Ketubot 50b (נ:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Yosef was sitting before Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Hamnuna was sitting and saying: Just as sons inherit only from land, so daughters are provided for only from land -

only from land.

Everyone murmured against him

[all the listeners were agitated against him], saying: Is that really the law? That one

who leaves land

[who left land] -

it is his sons who inherit him

[they are the ones who inherit from him], whereas one

who does not leave land -

do his sons not inherit him?

Do sons not inherit their father's movable property as well?!

Rav Yosef said to him: Perhaps

with regard to

the ketubba of male children, Master is speaking

that they inherit only from land. That is to say, perhaps when you said, “Sons inherit only from land,” you intended the ketubba of male children, which indeed is collected only from land [as we learned in the Mishna below, on page 91]. And from this we derive the law of the daughters' maintenance: They too are provided for only from land?

He said to him: You are a great man and know what I am saying

[You, being a great man, understood what I intended.] Certainly, it is impossible to derive the law of the daughters' maintenance from ordinary inheritance, since the two are not comparable. Rather, the daughters' maintenance is derived from the ketubba of male children, for both of these are conditions of the ketubba.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said: Rav provided for

orphan girls who came to claim maintenance from their father's estate, when there was nothing there but movable property -

from the wheat

[from wheat, which is movable property]

of the upper story.

They raised a dilemma:

What did Rabbi Hiyya intend by saying that Rav provided for them from the upper story? Was it really not referring there to maintenance, but rather

it was a provision,

that is, a dowry for marriage, which may be collected even from movable property?

And what

was meant by Rav providing for them from

the upper story -

from the improvement of the father's estate, and in accordance with Shmuel. For Shmuel said: For a provision -

one appraises the father,

that is, one assesses according to the father's degree of generosity or stinginess how much he would have given for her dowry had he been alive, and that is what is given to her from his estate, whether from land or from movable property .

Or perhaps it was actual maintenance,

and although the maintenance of daughters is a condition of the ketubba, and a condition of the ketubba has the status of the ketubba—and the ketubba is not collected from movable property, because every undertaking recorded in documents is secured by land, since land always remains extant—in this case Rav held that the daughters' maintenance is collected from movable property because of the enactment that was adopted in the upper story.

And what is meant by “the upper story”? From good rulings that were stated in the upper story.

For Rabbi Yitzhak bar Yosef said: In the upper story they enacted that daughters should be provided for

even

from movable property.

Come and hear: In the possession of Rabbi Banai, the brother of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, there was movable property belonging to orphans. They came before Shmuel, and he said to him

to Rabbi Banai:

Go and provide for them

from the movable property

Is it not

a case of giving the daughters movable property

for maintenance, and does he agree with Rabbi Yitzhak bar Yosef!?

And we reject this:

No. There it was for a provision. And Shmuel follows his own reasoning, for Shmuel said: For a provision, one appraises the father,

and it is given even from movable property, according to his degree of stinginess or generosity.

There was an incident in Nehardea, and the judges of Nehardea ruled

to provide for the daughters even from movable property.

And likewise there was an incident

in Pumbedita, and Rav Hana bar Bizna collected

the daughters' maintenance from movable property.

Rav Naḥman said to them

the judges of Pumbedita:

Go and return

go and return to the orphans what you collected from movable property.

And if not -

I will collect your palace from you

[I will collect your reception hall from you].

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi thought

[held]

to provide for them from movable property.

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said to them: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish did not act on this matter

to collect from movable property,

and you are acting on it?!

Rabbi Elazar thought to provide

for the daughters

from movable property.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said before him: Rabbi, I know that you are not applying the strict measure of justice,

for the law is that they are not provided for from movable property -

but

only from

the measure of compassion,

for you are taking pity on the orphan girls. Nevertheless, it is not proper to act in this manner,

lest the students see

that you act in this way

and establish

that this is

the halakha for generations

as a matter of fundamental law.

There was a certain man who came before Rav Yosef

to ask about the daughters' maintenance.

He said to them: Give her

for her maintenance

from the dates that are on the mat.

[Give her dates from those lying on the mats placed beneath the date palms when the dates are harvested from them.]

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

If he were a creditor,

whose position is stronger, since he can collect from property that has been mortgaged,

would Master give him property in such a case?

He too cannot collect from the orphans' movable property! How, then, can one say that the daughters' maintenance, whose legal position is weaker, as it cannot be collected from mortgaged property, may be collected from the orphans' movable property?!

He said to him:

I did not mean that they should collect from dates that had already been detached from the palm, since those are movable property. Rather,

I was speaking of what is fit for the mat

[that is, that they should collect from dates still attached to the palm and awaiting harvest].