Parallel
כתובות 43:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
The wound [may be supposed to] have been made in her face. Rab Zera stated in the name of R. Mattena who had it from Rab: (others assert [that it was] Rabbi Zera who stated in the name of R. Mattena who had it from Rab): The handiwork of a daughter who is maintained by her brothers belongs to herself, for it is written in Scripture, And ye make them an inheritance for your children after you [implying]: 'Them' [you may make an inheritance] 'for your children', but not your daughters for your children. This tells us that a man may not transmit his authority over his daughter to his son. Said Abimi b. Papi to him: Shakud made this statement. Who is Shakud? — Samuel. But, surely, was it not Rab who made this statement? — Read: Shakud also made this statement. Mar the son of Amemar said to R. Ashi, Thus the Nehardeans have laid down: The law is in agreement with the ruling of R. Shesheth. R. Ashi [however] said: The law is in agreement with Rab. And the law is to be decided in agreement with the view of Rab. MISHNAH. IF A MAN GAVE HIS DAUGHTER IN BETROTHAL AND SHE WAS DIVORCED, [AND THEN] HE GAVE HER [AGAIN] IN BETROTHAL AND SHE WAS LEFT A WIDOW, HER KETHUBAH BELONGS TO HIM. 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 KETHUBAH BELONGS TO HER. R. JUDAH SAID: THE FIRST BELONGS TO HER FATHER. THEY, HOWEVER, SAID TO HIM: HER FATHER, AS SOON AS HE GIVES HER IN MARRIAGE, LOSES ALL CONTROL OVER HER. GEMARA. The reason is that when HE GAVE HER IN MARRIAGE [the first time] SHE WAS DIVORCED [and that when] HE GAVE HER [AGAIN] IN MARRIAGE, SHE WAS LEFT A WIDOW [for the first time], but if she had been left a widow twice she would not have been fit to marry again. The Tanna has thus indirectly laid down an anonymous ruling in agreement with Rabbi who holds that if [a thing has happened] twice presumption is established. R. JUDAH SAID: THE FIRST BELONGS TO HER FATHER. What is R. Judah's reason? — Both Rabbah and R. Joseph explained: Since her father has acquired the right to it at the time of the betrothal. Raba objected: 'R. Judah ruled that the first belonged to her father; R. Judah nevertheless admitted that if a father gave his daughter in betrothal while she was still a minor and she married after she had attained adolescence he has no authority over her'. But why? Might it not here also be argued, 'Since her father has acquired the right to it at the time of the betrothal'? The fact, however, is that if any statement [in the nature mentioned] has at all been made it must have been made in the following terms: Both Rabbah and R. Joseph explained: Because it was written while she was still under his authority. As to the recovery [of a kethubah], from which date may distraint be effected? — R. Huna replied: The hundred or the two hundred from the date of the betrothal and the additional jointure from that of the marriage. R. Assi, however, replied: The former as well as the latter [may be distrained upon only] from the date of the marriage. But could R. Huna, however, have given such a ruling? Has it not been stated: If a wife produced against her husband two kethuboth, one for two hundred, and one for three hundred zuz, she may, said R. Huna, distrain from the earlier date if she wishes to collect the two hundred zuz [but if she desires to collect the] three hundred zuz she may distrain from the later date only. Now if the ruling were as stated she should be entitled, should she not, to distrain to the extent of two hundred zuz from the earlier date and to that of one hundred from the later date? — But [even] according to your conception [it might equally be objected why] should she [not] distrain for all the five hundred zuz, two hundred from the earlier date and three hundred from the later date? What then is the reason why she cannot distrain for all the five hundred? [Obviously this:] Since the man did not write in her favour, 'I willingly added to your credit three hundred zuz to the two hundred' he must have meant to imply: 'If you desired to distrain from the earlier date you would recover [no more than] two hundred, and if you desired to distrain from the later date you would receive three hundred'.
—