Ketubot 47b (מז:) — the Talmud in English

But she cannot collect the additional amount, because

he did not write it for her

—

except on the condition that he would marry her ,

and in the end he did not marry her.

If so,

the one who says

that

the husband did not acquire

these assets

holds in accordance with the view of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya

, for just as she cannot collect the additional amount of the ketuba from the betrothal, so too the husband does not acquire her dowry from the betrothal.

And the one who says

that

the husband did acquire

these assets

holds in accordance with the view of the Rabbis

.

For they maintain that if the husband dies—even if he dies after betrothal—she collects the entire amount, the one hundred dinars, the two hundred dinars, and the additional amount; and it is thereby demonstrated that her ketuba remains in force as though she had married him. Therefore, if she dies, the husband acquires her dowry, since the dowry too is written in the document. This is how they write in the ketuba: “This is the dowry that she brought him from her father’s house, such and such an amount. And he desired, and added to it from his own property, such and such an amount.” That is, the husband writes in the ketuba the amount of the dowry that the woman brought him as nichsei tzon barzel, and the husband adds to the amount of the dowry from his own property and assumes responsibility to return the total amount to her if he divorces her or if he dies during her lifetime.

And we reject this:

No.

It is actually possible to say that

everyone

maintains

the view of 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 assets—that certainly means he holds

in accordance with the view of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

For just as she does not receive the additional amount of the ketuba from the betrothal, because he wrote it for her

only on the condition that he marry her,

so he does not acquire her dowry, since she did not write it for him

except on account of the affection of marriage.

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

And the one who says that he acquired it

maintains that

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said this only —

from his property to hers,

that is, she does not receive the additional amount of the ketuba from the betrothal because

he did not write it for her

the additional amount

—

except on the condition that he marry her.

But from hers to his,

that is, her dowry,

even Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya concedes

that the husband acquired it,

because the dowry is given on account of the establishment of the marriage, and the marriage has indeed been established between them.

We learned in our Mishna:

He is obligated to provide her with sustenance, etc.

The Sages taught: They instituted her sustenance —

in exchange for her labor.

And her burial — in exchange for her ketuba,

that is, the dowry

that she brought from her father’s house, and he acquires it entirely after her death. Therefore, the husband consumes the produce.

Produce—

And we wonder:

Produce —

who mentioned it?

Who mentioned produce here?

And we explain: The beraita is

abridged,

and this is what it teaches: They instituted her sustenance in exchange for her labor, and her redemption

of usufruct property—property that came into her possession after she married, or that she brought with her, but which was not appraised and included in the dowry of her marriage contract—which he consumes.

her ransom from captivity

in exchange for the

produce

of nichsei melog, which he consumes, and her burial in exchange for her ketuba.

Therefore, the husband consumes the produce.

And we analyze this:

What is the meaning of “therefore”?

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

And we explain:

It might have been said that he should not consume it,

that the husband should not consume the produce, but

that he should set it aside

that he should set aside the proceeds of the produce for her redemption,

for if so,

if the husband consumes the produce, perhaps

he will refrain and not redeem her.

But now, when the husband consumes the produce, it is not known how much he consumed or whether it would have been enough for her redemption,

This teaches us that this arrangement is preferable:

that the husband should consume the produce, and in exchange redeem her. For

sometimes it is insufficient,

sometimes the proceeds of the produce are insufficient for her redemption, and if we were to preserve the proceeds of the produce for the purpose of her redemption, those funds would not be sufficient for her redemption.

But now, when the husband consumes the produce, it is not known how much he consumed or whether it would have been sufficient for her redemption, and

in any event

he redeems her from his own funds .

For this is the institution: He consumes whether the amount is great or small, and redeems her for whatever amount is necessary.

meaning her labor—

And we analyze this:

But let us reverse it,

and say that her sustenance is in exchange for the produce, and her redemption is in exchange for her labor! The practical difference would be that if she said, “I will neither be sustained nor work,” her statement would have no effect, since her labor is not at all in exchange for her sustenance!

Abaye said: They instituted that which is common —

that is, her labor —

in exchange for that which is common,

her sustenance.

And that which is uncommon,

the consumption of the produce of nichsei melog, —

in exchange for that which is uncommon,

her redemption.

Rava said: This tanna

below

maintains

that the husband’s obligation of

sustenance

for his wife is

by Torah law.

As it is taught: It is written concerning the master who designates the Hebrew maidservant: “And if he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or her marital relations.”

“Her sustenance” —

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

“Her clothing” —

as its plain meaning.

Clothing.

“Her marital relations” —

this is the marital relation

of intercourse

stated

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

as it implies.

Rabbi Elazar says: “Her sustenance” —

this is marital relation. And similarly it says: “No man shall approach any of his close flesh to uncover nakedness.”