Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud for Ketubot 4:3

הַגִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרָה בִתָּהּ עִמָּהּ, וְזִנְּתָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶנֶק. אֵין לָהּ לֹא פֶתַח בֵּית הָאָב, וְלֹא מֵאָה סָלַע. הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִקְדֻשָּׁה וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, הֲרֵי זוֹ בִסְקִילָה. אֵין לָהּ לֹא פֶתַח בֵּית הָאָב וְלֹא מֵאָה סָלַע. הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, הֲרֵי הִיא כְבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר. יֶשׁ לָהּ אָב וְאֵין לָהּ פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאָב, יֶשׁ לָהּ פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאָב וְאֵין לָהּ אָב, הֲרֵי זוֹ בִסְקִילָה. לֹא נֶאֱמַר פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ, אֶלָּא לְמִצְוָה:

A father has rights in his daughter [when she is a minor or a na'arah] in her betrothal by money, [her betrothal money belonging to him, it being written in respect to a Hebrew maid-servant (Exodus 21:11): "Then she shall go out free, without money," which is expounded: Money does not revert to this master (that is, the master who bought her, from whom she goes out free, with the signs of a na'arah), but money does revert to a different master. And who is that? Her father, the betrothal money reverting to him, even when she is a na'arah, until she becomes a bogereth.], by deed, and by cohabitation. [He receives a betrothal deed for her, and presents her for cohabitation for betrothal to whomever he wishes, it being written (Deuteronomy 24:2): "And she shall go out … and she shall be," the "beings" (i.e., being taken in marriage) being likened to each other, viz.: Just as money, which is one of the "beings," is in her father's domain, so, betrothal by deed and by cohabitation are in her father's domain.], and he acquires her metziah [because of eivah (rancor, i.e., desisting from feeding her)], and the work of her hands, [it being written (Exodus 21:7): "And if a man sell his daughter as a maidservant" — Just as the handiwork of a maidservant belongs to her master, so the handiwork of a daughter belongs to her father.], and the absolution of her vows, [it being written (in this connection) (Numbers 30:17): "…in her maidenhood, the house of her father."], and he receives her get, [it being written (Deuteronomy 24:2): "And she shall go out … and she shall be" — "going out" (of marriage) is likened to "being." Just as her father receives her betrothal when she is a minor and when she is a na'arah, so he receives her get.], and he does not eat fruits in her lifetime. [If land fell to her from the house of her father's mother, her father does not eat their fruits in her lifetime, unless she dies and he inherits her.] Superior to him (in rights) is her husband, [who has all the rights mentioned above that a father has in his daughter, and] who (in addition) eats the fruits [of the property which fell to her by inheritance after she married him.] And he (the husband) is obligated to feed her, to redeem her [if she were taken captive], and to bury her, [the sages having instituted that he bury her; this, in consideration of her inheritance, her husband inheriting her at her death.] R. Yehudah says: Even a pauper in Israel should not provide less (at the burial of his wife) than two flutes (for the eulogy) and a wailing woman.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

MISHNAH: The sons of a female convert who converted with her do neither perform ḥalîṣah nor levirate66Even if they biologically are children of the same father, they legally are not since the rules of family relationships are restricted to Jews. even if a first [son] was not conceived in holiness67Before conversion. but born in holiness and a second [son] was conceived and born in holiness. The same applies to a slave girl68Who before manumission already was Jewish as a slave. who was freed together with her sons.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is shameful; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful follows the early Mishnah, that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy follows the late Mishnah140Mishnah Bekhorot 1:7: “The obligation of levirate has precedence over ḥalîṣah. That was in earlier times, when people had the intent to fulfill the commandment, but now, when people do not have the intent to fulfill the commandment (but to enjoy the marriage) they said, the obligation of ḥalîṣah has precedence over levirate.”. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say, in both cases one follows the early Mishnah, or in both cases one follows the late Mishnah. He who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful, since he damaged one thing in the Torah he shall come and take his damage: “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.117Deut. 25:9.” He who says that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy, it mentions here “calling” and it is said there: “My name will be called about them141Gen. 48:16. This verse is a blessing.”. Since “calling” there is a praise, so here it is a praise.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse