Halakhah for Ketubot 4:5
לְעוֹלָם הִיא בִרְשׁוּת הָאָב, עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל לַנִּשּׂוּאִין. מָסַר הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, הֲרֵי הִיא בִרְשׁוּת הַבָּעַל. הָלַךְ הָאָב עִם שְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁהָלְכוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב עִם שְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, הֲרֵי הִיא בִרְשׁוּת הָאָב. מָסְרוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, הֲרֵי הִיא בִרְשׁוּת הַבָּעַל:
A father is not obligated to feed his daughter [in his lifetime. For after his death, his daughters are fed from his property as a condition of the kethubah. And this applies not only to his daughter, but also to his son, a father not being required to feed either his sons or his daughters when they are minors, unless he be a man of means; that is, a wealthy man from whom beth-din take perforce (as the men of the city in general are compelled to give charity), and they feed with it his young sons and daughters. And if he is not a man of means, beth-din berate him, telling him that it is cruel not to feed his children, that (if he refuses to feed them) he is worse than the wild animals, who are merciful to their young. But they cannot force him to feed them whether they be male or female. And this is so only when they are (merely) young; but if they are extremely young, below the age of six, beth-din compel the father and take from him by force in order to feed them, whether they be male or female. This was expounded by R. Elazar b. Azaryah before the sages in the Vineyard of Yavneh (so called because they sat there row upon row, in the configuration of a vineyard)]: "the sons will inherit, and the daughters will be fed." [It is among the conditions of the kethubah that the males inherit their mother's kethubah and the females be fed from his property.] Just as the sons do not inherit [their mother's kethubah until after their father's death], so the daughters are not fed [from their father's property as per the conditions of the kethubah], until after their father's death.
Arukh HaShulchan
But, we have not heard this (opinion) from any of the Halakhic authorities, and in the words of the Rambam which we (have already) brought, it is written: “This ‘yiḥud’ is called entrance into the ‘ḥupah’, and is (also) called (it constitutes) marriage universally.” Behold, this proves that it (“nisuin” and “ḥupah”) in (only) one thing. Thus it is in the Mishnah: “until she enters the authority of the husband for ‘nisuin’ ”. This definition means “ḥupah” because this has reference to the heave-offering; thus Rashi’s comment: “That is to say she enters the ‘ḥupah’ for the sake of marriage.”
There are those who read that this is the true meaning of “until she enters the ‘ḥupah’ ”, but we have found in the Gemera[illegible] in a Baraita where it is taught: “One who has intercourse with a married woman - (with her being defined as a married woman) as soon as she had entered under the authority of her husband in marriage” (ibid. 49a). Behold, this is (a crime punishable) by strangulation. The inference is made here (that they are two different things), (for) even though (it is not stated) “she entered under the ‘ḥupah’ yet”, behold these are two (separate) things, so it is necessary to say (add) that the term “nisuin” is an inclusive term, and lasts from before the “ḥupah” until after the “ḥupah”; the beginning of the “nisuin” is not yet the “ḥupah”, rather, “ḥupah” is the end of the “nisuin”.