Ketubot 46b — the Talmud in English

Behold,

both this and that,

both with regard to intercourse by the husband and with regard to the claim of fornication—

we require it in the usual manner!

For he holds that the words are as they are written, and behold, it is written: “And I came near to her, and I did not find virginity in her,” and this is specifically when he had intercourse with her in the usual manner and found that she had committed fornication in the usual manner

Rather, Rav Kahana sent in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: He is not liable—

until he has intercourse in the usual manner and brings an evil name concerning her through intercourse in the usual manner.

Mishna:

The father has the right over his daughter during her minority and during her adolescence

with regard to her betrothals,

for he has the authority to betroth her.

Whether her betrothals were made

with money,

in which case the money belongs to him;

or whether they were made

with a document,

for if the father received her document of betrothal [in which the husband writes: “Your daughter is betrothed to me”], she is betrothed;

and

whether

through intercourse.

For the father is permitted to give her over to intercourse for the sake of betrothal.

And likewise, the father

has the right

to

her found property.

And to her earnings.

And to the annulment of her vows.

And he receives her bill of divorce

if she was betrothed and afterward was divorced from the betrothal, before she reached majority. But if she married, or if she reached majority, the father no longer has authority over her.

And

if the daughter inherited real estate from her mother’s household,

the father does not consume

the

produce during her lifetime

of the daughter, but they make for her a “segula,” purchasing land with the produce, and the income from the land also belongs to her.

If she married,

the daughter,

the husband has an advantage over him, for

he acquires all the things stated above, and even

consumes the produce

of his wife’s property

during her lifetime.

And the husband is liable

for

her sustenance.

And for her redemption,

for he is liable to redeem her if she was taken captive. And these matters are among the conditions of the court.

And

he is likewise liable for

her burial.

The Sages instituted that he should be liable for her burial, in place of the dowry that she brought to him from her father’s household, and he inherits her upon her death.

Rabbi Judah says: Even the poorest person in Israel should not provide fewer than two flutes and a professional wailer

for the eulogy of his wife.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna that the father has the right to his daughter’s betrothals

with money.

And we considered it:

From where do we know

that he has the right to the money of her betrothals?

Rav Judah said: The verse states

with regard to the Hebrew maidservant, when she leaves the authority of the master upon displaying the signs of adolescence:

“And she shall go out for nothing; there is no money,”

for she does not need to pay the master money for her release.

And we expound:

“There is no money for this master”

when she leaves his authority,

but

there is

money for another master

when she leaves his authority

. And who is he?

Who is that other master? Necessarily, he is

her father.

For there is no other master for an Israelite daughter besides her father.

And we considered it:

But say

that the money of the betrothals should belong

to her,

to the daughter herself, and let us say that the verse came only to teach us that the daughter is betrothed with money. And thus we shall expound the verse: There is no money upon this departure, but there is money upon another departure, namely, with betrothal. But the money belongs to the daughter!

And we answer: It is not reasonable to say this. For

now, her father receives

her

betrothals, as it is written: “I gave my daughter to this man,”

and shall we say that

she takes the money?!

And we challenge:

But say: This matter

that her father receives her betrothals applies to

a minor ,

who does not have “authority,”

and concerning her it is stated: “I gave my daughter to this man,” for he has the authority to give her [and although the verse speaks of one who brings an evil name, and it concerns an adolescent, perhaps the father says as follows: “I gave my daughter to this man” when she was a minor, and now she is an adolescent].

But an adolescent, who does have “authority,”

let it be said that

she betroths herself

[she betroths herself],

and she takes the money!

And we answer:

The verse states: “During her adolescence, she is in her father’s household,”

and we expound:

All the benefit of adolescence—

belongs to her father.

Therefore, even the money of her betrothals, which is also considered “the benefit of adolescence,” belongs to her father.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But then, what of that which Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that the daughter’s earnings belong to her father? As it is stated: “And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant.”

And we expound:

Just as the maidservant

the Hebrew

has her earnings belonging to her master, so too the daughter has her earnings belonging to her father.

Why do I need

this verse?

Let it be derived from

the verse

“During her adolescence, she is in her father’s household,”

from which we learn that all the benefit of adolescence belongs to her father!

Rather,

necessarily

that

verse of “During her adolescence, she is in her father’s household”—

is written with regard to the annulment of vows,

and we do not learn from there that all the benefit of adolescence belongs to her father. If so, the question returns: Let it be said that during her adolescence she betroths herself, and the money of the betrothals will belong to her!

And if you would say

that

we should derive it from there,

from the annulment of vows, to our matter, to the matter of betrothals,

it is impossible to say this, because

monetary matters from matters of prohibition—

we do not derive!

And if you would say

that

we should derive it from the fine,

that just as her fine belongs to her father, so the money of her betrothals belongs to her father,

it is impossible to say this, because

monetary matters from a fine—

we do not derive!

And if you would say

that

we should derive it from humiliation and defect,

which are not a fine, and her father receives them,

it is impossible to learn from there, because

humiliation and defect are different, for her father too has a connection to them,

since he has the power to take money and humiliate her with this humiliation by giving her over for betrothals to an ugly man afflicted with boils! Rather, this is how one must answer the difficulty that we raised above: “But say, to her”:

It is reasonable that when the Merciful One excludes

“there is no money for this master, but there is money upon another departure”—

He excludes a departure corresponding to it.

That is, the money of her departure must resemble the money of the departure from the master.

And behold, with the departure from the master, if she had needed to give money, she would have needed to give it to the master from whom she departs, in order to redeem herself from her labor with him. Here too, when she departs from her father, the money must be for the one from whom she departs, namely, for her father, and not for herself.

And we object:

But

still

this departure is not comparable—

to that departure,

for

there, with regard to the master, she leaves his authority completely

upon her departure. Whereas with regard to the

departure from the father—

she still lacks being given over to the wedding canopy,

and she is still under her father’s authority with regard to her inheritance and her earnings until her entry beneath the wedding canopy!

And we answer:

From the annulment of vows

at least she leaves his authority

already with her betrothals.

For we learned: “An adolescent who is betrothed”—

her father and her husband annul her vows.

Whereas until now her father alone annulled them for her.

We learned in our Mishna that her betrothals also with

a document and

with

intercourse—

belong to the father, for he has the authority to betroth her and give her over against her will.

And we considered it:

From where do we know

this? And we answer:

The verse states: “And she shall be to another man”; the forms of betrothal are compared—

to one another

[all the forms of betrothal were compared with one another]. And just as the father betroths her with money, so too the father betroths her through the other types of betrothal.

We learned in our Mishna:

He has the right to her found property.