Ketubot 47b — the Talmud in English

But she does not collect the addition, because

he did not write it for her

—

except on condition that he marry her ,

and in the end he did not marry her.

If so,

according to the one who says

that

the husband did not acquire

these things,

he holds like Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya:

Just as she does not collect the addition to the ketuba from betrothal, so too the husband does not acquire her dowry from betrothal.

And the one who says

that

the husband acquired

these things,

he holds like the Rabbis

do.

For they hold that if the husband dies—even if he dies while they are betrothed—she collects everything: one hundred dinars, two hundred dinars, and the addition; and it is proven that her ketuba remains in force as though she had married. Therefore, if she dies, the husband acquires her dowry, since the dowry too is written within the document. For this is what they write in the ketuba: “This is the dowry that she brought in to him from her father’s house, so-and-so much. And he consented, and added to it from his own property so-and-so much.” That is, the husband writes in the ketuba the sum of the dowry that the woman brought to him [as “iron-flock property”], and the husband adds to the sum of the dowry from his own property, and undertakes responsibility for the total sum, to return it to her if he divorces her or if he dies during her lifetime.

And we reject this:

No.

It is truly possible to say

that everyone

holds

like Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,

whose ruling is the halakha, as will be explained below.

The one who says

that

the husband did not acquire

these things—this is certainly

like Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

Just as she does not receive the addition to the ketuba from betrothal, because he wrote it for her only on condition that he marry her, so he does not acquire her dowry, for she wrote it for him only on condition of the attachment of marriage.

And the one who says that he acquired it

holds that

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said this only—

between him and her. And according to the one who says that he acquired it, he holds that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya stated his ruling only

from his property to hers,

that is, she does not receive the addition to the ketuba from betrothal, because

he did not write it for her

the addition—

except on condition that he marry her.

But from hers to his,

that is, her dowry,

even Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya agrees

that the husband acquired it,

for

the dowry

is because of the establishment of the marital bond, and the marital bond was established for them.

We learned in our Mishna:

He is obligated in her maintenance, and so forth.

The Sages taught: They instituted her maintenance—

in exchange for her handiwork .

And her burial—

in exchange for her ketuba,

that is, the dowry that she brought from her father’s house, and he acquires it completely after her death.

Therefore, the husband consumes the produce.

And we object:

Produce—

who mentioned its name?

Who mentioned produce here?

And we explain: The beraita

is deficient,

and this is what it teaches: They instituted her maintenance in exchange for her handiwork, and her redemption

redemption from captivity

in exchange for the produce

of melog property [which is property that fell to her after she married, or that she brought with her, but did not appraise it for him as part of the dowry of her ketuba], which he consumes;

and her burial in exchange for her ketuba. Therefore, the husband consumes the produce.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the meaning of “therefore”?

Surely, if they instituted her redemption in exchange for the produce, the husband consumes it!

And we explain:

Lest you say: He should not consume it,

so that the husband should not consume the produce, but

we should set it aside

[we should set aside the money from the produce for her redemption],

for if so,

if the husband consumes the produce, perhaps

he will refrain and not redeem her.

It teaches us that this is preferable:

that the husband should consume it, and in exchange for this he should redeem her. For

sometimes it is not enough;

sometimes the money from the produce is insufficient for her redemption, whereas if we were to preserve the money from the produce for the purpose of her redemption, there would not be enough in this money for her redemption.

But now, when the husband consumes the produce, it is not known how much he consumed, and whether it was enough for her redemption,

and

in any event,

he redeems her from his own property .

For this is the institution: he consumes whether much or little, and redeems her with whatever is needed.

And we inquire concerning it:

But let us reverse it,

and say that maintenance is in exchange for produce, and her redemption is in exchange for her handiwork! The practical difference would be that if she said, “I will not be maintained, and I will not work,” she has said nothing, for her handiwork is not at all in exchange for her maintenance!

Abaye said: They instituted what is available—

that is, her handiwork—

for what is available,

for maintenance.

And what is unavailable,

the consumption of the produce of melog property—

for what is unavailable,

for her redemption.

Rava said: This tanna

below

holds that the husband’s obligation of

that the husband’s obligation to provide

maintenance

of his wife is

from the Torah.

For it was taught:

It is written concerning the master who designates the Hebrew maidservant: “And if he takes another woman, he shall not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or her conjugal time.”

“Her sustenance”—

these are maintenance. And so it says: “And those who consumed the sustenance of My people.”

“Her clothing”—

as its plain meaning.

Clothing.

“Her conjugal time”—

this is the conjugal time

of intercourse

stated

in the Torah. And so it says: “If you afflict my daughters” .

this is the marital relation

Rabbi Elazar says: “Her sustenance”—

this is the conjugal time. And so it says: “No man shall approach any flesh of his flesh to uncover nakedness.”

“Her clothing”—

as its plain meaning.

“Her conjugal time”—

these are maintenance. And so it says: “And He afflicted you and made you hungry.”