of her property?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชื™ืงื ื• ืžืฆื•ื™ ืœืžืฆื•ื™ ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืฆื•ื™ ืœืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืฆื•ื™

Abaye said: The Sages instituted a common obligation in exchange for a common right, and they instituted an uncommon obligation in exchange for an uncommon right. In other words, the Sages instituted a husbandโ€™s obligation to provide his wife with sustenance, which is relevant on a regular basis, in exchange for his right to her earnings, which also applies regularly. The other obligations and rights of a husband are relevant less frequently.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืกื‘ืจ ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉืืจื” ืืœื• ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืืฉืจ ืื›ืœื• ืฉืืจ ืขืžื™ ื›ืกื•ืชื” ื›ืžืฉืžืขื• ืขื•ื ืชื” ื–ื• ืขื•ื ื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืชืขื ื” ืืช ื‘ื ื•ืชื™

ยง Rava said: This tanna, in the baraita cited below, maintains that the obligation of a husband to provide his wifeโ€™s sustenance applies by Torah law, as it is taught with regard to the verse pertaining to a husbandโ€™s obligations toward his wife: โ€œIf he takes another wife for himself, her food [sheโ€™era], her clothing [kesuta], and her conjugal rights [onata], he shall not diminishโ€ (Exodus 21:10). โ€œSheโ€™eraโ€; this is sustenance, and it likewise states: โ€œWho also eat the flesh [sheโ€™er] of my peopleโ€ (Micah 3:3). โ€œKesutaโ€ is understood in its literal sense as referring to clothing. โ€œOnataโ€; this is her conjugal rights, which is stated in the Torah, and so it says: โ€œIf you shall afflict [teโ€™aneh] my daughtersโ€ (Genesis 31:50), which indicates that a husband may not deprive his wife of her conjugal rights.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืืจื” ื–ื• ืขื•ื ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืืจ ื‘ืฉืจื• ืœื ืชืงืจื‘ื• ืœื’ืœื•ืช ืขืจื•ื” ื›ืกื•ืชื” ื›ืžืฉืžืขื• ืขื•ื ืชื” ืืœื• ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื™ืขื ืš ื•ื™ืจืขื™ื‘ืš

The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar says: โ€œSheโ€™eraโ€; this is her conjugal rights, and so it says: โ€œNone of you shall approach to any who is near [sheโ€™er] of kin to him, to uncover their nakednessโ€ (Leviticus 18:6), which demonstrates that the word sheโ€™er is used in the context of sexual relations. โ€œKesutaโ€ is understood in its literal sense as referring to clothing. โ€œOnataโ€; this is sustenance, and so it says: โ€œAnd He afflicted you [vayanekha], and made you suffer hunger, and fed you with mannaโ€ (Deuteronomy 8:3).

Scroll To Top