Ketubot

UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER HUSBAND  [BY GOING INTO THE BRIDAL CHAMBER]  AT MARRIAGE. IF HER FATHER DELIVERED HER TO THE AGENTS OF THE HUSBAND  SHE PASSES  UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER HUSBAND. IF HER FATHER WENT WITH HER HUSBAND'S AGENTS  OR IF THE FATHER'S AGENTS WENT WITH THE HUSBAND'S AGENTS  SHE REMAINS  UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER FATHER. IF HER FATHER'S AGENTS DELIVERED HER TO HER HUSBAND'S AGENTS  SHE PASSES  UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER HUSBAND. GEMARA. What [is the purport of] REMAINS?  — To exclude [the ruling] of an earlier  Mishnah where we learned: If the respective periods  expired  and they were not married  they are entitled to maintenance out of the man's estate  and [if he is a priest]  may also eat terumah.  Therefore 'REMAINS'  was used. IF HER FATHER DELIVERED HER TO THE AGENTS OF THE HUSBAND SHE PASSES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER HUSBAND etc. Rab ruled: Her delivery [is regarded as entry into the bridal chamber] in all respects  except that of terumah;  but R. Assi ruled in respect of terumah also. R. Huna, (or as some Say, Hiyya b. Rab,) raised an objection against R. Assi: She remains  under the authority of her father until she enters the bridal chamber.  'Did I not tell you', said Rab to them,  'that you should not be guided by an ambiguous statement?  He  can answer you that "her delivery" is regarded as her entry into the bridal chamber'. Samuel, however, ruled: [Her delivery has the force of entry into the bridal chamber only in respect] of her inheritance.  Resh Lakish ruled: [Only in respect] of her kethubah.  What is meant by 'her kethubah'? [If it means] that should [the woman] die he inherits it,  [then this ruling is, is it not,] the same as that of Samuel?  Rabina replied: The meaning is  that her [statutory] kethubah from a second husband  is only a maneh. Both R. Johanan and R. Hanina ruled: Her delivery [is regarded as entry into the bridal chamber] in all respects. even that of terumah. An objection was raised: If the father went with the agents of the husband, or if the agents of the father went with the agents of the husband, or if she had a court-yard on the way, and she entered it with him  to rest there for the night,  her father inherits from her if she died, although her kethubah  is already in the house of her husband. If, however, her father delivered her to her husband's agents, or if her father's agents delivered her to her husband's agents, or he  had a court-yard on the way, and she entered it with him with an intention to matrimony, her husband is her heir if she died, although her kethubah  was still in her father's house.  This ruling  applies only in respect of her inheritance  but in respect of terumah [the law is that] no woman is allowed to eat terumah until she enters the bridal chamber.  [Does not this represent] a refutation of all?  This is indeed a refutation. [But] is not this,  however, self-contradictory? You said. 'She entered it with him to rest for the night'. The reason [why such an act is not regarded as entry into the bridal chamber is] because [the entrance was made specifically for the purpose of] resting for the night. Had it, however, been made with no specified intention [it would be deemed to have been made] with an intention to matrimony. Read, however, the final clause: 'She entered it with him with an intention to matrimony', from which it follows, does it not, that if the entrance was made with no specified intention [it would be deemed to have been made just] in order to rest there for the night? — R. Ashi replied: Both entrances mentioned  are such as were made with no specified intention, but any unspecified [entrance into] a court-yard of hers [is presumed to have been made] in order to rest there for the night while any unspecified [entrance into] a court-yard of his  [is presumed to have been made] with an intention to matrimony. A Tanna taught: If a father delivered [his daughter]  to the agents of her husband and she played the harlot  her penalty is that  of strangulation.  Whence is this ruling deduced? — R. Ammi b. Hama replied: Scripture stated,  To play the harlot in her father's house,  thus excluding one whom the father had delivered to the agents of the husband. Might it not be suggested that this  excludes one who entered her bridal chamber but with whom no cohabitation had taken place?  — Raba replied: Ammi told me [that a woman  who entered her] bridal chamber was explicitly  mentioned in Scripture: If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a man;  'a damsel' but not a woman who is adolescent, 'a virgin' 'but not a woman with whom intercourse took place, 'betrathed' but not one married.  Now what [is meant by] 'one married'? If it be suggested: One actually married, [it can be objected that such a deduction]  would be practically the same as that of 'a virgin but not one with whom intercourse took place'. Consequently it must be concluded  [that by 'married' was meant one] who entered into the bridal chamber but with whom no intercourse took place.