Kommentar zu Ketubot 4:18

נערה: והצער בתפוסה – and the “pain” also goes to her father with someone who was raped.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with the issue of who receives the payments if a girl is raped or seduced.

מת האב – from when she stood in court during her being a young woman, whether she became an adult prior to [her father’s] death or whether she had not become a young man, they belong to the brothers, for since he stood before the court, the father took possession.

If a young girl was seduced [the compensation for] her embarrassment and blemish and the fine belong to her father; [and the compensation for] pain in the case of one who was raped. This section teaches that all of the payments that are incurred by one who rapes or seduces a young girl are given to the father.

לא הספיק לעמוד בדין וכו' – since he did not stand before the court, it is not his money to bequeath to his sons.

If the girl’s case was tried before her father died [all the forms of compensation] are her father’s. If her father [subsequently] died they are her brothers’. If her father died before her case was tried they are hers. The mishnah now begins to deal with various situations in which the father died. The question is: does the money go to the girl herself, or does it go to her brothers who inherit her father? If the case was tried before the father died and then her father died the payments go to her brothers. This is because once the case was tried it is as if the father had already collected, even though he may not actually have collected. In essence the rapist or seducer owes the father money. Since this is so, when he dies, the seducer or rapist pays the money to the brothers, the father’s inheritors. However, if the father died before the case was tried, the money belongs to her. This is because at the point that it was determined that the rapist or seducer owes the money, she was already an orphan.

רבי שמעון אומר – even though he stood in court, it is not the money of the father to bequeath to his sons until it reaches his hand, as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:29): The man who lay with her shall pay the girls father fifty [shekels of] silver.” The Torah did not cause the father to take possession until the time of the giving [of the money], but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

If her case was tried before she became of majority age [all forms of compensation] are her father’s. If her father [subsequently] died they are her brothers’. If she became of majority age before her case was tried they are hers. This section deals with a situation in which the money has not been collected and she became of majority age. At this age her father no longer receives money that she earns. If the case was tried before she became of majority, and then the father died, the money goes to her brothers, for the same reasons outlined above. Since the debt was owed to the father, the brothers inherit this debt. However, if the case was not tried until after she became of majority age, the payments go directly to her, even if her father is still alive.

מעשה ידיה – that she did during the life of her father, even though she had no collected, [such as, for example], the salary/reward for work.

Rabbi Shimon says if her father died before she could collect [the payments] they belong to her. According to the opinion in the above sections, the point at which the debt is determined is the trial. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that if she didn’t collect before her father dies, even if they have already been to trial, the money goes to her. According to Rabbi Shimon, the father does not bequeath money that is owed to him to his sons.

ומציאתה – In the Gemara (Tractate Ketubot 43a), it raises the question: “from whom is she to collect anything she finds?” And it responds as such: this is what he said: her handiwork is like anything she finds. Just as whatever she finds during the lifetime of her father belongs to her father, and after the death of her father is hers, meaning to say, that the brothers do not take possession of what the daughter has found after the death of the father, so too her handiwork [earned] during the lifetime of her father, belongs to the father and the brothers took possession of it [after their father’s death], even though she did not collect the earnings of her labor, but her handiwork that comes after the death of the father is hers, and the brothers do not have possession of the handiwork of the daughter who performs it after the death of the father.

Her handiwork and anything she finds, even if she had not collected [the proceeds] belong to her brothers if her father died. While a daughter is in the status of a “na’arah” or younger all of her earnings belong to her father. Our mishnah teaches that any work she did or things that she found, even if they have not yet been collected (such as wages) already belong to her father. If he dies they go to her brothers as part of their father’s inheritance.

כתובתה של אב – Her Ketubah which she collects from these years of betrothal, and he (i.e., the anonymous Tanna/teacher of the Mishnah) holds that there is a Ketubah for a betrothed woman, and in the days of her being a young woman (i.e., ages 12-12 ½) and a minor girl is stated.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss financial rights that a father accrues from his daughter.

כתובתה שלה – from when he (i.e., the father) married her off, his control has no legal effect and we follow after the collection and collection after this is what [occurs] and we don’t follow after the writing, to state that since, the first was written while she was under the control of her father, it should be for the father.

If a man gave his daughter in betrothal and she was divorced, [and then] he gave her [again] in betrothal and she was widowed, her ketubah belongs to him. In this case the daughter was only betrothed and then widowed, betrothed and then widowed again. The mishnah teaches that since she was never fully married, both ketuboth (200 zuz for each marriage) belong to her father. As long as she is not fully married, he never fully relinquishes control over her.

הראשונה של אב – for Rabbi Yehuda holds that we follow after the writing, and since the first Ketubah was written before the marriages while the daughter was under the control of the father, it belongs to the father, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

If he gave her in marriage and she was divorced [and then] he gave her [again] in marriage and she was left a widow, her ketubah belongs to her. Rabbi Judah said: the first belongs to her father. They said to him: as soon as he gives her in marriage, her father loses all control over her. In this case the daughter is married twice. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, both ketuboth belong to her. According to this opinion, as soon as she is married, her father loses all control over her, and he can not make any financial gains through her. According to Rabbi Judah, the first ketubah belongs to her father, because it was written before the marriage and hence it was a debt incurred while she still lived in her father’s home. According to the other sages who respond to Rabbi Judah, the collection does not go according to when it was written, but rather her status at the dissolution of the marriage. Since at this point she was independent, her father has no right to her ketubah.

וזנתה – [she fornicated] from the betrothal and she is a young woman.

Introduction Deuteronomy 22:13-21 discusses a man who makes a virginity claim against his wife. Verse 19 states that if he was found to be lying “They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father; for the man has defamed a virgin in Israel.” Verses 20-21 state that if the claim was found to be true, then the woman is stoned. Verses 22-23 deal with a betrothed woman who commits adultery, who is also stoned. From the phrase “a virgin in Israel”, our mishnah derives that the punishment of stoning is meted out in both of these cases only if the woman was a born Israelite. If she was a convert, then she is punished by strangulation, as are other adulterers.

הרי זו בחנק – and even she converted younger than the age of three years, for she is in the status of a virgin, for when it is written [in the Torah] regarding [the penalty of] stoning, it is written with regard to an engaged young woman, with the daughter of an Israelite, as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:21): “for she did a shameful thing in Israel, [committing fornication while under her father’s authority].”

The mishnah lists three types of women who have committed an act of fornication, i.e. adultery. The first is a woman who has converted with her mother, the second is one whose mother converted between conception and birth, and third is one whose mother converted before conception. Each woman/girl has slightly different consequences to her crime.

ולא מאה סלע – for if the husband was found to be lying, for the entire portion is written with regard to an Israelite (and not a convert).

The daughter of a convert who converted together with her mother and then committed an act of fornication is subject to the penalty of strangulation. She is not [stoned] at the door of her father’s house nor [does her husband pay the] hundred sela’. Since this girl is herself a convert she does not count as a “virgin of Israel”. Therefore, if she commits adultery, she is punished by strangulation, the typical punishment for adultery. Deuteronomy 22:21 states that if the charge of not being a virgin was true, “then the girl shall be brought out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her town shall stone her to death.” Since this girl was not a “virgin of Israel”, she is not brought out to the entrance to her father’s house. If the husband’s claim against her was false he need not pay the 100 sela [=shekel] fine, for she was not a “virgin of Israel”.

ולידתה בקדושה ה"ז סקילה – as Scripture states (Deuteronomy 22:21): “[and the men of the town] shall stone her to death,” for it does not need to say, “that she dies,” but rather, to include her conception that was not in a state of sanctity; but however, for a fine, we don’t include her, since for death she is included, but not for a fine.

If she was conceived in unholiness but her birth was in holiness she is subject to the penalty of stoning. She is not [stoned] at the door of her father’s house nor [does her husband pay the] hundred sela’. In this case the girl was conceived in unholiness, meaning her mother was not an Israelite when she was conceived. However, the mother converted before the birth and therefore she was born “in holiness”. In this case she is stoned if she commits adultery while a betrothed virgin. However, she does not get taken out to the entrance of her father’s house nor is her husband fined 100 shekels if he made a false claim against her. In other words she is in some ways treated like a full Israelite and in other ways she is not.

יש לה אב – we are speaking about an Israelite woman.

If she was both conceived and born in holiness she is regarded as a daughter of Israel in all respects. Although this girl’s mother is a convert, she herself is considered a full Israelite.

ואין לה פתח בית אביה – as for example, when the father does not have a house.

A girl who has a father but no door of her father’s house; or a door of her father’s house but no father, is subject to the penalty of stoning [the verse did not state] “the opening of her father’s house” (Deut. 22:21) except as a precept. This section teaches that if a girl has no father, or has a father but her father’s house doesn’t have a house with an entrance (for instance he is homeless), she is still liable to be stoned should she commit an act of fornication while betrothed. When the Torah states that she shall be taken out to the entrance of her father’s house, the intention was not that if she didn’t have a father with a house with an entrance, that she would not receive the prescribed penalty. Rather the intention was that if she should commit such an act of fornication, she should be stoned at the entrance to her father’s house, if such a place exists. In other words, its lack of existence does not impede upon the carrying out of the other elements to the passage in Deuteronomy.

האב זכאי בבתו – when she is a minor and when she is a young woman (i.e., from age twelve and one-day to twelve and one-half years of age).

Introduction This mishnah delineates basic rights that a father has over his daughter and that a husband has over his wife. In addition the mishnah outlines basic responsibilities that a husband has to his wife. We can easily see from this mishnah that the society that the Mishnah envisions/reflects is patriarchal. The father/husband is head of the household. Most of the earnings of the members of the household belong to him and he has the responsibility for providing for them.

בקידושיה בכסף – for the money of her betrothal is his (i.e., the father’s) as it is written concerning the Hebrew maidservant (Exodus 21:11): “she shall go free, without payment,” and we expound, that there is no money to this master, meaning to say to the master who purchased her that she left him gratuitously/for no reason with the signs of young womanhood, but if another master has money and the father appointed him, the money of her betrothal/sanctification is his, eve when she is a young woman until she becomes an adult woman.

A father has authority over his daughter in her betrothal [whether it was effected] by money, document or intercourse. When we learn the first mishnah in tractate Kiddushin we will see that there are three means by which to effect betrothal: money, document or intercourse. Our mishnah teaches that a father has the right to accept money or document on behalf of his daughter in order that she should be betrothed. He also has the right to give her to a man with whom she will have intercourse and thereby become betrothed. This right is limited to a girl who has not yet reached majority age (typically 12 ½). After that the girl receives her own betrothal.

בשטר ובביאה – that he receives the betrothal document on her behalf and hands her over for sexual intercourse for the sake of betrothal to whomever he desires, as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:2): “[she leaves his household] and becomes the wife of another man” (Tosafot Yom Tov omits the first part of the Biblical verse); there is an analogy of the word הויות/becomes – to each other just as “money” is one of the הויות/becomes – in the domain of her father, so also the “document” and “sexual intercourse” while she is in the domain of her father.

He is entitled to anything she finds, to her handiwork and to annul her vows. Any money a daughter might earn belongs to her father. This includes things she might find and her handiwork (for instance weaving, sewing, work in the field, etc.). In addition the father has a right to annul her vows (see Numbers 30:6). The reason that annulling vows is listed in this clause is that it is in essence an economic right since a vow could prevent him from having her handiwork. For instance if she took a vow that any thing she finds is forbidden to her father, she would thereby deny him of one of his economic rights.

במציאתה – because of enmity/aversion.

He receives her get but he has no usufruct [from her property] during her lifetime. If the father betroths his daughter and then the husband decides to divorce her before fully marrying her, the father receives the get. However, if the girl was married, the father no longer has any domain over her. If the girl should come into money while still in her father’s house, the principal belongs to her as well as the interest (the usufruct). However, if she dies, her father inherits both the principal and the usufruct. The normal way that a girl would come into money that does not automatically belong to her father is by inheriting her mother’s father. This would happen if her mother died before her grandfather died (for if her grandfather died first when her mother died her husband would inherit her) and her mother was an inheritor (i.e. her grandfather had no sons). In such a case she would inherit her grandfather.

ובמעשה ידיה – as it is written (Exodus 21:7): “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, [she shall not be feed as male slaves are].” Just as a maid servant, her handiwork belongs to her master, also the daughter, her handiwork belongs to her father.

When she marries, the husband surpasses him [in his rights] in that he has usufruct during her lifetime. A husband has more rights than the father in that the husband does have right to the usufruct from his wife’s property during her lifetime. This could happen if she received an inheritance after the marriage. If she should die before her husband dies then he would inherit the principal as well, but if the husband would die first he would never own the principal. The husband also has rights over whatever his wife finds and whatever money she earns. He also can annul her vows.

ובהפרת נדריה – as it is written (Numbers 30:17): “[and his daughter] while in her father’s household by reason of her youth.”

And he is obligated to feed her, to pay a ransom for her and to provide for her burial. Rabbi Judah says: even the poorest man in Israel must provide no less than two flutes and one lamenting woman. The mishnah now begins to list the husband’s responsibilities towards his wife. The primary responsibility is to provide food. He also must provide her with clothing and shelter. If she is taken captive he must pay a ransom in order to redeem her. From the very fact that this is listed as a basic responsibility of the husband to his wife clearly demonstrates that kidnapping must have been a serious problem. The husband is also responsible to pay for his wife’s burial. According to Rabbi Judah, even if the husband is poor he must provide two flutes and one lamenting-woman for the funeral.

ומקבל גיטה – as it is written (Deuteronomy 24;2) “she leaves [his household] and becomes [the wife of another man.” An analogy is made between [“leaving” to “becoming]; just as the father receives her betrothal while she is a minor and during her period as a young woman, so too he receives her bill of divorcement.

ואינו אוכל פירות בחייה – if land fell to her from the house of the father of her mother, her father cannot consume their fruits during her lifetime other than if she dies and he inherits her.

יתר עליו הבעל – for he takes possession of all of what is taught above that the father retains control, and he consumes the fruits of the property that fell to her in inheritance once she married him.

ובפרקונה – if she is taken captive, he is liable to redeem her.

בקבורתה – The Sages established her burial in place of her inheritance for he inherits her if she dies.

משני חלילים – for a eulogy.

לעולם היא ברשות האב – if an Israelite woman is betrothed to a Kohen she does not eat Terumah/priest’s due, and even if the time arrived that they established for marriage and she did not get married, as the husband is liable for her sustenance she cannot eat Terumah.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the exact point in which a betrothed woman ceases to be in her father’s domain and is transferred to her husband’s domain. We should note that different sources reflect different answers to this question. The question is of import because as long as she is in her father’s domain, he inherits her and he benefits from her work. Once she is in her husband’s domain, the husband gains such rights. Furthermore, there is importance for an Israelite girl who is betrothed to a priest. As long as she is in her father’s domain, she does not eat terumah. She is allowed to eat terumah when she enters her husband’s domain.

עד שתכנס לחופה – for the sake of marriage that she will be handed over to the domain of the husband.

She remains in the domain of her father until she enters the domain of her husband [by going into the bridal chamber] at marriage. In a normal situation the girl is in her father’s domain until she enters the bridal chamber (huppah) with the intent of becoming married.

שלוחי האב – that the agents of the father ra into the agents of the husband and handed her over to re su

If her father delivered her to the agents of the husband she passes into the domain of her husband. If her father went with the husband’s agents or if the father’s agents went with the husband’s agents she remains in the domain of her father. If her father’s agents delivered her to the husband’s agents she passes into the domain of her husband. The following clauses of the mishnah deal with a situation in which there is some distance to be traveled between the father’s home and the husband’s home. If the father turns his girl over to her husband’s agents, she is already considered to be married. If her husband is a priest, on her journey she may eat terumah. If the father or his agents accompany her on the trip, then she is still in her father’s domain. She enters into her husband’s domain only when she is fully turned over to him or to his agents.

האב אינו חייב במזונות בתו – during his lifetime [the father is not liable for her sustenance], whereas after [his] death, the daughters are supported from his property from the stipulations of the Ketubah (i.e., Jewish marriage contract) [and his daughter] not specifically, for the same law applies to his son, for the father is not liable to support/feed neither his sons nor his daughters when they are minors, but rather, if he is a man believed to be wealthy, meaning to say, that he is a rich man, the Jewish court takes from against his will in the manner that they force all the rest of the people of the city regarding tzedakah/charity and through it they support his minor age sons and daughters, but if he is not believed to be wealthy, the Jewish court shames/reviles him and announces to him that it is cruelty to him if he does not support his children, and that he is worse than the desert creatures who have compassion upon the offspring, ut they cannot compel him on this, whether his children are male or female and especially when the sons are young, but the youngest of the young and they are the least of the children of Shesh, the Jewish court forces the father and removes [funds] from his hand, against his will to support his children who are he smallest of the small, both the boys and the girls.

Introduction Since previous mishnayoth have been dealing with the rights a father has over his daughter, our mishnah deals with his obligations to feed, clothe and shelter her.

בכרם – on account that they would sit row by row like a vineyard.

A father is not obligated to maintain his daughter. According to our mishnah a father is not obligated to maintain his daughters. The Talmud gives several important comments and reservations to this ruling. First of all, it is also true of boys. Second, this is only true when they are over the age of six. When they are under the age of six, the father is obligated to feed them. Thirdly, when it says that the father is not obligated to feed them, it means that if he has no money, he need not go out and work in order to feed his kids. However, if he has enough assets to be able to give charity, he is not allowed to use them for himself before he gives them to his kids. Rather just as the court can force a person to give charity, so too the court can force this person to feed and maintain his children, even above the age of six. Finally, if he has no means by which to maintain his children, and chooses not to work in order to provide for them, while the court cannot force him to work, they embarrass him publicly, stating in public “even a cruel raven feeds its kids, look at this man who is less than an impure bird”. In summary, the only person who can get away with not feeding his kids is one who does not want to work for himself and is willing to endure public humiliation.

הבנים ירשו והבנות יזונו (see Tractate Bava Batra, Chapter 9, Mishnah 1 and Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 13, Mishnah 3, where this phrase appears as well) – from the provisions of the Ketubah that the male children will inherit the Ketubah of their mother and the female children will be supported from his (i.e., the father’s) property.

This exposition was made by Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah in front of the sages in the vineyard of Yavneh: “The sons shall inherit [their mother’s kethubah] and the daughters shall be maintained [out of their father’s estate” just as the sons do not inherit except after the death of their father, so the daughters are not maintained except after the death of their father. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah supports the ruling in the first clause of the mishnah with a midrash based on some guarantees which are included in the ketubah and which we will see in subsequent mishnayoth. The ketubah states that sons inherit their mothers ketuboth and that daughters are maintained from their father’s estate. Both of these guarantees are actually written into the ketubah itself. Rabbi Elazar’s midrash is that just as the sons do not inherit their mother’s ketubah until their father dies (the father inherits it first), the daughters are not guaranteed maintenance until their father dies. While he is alive, he is not obligated to support them, as I explained above.

מת הבנים – the male [children] die,

[the daughters] do not inherit the Ketubah of their mother, other than after the death of their father;

similarly, the daughters are not supported from the property of the father from the strength of the provisions of the Ketubah other than until after the death of their father.

ולא כתב לה כל נכסים כו' חייב – to make all of his property is a surety to her, and he is not able to say, “you don’t have other than the field that is written to you in your Ketubah.

Introduction The mishnah now begins to delineate a list of guarantees that a woman has that are normally written into a ketubah but that even if they are not included in her personal ketubah, she nevertheless receives. In other words, these are rights guaranteed to any wife regardless of what is actually written in her marriage contract, or regardless of whether she even has a marriage contract. Our mishnah deals with the two most basic aspects of the ketubah: 1) that a virgin receives 200 zuz and a widow 100 zuz; 2) that all of the husband’s assets are a lien for his ketubah.

If he did not write a kethubah for her, a virgin still collects two hundred zuz and a widow one mane, because it is a condition laid down by court. Even though the husband never wrote for his wife a ketubah, she still is able to collect the minimum amount of 200/100.

If he assigned to her in writing a field that was worth one mane instead of the two hundred zuz and did not write for her, “All property that I possess is a lien for your ketubah”, he is liable [for the full amount] because it is a condition laid down by the court. If the husband writes in the ketubah that a field worth a maneh (100 zuz) is the collateral for the ketubah, and he doesn’t write that all his property is a lien, all of his property is still liable to be used to pay off the ketubah. In such a case, the husband or the husband’s inheritors cannot say to the wife, “Here is your 100 zuz field that is your ketubah”.

ובכהנת – for he cannot uphold her [as his wife] once she is taken captive, for the wife of a Kohen is prohibited to her husband once she is raped, he writes to her, “I will redeem you and return you to your country,” and he is obligated to give her the Ketubah settlement and even though that against his will, he needs to divorce her.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a husband’s responsibility to ransom his wife if she is taken captive.

If he did not write for her, “if you are taken captive I will ransom you and take you again as my wife”, or in the case of a priest’s wife, “I will restore you to your people”, he is liable [to carry out these obligations], because it is a condition laid down by court. One of the basic rights guaranteed in the ketubah is that a husband will pay a ransom for his wife, should she be taken captive. Even if this clause is not written into the ketubah, the husband is still liable, for it is a court-established condition. As we learned in chapter two, if a woman is captured there is an assumption that she was raped by her captors, who are assumedly not Jews. Sexual relations with a non-Jew renders a woman forbidden to marry a priest. Therefore if this woman was married to a priest he must still pay her ransom, but he doesn’t return her to being his wife. If she was married to an Israelite, she may return to him in any case.

אינו רשאי – for he is already obligated to redeem her when she is taken captive.

Introduction This mishnah continues to teach that a husband is obligated to pay for the ransom of his wife. In addition, it teaches that a husband is responsible to pay for his wife’s medical costs, should she be injured or become ill. However, there is a difference between the responsibility to pay the ransom and the responsibility to pay for treatment.

חייב לרפאותה – for healing is like food/support.

If she was taken captive he is obligated to ransom her; And if he said, “Here is her get and her ketubah, let her ransom herself”, he is not allowed [to act accordingly]. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, a husband is obligated by law to pay for his wife’s ransom. In this mishnah a husband tries to divorce his wife upon hearing that she has been taken captive (we are obviously not dealing with an ideal marriage). He says he will give her her get and pay her the amount guaranteed in the ketubah and then she can ransom herself. The mishnah rules that this is forbidden. This is because as soon as she was taken captive he became liable to pay for her ransom, whether she is his wife or not. Therefore, he must first pay for her ransom and then if he wishes to divorce her and pay the ketubah he may do as he pleases.

רשאי – for he is not obligated to support/feed his divorced wife.

If she was injured it is his duty to provide for her medical treatment; And if he said, “Here is her get and her ketubah, let her heal herself”, he is allowed [to act accordingly]. If a woman becomes sick or is injured, her husband is liable to pay for the costs of her treatment. These costs are part of the costs of her maintenance (food, shelter and clothing). In contrast to the previous clause, if the husband wishes to he may divorce her, pay the ketubah and not have to continue to pay for the cost of treatment. This is because a husband does not have to pay the costs of maintaining his wife after having divorced her. Although this may be a cruel, dastardly thing to do, a husband is allowed to divorce his sick wife.

יתר על חולקיהום דעם אחוהון – if you die during my life and I betroth you, your children will take your Ketubah after my death when they will come to divide my possessions with the children that I will have from another wife, and the practical difference, for example, is that the Ketubah of this one is greater than that of the other wife, or the children of the other wife are more numerous from the children of this one and it is good for these that they will take the Ketubah of their mother and even if the Ketubot are equivalent for there is not written that the male issue collect, other than from the landed properties, but not from movable properties, and especially where the father left a measure of two of the Ketubot and one Dinar more, then the children inherit the Ketubah of male issue since there remains a place for the inheritance of the Torah for after each one of the children will take the Ketubah of his mother, there remains one Dinar to divide and to inherit the property of their father, but if the father did not leave other than according to the measure of two Ketubot or less than this, they divide the property equally and the Ketubah of male issue is not practiced by them.

Introduction This mishnah refers to a guarantee that a husband must give to his wife that her ketubah (in this case “ketubah” refers to money she brought into the marriage as a dowry) will be inherited by her sons. This will be explained below. Even if the husband does not write this guarantee in the ketubah, the sons still receive the inheritance.

If he did not write for her, “The male children that will be born from our marriage shall inherit the money of your ketubah over and above their shares with their brothers”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court. The “ketubah” in this mishnah refers to money that the wife brought into the marriage as a dowry. When a wife dies her husband inherits this money and it becomes officially his property and not just his to use, as it was during the marriage. Written into the ketubah document is a guarantee that this wife’s male children will inherit this amount over and above their inheritance from the remainder of the father’s estate. For instance, let us say that a woman marries a man. She brings into the estate property in the value of 1000 zuz, has five male children and then she dies. The husband inherits this money and then remarries, this time a wealthy woman, who brings 10,000 zuz into the marriage and then has one son and dies. When the husband dies, he leaves an estate of 15,000 zuz. The one son of the rich woman inherits 10,000 zuz off the top. This is his mother’s ketubah and although it became his father’s property, he inherits that amount separately from the general inheritance (as long as it still exists). The five sons from the first marriage split the 200 zuz from their mother’s ketubah, each son taking 200 zuz. There are now 4,000 zuz left in the estate and each son takes an equal portion, except for the oldest son who takes a double portion. The purpose of this ketubah clause is so that a rich father-in-law will write a handsome dowry for his daughter. A father-in-law might fear that his son-in-law will have children from another wife and these children will inherit property that he wanted to see his grandsons have. Through this guarantee a father-in-law can be more certain that his property will stay with his blood relatives.

עד דתתנסבן – until they will become betrothed, and if they became adult women, even though they had not become betrothed, they have no support /food, for we hold that an adult woman has no support.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the clause in the ketubah which guarantees a wife that her daughters will be maintained from her husband’s estate until they are married.

If he did not write for her, “the female children that I will have from you will dwell in my house and be maintained out of my estate until they are taken in marriage”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court. A husband is liable to support his wife’s daughters until they are taken in marriage. As we learned above in mishnah six, this refers to after the husband’s death. Even if he doesn’t write such a clause in the ketubah, he is liable for it is a condition laid down by the court.

מיגד אלמנותיך – during your widowhood.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the right of the wife to remain in her husband’s home after his death and to be maintained by his estate. The woman does not have this right once she has actually collected her ketubah money. As we shall see in our mishnah, there were different customs as to whether or not the heirs could force her to take her ketubah and leave their father’s household.

אנשי יהודה כותבין כו' – but the Halakha is not like the men of Judea but rather, all the while that she is not married and she did not claim her Ketubah in the Jewish court, she is supported from her husband and lives in the house that she lived in during the life of her husband, and uses all the utensils that she would use during the life of her husband.

If he did not write for her, “You shall live in my house and be maintained from my estate throughout the duration of your widowhood”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court. When a husband dies, his wife may remain in his house and continue to receive maintenance money from his estate. This right is guaranteed, whether or not it is written in the ketubah. The woman only loses this right when she claims her ketubah.

Thus did the men of Jerusalem write. The men of Galilee wrote as did the men of Jerusalem. The men of Judea used to write: “Until the heirs wish to pay you your ketubah”. Therefore if the heirs wish to, they may pay her her ketubah and dismiss her. The men of Jerusalem and Galilee wrote as was described in section one. However, the men of Judea “Until the heirs wish to pay you your ketubah” instead of “throughout the duration of your widowhood”. This means that the heirs may also take the initiative. If they wish to pay her her ketubah and cease the maintenance payments, they may. [She, of course, can also take the initiative and request her ketubah]. In contrast, according to the version written in section one, if the heirs wish to pay her the ketubah and stop maintenance payments, and she doesn’t agree, they may not do so. Only she can make that decision.