Ketubot 47a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains that the reason is

because of enmity

. For he is not obligated to provide her sustenance, and if her found object would be hers, he would bear enmity toward her and would not want to provide her sustenance.

We learned in our Mishna that the father is entitled

to the product of her handiwork.

From where do we know this?

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: From where [do we know] that the handiwork of a daughter belongs to her father? As it is stated: “And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant.” Just as a maidservant—

her handiwork belongs to her master

—her master,

so, a daughter—

her handiwork belongs to her father.

And we raise an objection:

But perhaps

that

this applies

—that her handiwork belongs to him—in the case of

a minor, for he is able to sell her

—for the father is able to sell her as a Hebrew maidservant.

But in the case of a maiden, whom he is not able to sell,

let it be said that

her handiwork belongs to her!

And we answer:

It is reasonable that

her handiwork

belongs to her father.

For if it enters your mind that

her

handiwork does not belong to her father,

but belongs to herself, then

rather, how could he, whom the Merciful One granted the right to hand her over for the bridal canopy,

as it is written: “I have given my daughter,” which implies that all types of giving are in his hands,

hand her over

for the bridal canopy?

For he thereby deprives her

at the time of handing her over for the bridal canopy

of her handiwork

on that day.

Rather, it is necessarily the case that her handiwork belongs to him.

Rav Aḥai refutes this:

There is still no proof from here, for

perhaps he gives her the wages for her idleness

—the father gives her the wages for her loss of work!

Alternatively, he handed her over

for the bridal canopy

at night,

when she does not perform work!

Alternatively, he handed her over

for the bridal canopy

on Shabbat

and festivals!

Rather,

this is the derivation that her handiwork belongs to him:

a minor—

does not require a verse

to teach us that her handiwork belongs to him. For it is obvious, since

now

he is able

to sell her completely

to another master;

is it necessary

to say that it belongs to him?

Rather, when the verse was needed, “And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant,” in which the word “as a maidservant” is superfluous, and from it they derive, “Just as a maidservant’s handiwork belongs to her master, so a daughter’s handiwork belongs to her father”—it was needed with regard to

the case of

a maiden,

to teach us that even her handiwork belongs to the father.

We learned in our Mishna:

in annulling her vows.

From where do we know this?

For it is written

with regard to the annulment of vows:

“In her youth, in her father’s house.”

And this is the meaning of the verse: During her youth, she is in her father’s authority.

We learned in our Mishna:

and he receives her bill of divorce.

From where do we know this?

For it is written: “And she shall leave

his house and go

and become

another man’s.”

Leaving is juxtaposed

to becoming

[betrothal]: just as her betrothal belongs to her father, so her bill of divorce belongs to her father.

We learned in our Mishna:

and he does not eat the produce during her lifetime.

The Sages taught: The father does not eat the produce

of the property that his daughter inherited from her mother’s family

during his daughter’s lifetime.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The father eats the produce during his daughter’s lifetime.

With regard to what do they disagree?

The first tanna holds: Granted, as for a husband—

the Sages instituted produce for him, for if so,

if he did not eat the produce,

he would refrain and would not redeem

his wife when she was taken captive.

Therefore, they instituted that the husband should eat the produce, and in return for this, all her redemption would be incumbent upon him, whether it was much or little. And this is preferable to leaving the produce money for her so that she would redeem herself with it, because there is concern that perhaps the produce money would not suffice for her redemption.

But a father—what is there to say?

Why should the eating of produce have been instituted for him? Is it because

he would refrain and would not redeem her?!

But

in any event,

even without anything being instituted for him, he would

redeem her.

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: A father also,

if produce had not been instituted for him,

would refrain and would not redeem.

Because

he holds

the father:

“A purse is held against her,”

for she has a purse full of money that was preserved for her from the produce money, and until now I have not benefited from it;

let her go and redeem herself

with that money, and if it is insufficient, I will not supplement it!

We learned in our Mishna:

If she married, the husband has an additional right over him, for he eats the produce.

The Sages taught: If he wrote for her

the father, in her dowry from the betrothal, movable property, such as

produce, garments, and utensils, which would come with her from her father’s house to her husband’s house,

and

she died

before she married—

the husband did not acquire these things.

In the name of Rabbi Natan they said: The husband acquired these things.

Let us say that they disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah and the Sages—

they disagree

the first tanna and Rabbi Natan.

For we learned: If she was widowed or divorced, whether from the marriage or from the betrothal, she collects everything.

That is, two hundred zuz for a virgin, one hundred for a widow, and the additional amount of the marriage contract.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says:

If she was widowed or divorced

from the marriage—

indeed,

she collects everything.

And

if

from the betrothal

she was widowed or divorced—

a virgin collects two hundred, and a widow one hundred.