Ketubot

but [a minor who] was released by a letter of divorce must wait three months.  What does he  teach us when all these cases have already been taught:  If [a minor] has exercised the right of mi'un against her husband he is permitted to marry her relatives  and she is permitted to marry his relatives,  and he does not disqualify her from marrying a priest;  but if he gave her a letter of divorce he is forbidden to marry her relatives and she is forbidden to marry his relatives and he also disqualifies her from marrying a priest?  — He found it necessary [to restate these rulings in order to mention:] 'She must wait three months' which we did not learn. Must one assume [that they  differ on the same principles] as the following Tannaim: R. Eliezer stated, There is no validity whatsoever in the act of a minor, and her husband is entitled neither to anything she finds,  nor to the work of her hands,  nor may he invalidate her vows;  he is not her heir  and he may not defile himself for her;  this being the general rule: She is in no respect regarded as his wife, except that it is necessary for her to make a declaration of refusal;  and R. Joshua stated, The act of a minor is valid, and her husband has the right to anything she finds  and to the work of her hands,  to invalidate her vows,  to be her heir,  and to defile himself for her;  the general principle being that she is regarded as his wife in every respect, except that she may leave him  by declaring her refusal against him?  Must one then assume that Rab  has laid down the same principle as that of R. Eliezer  and that Samuel  has laid down the same principle as that of R. Joshua?  — There is no difference of opinion between them  as to what was the view  of R. Eliezer;  they differ only in respect of the view  of R. Joshua. Samuel [ruled] In agreement with R. Joshua; but Rab argued that  R. Joshua maintained his view only there  [where the benefits  are transferred] from her to him  but not [where the benefits  are to be transferred] from him to her. OR TO HER WORN OUT ARTICLES. Said R. Huna b. Hiyya to R. Kahana: You have told us in the name of Samuel that this  was taught only in respect of melog,  but that to zon barzel  property she is entitled. R. Papa, in considering this statement, raised the point: To which [class of women did Samuel refer]? If it be suggested: To [A MINOR] WHO EXERCISED THE RIGHT OF MI'UN [the difficulty would arise:] If [the articles] are still in existence she would be entitled to receive them in either case,  and if they were no longer in existence she would in neither case  be entitled to receive them.  [Is the reference], then, to A WOMAN WHO IS INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION? [But here again, it may be objected:] If [the articles] were still in existence she would receive them in either case,  and if they no longer existed [the ruling] should be reversed: She should receive melog property since [the capital] always remains in her legal possession  but should not receive zon barzel property since [the capital] does not remain in her possession.  [The fact,] however, [is that the reference is] to A FORBIDDEN RELATIVE OF THE SECOND DEGREE, in whose case  the Rabbis have penalized the woman in respect of [what is due to her] from the man,  and the man in respect of [what is due to him] from the woman.  R. Shimi b. Ashi remarked: From R. Kahana's statement  it may be inferred [that if a lawful wife] brought to her husband  a cloak,  the article is [to be treated as] capital and the man may not continue to wear it until it is worn out.  But did not R. Nahman, however, rule that [a cloak must be treated as] produce?  — He  differs from R. Nahman. IS NOT ENTITLED […] TO A KETHUBAH. Samuel stated: This was taught only in respect of the maneh  and the two hundred zuz,'  to the additional jointure,  however, she  is entitled. So it was also taught: The women concerning whom the Sages have ruled, 'They are not entitled to a kethubah' as, for instance, a minor who exercised the right of mi'un  and the others enumerated in the same context,  are not entitled to the maneh  or to the two hundred zuz,  but are entitled to their additional jointures; women, however, concerning whom the Sages have ruled, 'They may be divorced without [receiving their] kethubah' as, for instance, [a wife who] transgresses the [Mosaic] law, and others enumerated in the same context,  are not entitled to their additional jointures  and much less to [their statutory kethubahs of] a maneh  or two hundred zuz;  whilst a woman who is divorced on the ground of in repute  takes only  what is hers  and departs. This  provides support to R. Hunah who laid down: If she played the harlot [a wife] does not in consequence forfeit