Ketubot 49b — the Talmud in English

Therefore the tanna stated “his daughter,” for by this

this teaches us that,

in

his daughter, it is an obligation that there is not

to support her,

but there is a mitzva—

there is.

Alternatively,

our Mishna is

Rabbi Yehuda’s

opinion, and

this is what

the tanna said:

The father is not obligated to provide sustenance for his daughter, and all the more so for his son,

for he is not obligated to provide his sustenance.

But there is a mitzva—

for his son there is, and by a kal va-chomer for daughters

there is a mitzva to support them—because of the disgrace.

And as for that which it teaches

in our Mishna

“his daughter,” this teaches us that even

in

his daughter,

with whom the reason of disgrace applies,

there is no obligation

to support her.

Alternatively,

our Mishna is

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka’s

opinion, and

this is what

the tanna said:

The father

is not obligated to provide sustenance for his daughter, and the same law applies to his son. And

in truth,

the same law applies: there is not even a mitzva

to support them,

but since with regard to daughters, after the death of their father,

there is an obligation

to support them,

the tanna also

used, during their father’s lifetime, the expression

“he is not obligated.”

Rabbi Ilaa said in the name of Resh Lakish in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Hanina:

When the Sanhedrin, the members of the Chamber of Hewn Stone, sat

in Usha

(

which was one of the ten exiles to which the Sanhedrin was exiled, as we say in Tractate Rosh Hashana, on folio 31]), the Sanhedrin instituted

that

a person should provide sustenance for his sons and his daughters when they are minors,

until they grow two hairs.

They raised a dilemma before them: Is the halakha in accordance with his view,

that is, should one rely on his words that this was indeed instituted in Usha, that one must support them,

or is the halakha not in accordance with his view?

Come and hear

that the halakha is not like him, for

when

when

they would come before Rav Yehuda

to ask whether they were required to support their sons,

he would say to them: “A dragon

—a serpent, which is cruel toward its offspring—

has given birth

—has brought a child into the world—

and casts its livelihood upon the people of the city!”

[и возлагает свое содержание на жителей города]!»

It is apparent from here that the halakha is not that he is obligated to support them, but rather that this is what they say to him, and perhaps he will support them. But they do not compel him

. When they would come before Rav Hisda, he would say to them: “Force him to place

that man who does not wish to support his sons

a mortar

—a pestle—on its mouth

in the public square, and let him stand

that man upon its rim, at a height, so that they would hear his voice,

and let him say

and announce about himself that he is worse than ravens:

‘A raven desires its offspring

—the raven wants its offspring—

but that man—

does not want his offspring!’”

And we raise an objection:

and

when

does a raven desire its offspring?

But it is written: “For the sons of the raven that cry,”

which implies that it does not feed them!

And we answer:

It is not difficult: this

which we say—that it does not feed them—is

with the white ones

when they are very young, at which time they are white and do not resemble their father, and therefore he hates them.

Whereas

this

which we say—that the raven desires its offspring—is

with the black ones,

when they are older, and by then they are already black, at which time he loves them

. When he would come before Rava, he would say to him

to that man who did not wish to support his sons:

“Would it please you that your sons be supported from charity?!”

And we said this

that they do not compel him to support them

only

when he

is not assessed as capable.

But

if he is

capable—

we compel him,

and he supports them

against his will.

For even if they were not his sons, it would be nothing other than ordinary charity!

For it was like that which Rava compelled

Rav Natan bar Ami

for charity,

and extracted four hundred zuz from him for charity.

Rabbi Ilaa said in the name of Resh Lakish: In Usha they instituted

that

one who writes all his assets to his sons,

even if he wrote that his assets should belong to them from now

he and his wife are supported from them

. It is not a matter of law, but rather an enactment of the Sages.

Rabbi Zeira challenged this, and some say Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani,

but

the Sages said something greater than this:

If a man died and left a widow and a daughter, and the daughter married, and therefore her husband acquired the assets that she inherited from her father, so that the assets are now considered encumbered to a buyer, for the husband is considered a buyer with regard to his wife’s assets, and we do not take out funds for the wife’s sustenance from encumbered assets, because of the betterment of the world [for if they were to take from purchasers for the sake of her sustenance, people would not wish to purchase assets from the husband, lest when he die they take the assets from them for the sake of the wife’s sustenance. And they cannot take care to avoid this, since the wife’s sustenance is not fixed]!

Nevertheless, in such a case, where there is no concern for the betterment of the world—for although the husband is considered a buyer, he did not expend money for this—they considered him by rabbinic enactment to be an heir, because of the widow’s loss, and said that

his widow is supported from his assets.

If so, in the case at hand, which speaks of supporting

him and his wife,

while he is alive, and his sons merely received a gift from him [and even though a gift is like a sale with regard to a lien, there the reason is that if the recipient of the gift had not brought satisfaction to the giver, he would not have given it to him, and therefore it is like a sale. But with his son this reason does not apply], and the sons did not expend money for it,

is it necessary

that he and his wife be supported from the assets?!

For

surely thus

Ravin sent in his letter: “If a man died and left a widow and a daughter, his widow is supported from his assets.”

And if

the daughter married

afterward, still

his widow is supported from his assets.

If the daughter died

and her husband inherited,

Rabbi Yehuda, the son of Rabbi Yose bar Hanina’s sister, said: The incident occurred through me, and they said

that we do not say that the husband is a foreign man and is not his father-in-law’s heir, but rather he is his daughter’s heir, and is merely like a buyer, and we do not take out funds for the widow’s sustenance from encumbered assets, but

his widow is supported from his assets.

If so,

he and his wife—

is it necessary?

It is obvious that they are supported from the assets!

And we explain:

Lest you say: There, it is because there is no one who will trouble himself

for the widow, since her husband died; therefore the Sages made an enactment for her.

But here,

when he is alive,

he will trouble himself

—he will trouble himself—

for himself and for her

for him and for his wife,

this teaches us

that we do not say so; rather, he and his wife are supported from his assets.

They raised a dilemma before them: Is the halakha in accordance with his view

of Rabbi Ilaa,

or is the halakha not in accordance with his view?

Come and hear: Rabbi Hanina and Rabbi Yonatan were standing

they were standing.

A certain man came, bent down and kissed Rabbi Yonatan on his foot

bent down and kissed Rabbi Yonatan on his foot.

Rabbi Hanina said to him: “What is this,”

why did that man do this to you?