Ketubot 53b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to them: Go, tell him: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

Your benefit is taken –

thrown onto thorns.

That is to say, do you think that we will hold a favor for you on account of the tradition that you have stated? Your benefit is removed—and thrown onto the thorns! For

Rav Hoshaya already translated his tradition in Babylonia,

and already stated this matter!

We learned in our Mishna:

“The daughters who will be to you”

“from me, etc.”

they shall sit in my house and be sustained from my property until they are taken by men].

Rav taught

in the Mishna:

“until they are taken by men,”

as it is written in the Mishna before us.

And Levi taught: “until they reach maturity.”

And we are astonished: according to

the

method of

Rav –

even though she has reached maturity

[that she has reached maturity], she will still be sustained from his property? But reaching maturity removes her from the father’s authority!

And according to

the method of

Levi –

even though she has married

she will be sustained?!

And we explain:

Rather, if she has reached maturity but has not married,

or

if she has married but has not reached maturity, everyone does not dispute,

and certainly she is not sustained.

When they dispute –

with regard to a betrothed woman, and she has not yet reached maturity

: Rav holds that even a betrothed woman is included in “until they are taken by men,” and therefore she is not sustained.

And Levi holds that only if she has reached maturity, or if she has married, at which point she has entirely left the father’s authority as with reaching maturity, she is not sustained. But a betrothed woman is sustained.

And Levi likewise taught in his collection of Mishnayot

[that he arranged the six orders like Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Oshaya]:

“until they reach maturity, and their time to marry arrives

[and their time to marry arrives—that is, twelve months for a virgin from when the husband demanded that she marry]”.

And we are astonished: is it necessary specifically that there be

two,

the two matters—that they reach maturity and that their time to marry arrive? And we explain:

Rather, either they reach maturity, or their time to be married arrives.

In any event, it is seen from here that specifically when she marries, she loses her sustenance, but a betrothed woman has sustenance.

And we say: this matter, whether a betrothed woman whose husband died has sustenance –

as

a dispute of

the tannaitic sages

it is:

For it was taught:

Until when is the daughter sustained –

until she becomes betrothed.

In the name of Rabbi Elazar they said: until she reaches maturity.

Rav Yosef taught: “until they will be

men”

. They raised a question before them:

is the intention

to the state of betrothal, or

perhaps, to

the state of marriage?

And we conclude:

The matter shall stand unresolved.

Rav Hisda said to Rav Yosef: Have you heard from Rav Yehuda,

whether an orphaned

betrothed woman has sustenance

from the brothers,

or

perhaps

she does not have sustenance?

He said to him: It follows –

I have not heard

from Rav Yehuda.

Rather, from reasoning –

she does not have

sustenance.

For the reason that the Sages instituted that she should be sustained from the brothers is so that she should not go around to the doorways. But here,

since he betrothed her

the betrothed man – certainly

he does not want her to be disgraced,

and he will go and sustain her from his own resources, even though the obligation is not imposed upon him.

He said to him,

Rav Hisda:

If it follows that you have not heard

explicitly from Rav Yehuda, on the contrary,

from reasoning she does have

sustenance from the brothers! For

since he has no knowledge of her

the betrothed man

with regard to her

[that he is not familiar with her, and perhaps when he marries her he will find a defect in her] –

he does not throw money away

[he will not spend his money for nothing to sustain her when the matter is uncertain].

And some say

the opposite:

At first

Rav Yosef said to him:

Rav Hisda,

It follows that I have not heard,

but

from reasoning she does have it, since he has no knowledge of her –

he does not throw money away.

And

Rav Hisda said to him:

Rav Yosef,

If it follows that you have not heard, from reasoning she does not have it, since he betrothed her –

he does not want her to be disgraced.

Mnemonic: Of the men, a sack, a spear, a vessel, and a levirate widow; a second, a betrothed woman, and one who was violated

They asked Rav Sheshet: A refusing girl,

that is, a minor orphan whom her brothers married off, and who refused her husband and returned to them—does she

have sustenance

until she reaches maturity,

or does she not have sustenance?

And the sides of the uncertainty are: shall we say that through the refusal she uprooted the marriage entirely from its beginning, and it is as though she had never married at all; or perhaps, in the end she married, and left the father’s authority!

Rav Sheshet said to them: You have learned it: A widow

from betrothal [for from marriage, certainly she does not have sustenance] , who is

in her father’s house, and a divorcee

from betrothal

in her father’s house, and a levirate widow

from betrothal

in her father’s house –

she has sustenance.

Rabbi Yehuda says: when

she is

still in her father’s house –

she has sustenance.

She is not in her father’s house –

she does not have sustenance.

And there is cause for astonishment:

Rabbi Yehuda –

is this not the first tanna!

And in what does he dispute with him?

Rather, is it not so –

the refusing girl is the difference between them. For the first tanna holds: she has

sustenance, for she is like a widow from betrothal, etc., for she too is as though she had never married, having uprooted the marriage through the refusal.

And

came

Rabbi Yehuda

and

held

that specifically when she is still in her father’s house, having not left there through marriage at all, she has sustenance. But if she left through marriage, even though in the end she refused,

she does not have

sustenance .

Reish Lakish asked: A daughter of

a levirate widow,

that is, one who took his levirate widow, and his levirate widow bore him a daughter, and he died—does she have sustenance from the brothers, from the property of her father,

or does she not have sustenance?

And the sides of the uncertainty are: shall we say that

since the Master said

that

her marriage settlement

of the levirate widow is

upon the property of her first husband,

the obligation of the conditions of the marriage settlement is also not upon the second; therefore

she does not have

sustenance,

or perhaps, since if she does not have

a marriage settlement

from

the

first

husband, such as when he has no property,

the Sages instituted for her

a marriage settlement

from the second,

so that she should not be easy in his eyes to divorce,

she does have

from him also the conditions of the marriage settlement, so that her daughter will be sustained from his property?

And we conclude:

The matter shall stand unresolved.

Rabbi Elazar asked: A daughter of a second wife,

that is, he married a woman who is among the second-degree forbidden women, who are forbidden by rabbinic words [and are explained in Tractate Yevamot 21a], whose law is that she has neither a marriage settlement nor sustenance, and she bore him a daughter and he died—does she

have sustenance

from his property,

or

perhaps –

does she not have sustenance?