Ketubot — Daf 43a

ומודה בקנס פטור ורבנן סברי כי קא תבע בושת ופגם קא תבע

במאי קא מיפלגי א"ר פפא ר"ש סבר לא שביק איניש מידי דקיץ ותבע מידי דלא קיץ ורבנן סברי לא שביק איניש מידי דכי מודי ביה לא מיפטר ותבע מידי דכי מודה ביה מיפטר

בעא מיניה רבי אבינא מרב ששת בת הניזונת מן האחין מעשה ידיה למי

במקום אב קיימי מה התם מעשה ידיה לאב ה"נ מעשה ידיה לאחין או דלמא לא דמי לאב התם מדידיה מיתזנא הכא לאו מדידהו מיתזנא

א"ל תניתוה אלמנה ניזונת מנכסי יתומים ומעשה ידיה שלהן

מי דמי אלמנתו לא ניחא ליה בהרווחה בתו ניחא ליה בהרווחה

למימרא דבתו עדיפא ליה מאלמנתו והאמר רבי אבא א"ר יוסי עשו אלמנה אצל הבת כבת אצל אחין בנכסין מועטין

מה הבת אצל אחין הבת ניזונת והאחין ישאלו על הפתחים אף אלמנה אצל הבת אלמנה ניזונת והבת תשאל על הפתחים לענין זילותא אלמנתו עדיפא ליה לענין הרווחה בתו עדיפא ליה

מתיב רב יוסף מעשה ידיה ומציאתה אע"פ שלא גבתה מת האב הרי הן של אחין טעמא דבחיי האב הא לאחר מיתת האב לעצמה מאי לאו בניזונת לא בשאינה ניזונת

אי בשאינה ניזונת מאי למימרא אפילו למ"ד יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך ה"מ בעבד כנעני דלא כתיב ביה עמך

אבל עבד עברי דכתיב ביה (דברים טו, יג) עמך לא כל שכן בתו

אמר רבה בר עולא לא נצרכה אלא להעדפה אמר רבא גברא רבה כרב יוסף לא ידע דאיכא העדפה וקמותיב תיובתא

אלא אמר רבא רב יוסף מתני' גופא קשיא ליה דקתני מעשה ידיה ומציאתה אע"פ שלא גבתה מציאתה ממאן גביא

אלא לאו הכי קאמר מעשה ידיה כמציאתה מה מציאתה בחיי האב לאב לאחר מיתת האב לעצמה אף מעשה ידיה נמי בחיי האב לאב לאחר מיתת האב לעצמה ש"מ

איתמר נמי א"ר יהודה אמר רב בת הניזונת מן האחין מעשה ידיה לעצמה אמר רב כהנא מ"ט דכתיב (ויקרא כה, מו) והתנחלתם אותם לבניכם אחריכם אותם לבניכם ולא בנותיכם לבניכם מגיד שאין אדם מוריש זכות בתו לבנו

מתקיף לה רבה ואימא בפיתוי הבת וקנסות וחבלות הכתוב מדבר וכן תנא רב חנינא בפתוי הבת וקנסות וחבלות הכתוב מדבר

חבלות צערא דגופא נינהו אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא

and one who makes a voluntary admission in a penal case is exempt.  But the Rabbis are of the opinion that the claim  is [mainly] in respect of compensation for indignity and blemish.  On what principle do they  differ? — R. Papa replied: R. Simeon is of the opinion that a man would not leave that which is fixed  to claim  that which is not fixed,  while the Rabbis hold the view that no man would leave a claim  from which [the defendant] could not be exempt even if he made a voluntary admission  and advance a claim  from which he would be exempt  if he made a voluntary admission. R. Abina enquired of R. Shesheth: To whom belongs the handiwork of a daughter who  is maintained  by her brothers?  Are they  in loco parentis and as in that case her handiwork belongs to her father so here also it belongs to her brothers; or [is it more reasonable that] they should not be compared to their father, for in his case she is maintained out of his own estate but here she is not maintained out of their estate?  — He replied: You have learned about such a case: A widow is to be maintained out of the estate of [her deceased husband's] orphans, and her handiwork belongs to them.  [But] are [the two cases in every way] alike? It may not be any satisfaction to a man that his widow should be liberally provided for,  but he might well be pleased, might he not, that his daughter should? Does this  imply that a man has preference for his daughter than for his widow? Surely. R. Abba said in the name of R. Jose:  The relationship between  a widow and her daughter, in the case of a small estate,  has been put on the same level as that of the relationship between  a daughter and her brothers. As in the case of the relationship between a daughter and her brothers, the daughter is maintained  while the brothers can go begging at [people's] doors, so also in the case of the relationship between a widow and her daughter, the widow is maintained and the daughter can go begging at [people's] doors;  [which shews, does it not, that the widow is given preference]? — As regards [provision against] degradation  a man gives preference to his widow;  as regards liberal provision  he gives preference to his daughter. R. Joseph objected: HER HANDIWORK, HOWEVER, AND ANYTHING SHE FINDS, EVEN IF SHE HAS NOT COLLECTED [THE PROCEEDS], BELONG TO HER BROTHERS IF HER FATHER DIED. The reason  then is  that [they originated during] the lifetime of their father, but [if they originated] after his death [they would belong] to herself. Does not [this refer to a daughter] who is maintained?  — No; [this is a case of one] who is not maintained.  If she is not maintained, what need is there to state [such a case]?  For even according to him who ruled that a master is entitled to say to his bondman, 'Work for me and I will not maintain you'  the ruling applies only to a Canaanite bondman concerning whom 'With thee' was not written in Scripture, but not to a Hebrew slave concerning whom with thee  was written in Scripture. How much less [then would such a ruling apply] to one's daughter? — Rabbah b. 'Ulla replied: It  was only required in the case of a surplus.  Said Raba: Did not such a great man as R. Joseph know that [sometimes there may] be a surplus when he raised his objection?  The fact however is, Raba explained, that R. Joseph raised his objection from our very Mishnah. For it was stated, HER HANDIWORK, HOWEVER, AND ANYTHING SHE FINDS, EVEN IF SHE HAS NOT COLLECTED [THE PROCEEDS]; but from whom [it may be asked] is she to collect anything she finds? Consequently it must be conceded that it is this that was meant: HER HANDIWORK is like ANYTHING SHE FINDS; as anything she finds belongs to her father  [if she finds it] during his lifetime, and to herself [if she finds it] after his death  so also in the case of her handiwork, [if it was done] during the lifetime of her father it belongs to her father [but if it was done] after his death it belongs to herself. Thus it may be concluded [that the ruling of R. Shesheth stands refuted]. So it was also stated:  Rab Judah ruled in the name of Rab, The handiwork of a daughter who is maintained by her brothers belongs to herself. Said R. Kahana: What is the reason? Because 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.  To this Rabbah demurred: It might be suggested that the Scriptural text  speaks of [payments in connection with] the seduction of one's daughter, fines and mayhem!  And so did R. Hanina learn: The Scriptural text  speaks of [payments in connection with] the seduction of one's daughter, fines and mayhem! Is not mayhem injury involving bodily pain?  — R. Jose b. Hanina replied: