Ketubot 43a — the Talmud in English

And

behold,

one who admits liability for a fine is exempt,

and therefore, even when he did not admit it to him, this is not considered a denial of a monetary claim!

And the Rabbis hold: when he claims

the father, saying, “You raped or seduced my daughter,” is claiming the payments for

shame and blemish.

And this is not a claim for a fine, but rather a monetary claim.

And the Gemara explains:

In what do

the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree?

Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Shimon holds

that the claim, “You raped or seduced,” is a claim for a fine, since

a person does not set aside something quantified,

a person does not refrain from claiming a quantified matter—the fine, which is a fixed sum—

and claims

shame and blemish, which are

something,

a matter

that is not quantified!

And therefore it is reasonable that the essence of his claim is for the fine!

And the Rabbis hold: a person does not set aside

a person does not refrain from claiming

something

a matter

that, if he admits it, he is not exempt,

namely, payment of the monetary value of the shame and blemish, which are a monetary obligation, and even if the rapist or seducer admits them, he is not exempt;

and he claims something that, if he admits it, he is exempt,

namely, the fine. Therefore it is reasonable that the essence of his claim is the monetary payments for the shame and blemish.

Rabbi Avina asked Rav Sheshet: A daughter who is nourished from the brothers

in accordance with the conditions of the marriage contract, for this is what is written in the marriage contract: “The female children that you will have from me, they shall dwell in my house and be nourished from my property until they are taken by husbands”—

Her earnings—

to whom

do they belong, to herself or to the brothers? Is it to be said that the brothers who nourish her

stand in the place of the father.

And therefore,

what is it there,

just as when her father is alive and nourishes her, her earnings belong

to the father; here too,

when she is nourished from the brothers,

her earnings belong to the brothers.

Or perhaps, it is not comparable

the daughter who is nourished from the brothers

to the father.

For

there—

she is nourished from his own property.

She is nourished from the father’s money, and therefore her earnings belong to him.

But

here,

in the case of a daughter nourished from the brothers,

she is not nourished from their own property;

she is not nourished from their money, but because of the condition of their mother’s marriage contract: the father’s property is liened to her, and she is nourished from it. Therefore they have no rights to her earnings!

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet,

you have learned it [in the Mishna]:

(

For we learned:

A widow is nourished from the property of the orphans.

And this too is among the conditions of the marriage contract, for this is what is written in it: “You shall dwell in my house and be nourished from my property all the days of your widowhood,”

and her earnings

belong to them.

And it is proven that the orphans stand in place of the father, and therefore the widow’s earnings belong to them, even though she is nourished from them by virtue of the lien of her marriage contract. If so, the same law applies: they have rights to the earnings of the daughter who is nourished from them, although their father’s property is liened for her nourishment.

And we reject this:

Are

his widow and his daughter comparable?

His widow—

he is not pleased with her “enrichment,”

for he has no interest that her earnings should belong to her while she is nourished from his property. Therefore her earnings belong to his heirs, just as her earnings belonged to him during his lifetime.

But

his daughter—

he is pleased with her “enrichment,”

he wants her earnings to belong to her and that she be nourished from his property, and that his heirs should not acquire her earnings [this, besides her dowry, which comes to her from his property. Rashi].

And we wonder:

Is it to say,

do you mean to say

that his daughter is more important to him than his widow,

and therefore he wants his daughter’s enrichment more than that of his widow?

But Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yosei said: The Sages made

the

widow in relation to the daughter,

that is, when a man dies and leaves a widow and a daughter who inherits his property,

as

the law that they stated regarding

a daughter in relation to the brothers.

That is, as in the law of a man who dies and leaves a daughter and sons,

at

a time when there are

few properties ,

and there is not enough in them for the nourishment of the daughter and the brothers for twelve months.

Just as the daughter in relation to the brothers,

the law is that

the daughter is nourished

from the father’s property,

and the brothers must ask at the doors

for their nourishment.

So too, a widow in relation to the daughter,

the law is that the

widow is nourished

from her husband’s property,

and the daughter—

must ask at the doors!

And it is proven that the fate of his widow is more important to him than that of his daughter!

And we explain:

with regard to humiliation—

his widow is more important to him.

Therefore it is preferable to him that his daughter go around asking at the doors, and not his widow.

But

with regard to enrichment—

his daughter is more important to him,

and therefore her earnings belong to herself. This is not so with his widow, whose earnings belong to the orphans.

Rav Yosef objected

from the latter clause of our Mishna:

Her earnings and her found objects, even though she has not collected them,

has not yet collected the payment for her earnings, if

the father dies—

they belong to the brothers.

And certainly our Mishna did not come to innovate this matter: when she performed work during the father’s lifetime, they belong to the brothers once he dies. For this is obvious, since the father acquired her earnings, which are money and not a fine, and certainly the brothers inherit them!

Rather, certainly our Mishna came to innovate that

the reason that they belong to the brothers is because she performed the work

during the father’s

lifetime.

But

if she performed it

after the father’s death—

her earnings belong

to herself

and not to her brothers.

Is it not so

that it is speaking

of one who is nourished

from the brothers, and nevertheless her earnings belong to herself!

And we reject this:

No.

It is speaking

of one who is not nourished

from the brothers . That is, for example, when there were no properties at all.

And we wonder:

If she is not nourished, what is the point of stating this?

What is the innovation in our Mishna’s statement that her earnings belong to herself and not to her brothers?!

For

even according to the one who says

in tractate Gittin [12a]

that the master may say to the slave: Work for me,

that is, perform labor for me—

and I will not nourish you [

I will not give you food]—

this matter

applies specifically

to a Canaanite slave,

for “with you” is not written concerning him. But

in the case of an

Hebrew slave, concerning whom it is written “Like a hired laborer, like a resident, he shall be

with

you” —

he

cannot say this to him!

And

all the more so

in the case of

his daughter,

for certainly the brothers cannot say to her: Perform labor for us, and we will not give you nourishment!

Rabba bar Ulla said: Our Mishna truly comes to teach that her earnings after the father’s death belong to herself. And it is speaking when she is not nourished from the brothers. And the innovation is that we do not say that it is a right that the Torah granted the father with regard to his daughter, that her earnings should be his, and that it is money for him to bequeath to the brothers.

In fact, our Mishna comes to teach that the proceeds of her labor after the father’s death belong to her, and it is referring to a daughter who is not supported by her brothers. The novelty is that we do not say that the right that the Torah granted the father with regard to his daughter—that her proceeds of labor belong to him—is money that he can bequeath to his brothers.

And that which was difficult for us: With what will she be nourished? Surely she is not inferior to a Canaanite slave, whose master cannot say to him, “Work for me and I will not nourish you”!

It was necessary

for the statement of our Mishna

only with regard to

the matter of

the surplus!

For her earnings exceeded her nourishment needs. And we might have said that the surplus would belong to the brothers, and that they inherit through it the father’s right; it teaches us that they belong to her.

Rava said:

Is it possible that

a great man such as Rav Yosef did not know that there is a surplus,

and that it is possible to establish our Mishna as referring to one who is not nourished, and with regard to the surplus? Surely he knew that it was possible to answer in this way,

and

nevertheless

he raises a refutation!

Rather, Rava said: Rav Yosef found the Mishna itself difficult.

For it teaches: Her earnings and her found objects, even though she has not collected them.

And Rava analyzes:

Her found object—

from whom does she collect it?

From whom do they “collect” a found object?

Rather, is it not so that this is what

the tanna of the Mishna

is saying: Her earnings—

their law is

like her found object.

Just as her found object,

if she found it

during the father’s lifetime,

and she is dependent upon his table, they belong

to the father,

because of enmity: since the father is not obligated to nourish her, if her found object would not belong to him, he would have enmity toward her and would not give her nourishment.

But what she found

after the father’s death—

it belongs

to herself.

For with regard to the brothers, the reason of enmity does not apply, since against their will she is nourished from her father’s property, and not from their property.

Likewise

with regard to

her earnings as well,

the law is so: only the earnings that she performed

during the father’s lifetime

belong

to the father.

But what she performed

after the father’s death—

it belongs

to herself.

And we conclude:

Learn from it.

It was also stated

so:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A daughter who is nourished from the brothers—

—

her earnings belong to herself.

Rav Kahana said: What is the reason? For it is written

with regard to a Canaanite slave:

“And you shall assign them as an inheritance to your sons after you.”

And we expound:

“Them,”

the slaves—you bequeath

to your sons—

but not

your

daughters

do you bequeath

to your sons.

The verse indicates

that

a person does not bequeath

the

right

that he has with regard to

his daughter, to his son.

Therefore, although the father had a right to his daughter’s earnings, he does not bequeath this right to his sons.

Rabba raised an objection

to Rav Kahana:

And say

that only

the seduction of the daughter, and fines

for rape,

and

for

injuries—

the verse speaks!

The father does not bequeath these rights to his sons. But her earnings, which are a common matter, let us say that they belong to the brothers, for they incur a loss on her account, since she is nourished from them!

And so

indeed

Rabbi Hanina taught:

only

the seduction of the daughter, and fines and injuries—the verse speaks!

And we wonder: Is it possible to say that the payments for

injuries

will belong to the brothers? After all,

they are bodily suffering,

they are,

and even the father does not acquire payment for suffering, for we say in tractate Bava Kamma [87b] that if they injured a minor son, they purchase land with the payment for the damage, and the produce belongs to the minor!