Ketubot 43b (מג:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:

This is referring to a case such as

where she was injured in the face,

thereby diminishing her value; and in such a case the payment belongs to the father, because the father has the right to sell his daughter as a Hebrew maidservant, and through this injury he suffers a monetary loss, since the buyer will pay less for her .

Rav Zeira said that Rav Mattana said that Rav said—and some say that Rabbi Zeira said Rashi explained that Rav Zeira is the same person as Rabbi Zeira. Before he went up to Eretz Yisrael and received ordination, he was called Rav Zeira; after he went up and received ordination, he was called Rabbi Zeira. Thus, some say that he stated this before he went up to Eretz Yisrael, while others say that he stated it afterward

Rav Mattana said that Rav said: A daughter who is supported by her brothers—

her earnings belong to her.

As it is written

with regard to Canaanite slaves:

“And you shall bequeath them to your sons after you,”

and we interpret it:

“Them to your sons”—

but not your daughters to your sons!

The verse indicates

that

a person does not bequeath his daughter’s rights to his son.

Avimi bar Pappi said to him:

This matter

was stated by Shakud [

Samuel; he was called this because the halakha follows him in monetary matters, and because he diligently adhered to his words, stating them according to halakha ]

.

And we challenge this:

Who is Shakud

[that is, who is meant]? After all,

it is Samuel! But

Rav stated it,

not Samuel!

And we explain:

Say

this instead: Rav stated it, and

Shakud also stated it.

Mar bar Amemar said to Rav Ashi: This is what they say

in Nehardea: The halakha is in accordance with Rav Sheshet,

who derived from our Mishna that her earnings belong to the brothers.

Rav Ashi said: The halakha is in accordance with Rav,

that her earnings belong to her.

And we conclude:

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav.

Mishna:

If a father betrothed his daughter when she was a minor or a young woman,

and her husband divorced her,

and afterward

her father betrothed her

again, and both of these betrothals took place during her minority or girlhood,

and she became widowed

[that is, she was widowed],

her ketuba belongs to him.

That is, payment of both ketubot goes to the father. And our Mishna maintains that payment of a ketuba is due even for a betrothed woman.

But if

her father married her off

and

her husband divorced her,

and again

her father married her off,

and

she became widowed—

her ketuba belongs to her.

She is entitled to both ketubot, since from the time her father married her off the first time, his authority over her ceased, and entitlement to the ketuba is determined according to the time of collection, not according to the time of its writing; and at the time of collection, after she has already been married, she is under her own authority.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The

ketuba

first

is

the father’s.

The Gemara will explain Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning.

The Sages said to him:

:

Once he has married her off,

her father has no authority over her.

Gemara:

The Gemara proves from the fact that the tanna stated “she was divorced and became widowed,” rather than stating “she was divorced and then divorced again,” or “she became widowed twice”—

It follows that

the reason is that he married her off and she was divorced, or he married her off and she became widowed.

But

if

she became widowed twice—

she is no longer fit to marry.

Since it has been established that her husbands die, she is forbidden to marry again. Therefore, the tanna used this wording, indicating that she is still permitted to marry, rather than wording it in terms of calamity.

Incidentally,

while the tanna came to teach us the law of her ketuba,

he thereby teaches us incidentally

[he taught us without stating it explicitly]

that the tanna follows Rabbi, who says: After two occurrences

[a matter that recurs twice]

a presumption is established.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

the ketuba

first belongs to the father.

What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason?

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: Since from the time of betrothal

when her father betrothed her to her first husband and the husband became obligated in the ketuba,

the father acquired them.

Since it was the father who betrothed her.

But with regard to the second betrothal, after she had already been married to the first husband, the father did not acquire it, because from the time she married the first husband, his rights over her ceased.

Rava raised an objection

from that which is taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

the ketuba

first

is

the father’s. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of one who betrothed his daughter when she was a minor, and she reached maturity—

and afterward married, that her father has no authority over her.

And

why? Here too, let us say

that the ketuba should belong to him,

since from the time of betrothal the father acquired it!

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows:

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said

that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is:

since while it was under

the father’s authority

the obligations were written

the obligations of one hundred and two hundred zuz [one hundred is given to a widow, and two hundred to a virgin] in the ketuba, since the ketuba is written before the marriage.

But if she reached maturity before the marriage, it was not written under his authority, since once she reached maturity, she was no longer under his authority!

And we inquire:

And from when is it collected,

that is, from what point were the husband’s assets subjected to the obligation of the ketuba, so that they can be seized from purchasers who bought them after the lien took effect?

Is it already from the time of betrothal, when the husband became obligated by the Sages’ institution of the ketuba, or only from the time the ketuba was written, at the time of the marriage, since only then did the ketuba obligation become a loan documented by a deed?

Rav Huna said:

The

one hundred

and

two hundred,

to which he became obligated by the Sages’ institution, became subject to a lien

from the time of betrothal.

And

if it were

an addition

to the ketuba, which he obligated himself to provide, it would not become subject to a lien until

the time of marriage,

when a formal act of acquisition is performed concerning it and the deed of the ketuba is written.

And Rav Asi said: Both this and that—

from the time of marriage.

Because he maintains that she relinquished the earlier lien and agreed that the lien should take effect at the time written in the deed, both with regard to the principal of the ketuba and with regard to the addition .

And we challenge this:

Did Rav Huna really say this?

But it was stated: She produced

the woman

two ketubot against him, one for two hundred, and one for three hundred,

the latter being dated later than the first.

And Rav Huna said:

She has only one of the ketubot, and she may collect whichever one she wishes.

For at times she will specifically wish to collect the ketuba for two hundred, such as when he sold his property between the date of the first ketuba and the date of the second; if she were to collect the second ketuba, the deeds of the purchasers would have priority.

Therefore, if she

comes

[comes]

to collect

the first ketuba, for

two hundred—

she collects from the earlier date,

and seizes property from the purchasers from the date written in the deed of the ketuba.

And if she comes to collect

three hundred,

for example, when he had property even at the time of the second ketuba—

she collects from the later date.

And if it is so,

that Rav Huna maintains that she collects the principal of the ketuba from the earlier date and the addition from the later date, let us say that

she should collect two hundred,

which is established by the Sages,

from the earlier date, and one hundred,

which is the addition to the ketuba—

from the later date!

And we challenge this:

According to your reasoning, she should collect

the

entire five hundred, two hundred from the earlier date,

and

three hundred from the later date,

since it should be said that all three hundred are an addition to the ketuba!

Rather, why does she not collect the five hundred?

Since he did not write for her

in the second ketuba:

“I wished and added three hundred to your two hundred”

[I wished and added three hundred to your two hundred], he certainly did not intend to add to the first ketuba. Rather,

this is what he said to her: If you collect from the earlier date

[you collect]—

you collect two hundred; if you collect from the later date,

the first ketuba is nullified, and

you collect three hundred!