Ketubot

in order [to avert] ill feeling. TO HER HANDIWORK. Whence do we deduce this? — [From that] which R. Huna quoted in the name of Rab: Whence is it deduced that a daughter's handiwork belongs to her father? — [From Scripture] where it is stated, And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant,  as the handiwork of a maidservant belongs to her master so does the handiwork of a daughter belong to her father.  But may it not be suggested that this  [applies only to] a minor whom he may sell, but the handiwork of a na'arah  whom he cannot sell belongs to herself? — It is but logical to assume that it should belong to her father; for should it be imagined that her handiwork does not belong to him [the objection could well be advanced against] the right  which the All-Merciful has conferred upon a father to consign his daughter to the bridal chamber: How could he consign her when he thereby  prevents her from doing her work?  R. Ahai demurred: Might it not be suggested that he  pays her compensation [for the time] she is taken away [from her work] or else, that he consigns her during the night,  or else that he might consign her on Sabbaths  or festivals?  — [The fact], however, [is that in the case of] a minor no Scriptural text was necessary.  For since  is he may even sell her was it at all necessary [to state that her handiwork belongs to him]?  If a Scriptural text  then was at all necessary [it must have been] in respect of a na'arah. TO ANNUL HER VOWS. Whence do we [deduce this]? [From Scripture] where it is written,  Being in her youth in her father's house. AND HE RECEIVES HER BILL OF DIVORCE. Whence is this deduced? — From Scripture where it is written, And she departeth and And becometh,  'departure'  being compared to 'becoming'. BUT HE HAS NO USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME. Our Rabbis taught: A father has no usufruct  during the lifetime of his daughter.  R. Jose the son of R. Judah ruled: A father is entitled to usufruct  in the lifetime of his daughter. On what principle do they differ? — The first Tanna is of the opinion that the Rabbis were well justified in allowing usufruct to a husband, since otherwise he might refrain from ransoming [his wife].  What, however, can be said  in respect of a father? That he would refrain from ransoming her? [It is certain that] he would ransom her in any case. R. Jose the son of R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that a father also might refrain from ransoming [his daughter], for he might think: She is carrying a purse  about her, let her proceed to ransom herself. WHEN SHE MARRIES, THE HUSBAND SURPASSES HIM [IN HIS RIGHTS] IN THAT HE HAS USUFRUCT etc. Our Rabbis taught: If [a father] promised his daughter in writing  fruit,  clothes or other movable objects  that she might take  with her  from her father's house to that of her husband, and she died,  her husband does not acquire these objects. In the name of R. Nathan it was stated: The husband does acquire them. Must it be assumed that they  differ on the same principles as those on which R. Eleazar b. Azariah and the Rabbis differed? For we learned: A woman who was widowed or divorced, either after betrothal or after marriage, is entitled to collect all  [that is due to her]. R. Eleazar b. Azariah ruled: [Only a woman widowed or divorced] after her marriage recovers all [that is due to her], but if after a betrothal a virgin recovers only two hundred zuz  and a widow only one maneh