Ketubot

But might not one suggest that if she  returned  to her parental home she resumes her former status?  — Raba replied: A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael has long ago settled this difficulty. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: What need was there for Scripture to state, But the vow of a widow, or of her that is divorced, even everything wherewith she bath bound her soul, shall stand against her?  Is she not free from the authority of her father  and also from that of her husband?  [The fact], however, is that where  her father had delivered her to the agents of her husband, or where the agents of her father had delivered her to the agents of her husband and, on the way,  she became a widow or was divorced  [one would not know] whether she was to be described as of  the house of her father  or as of the house of her husband;  hence the need for the text  to tell you that as soon as she has left her father's authority,  even if only for a short while, he may no longer annul her vows. Said R. Papa: We also learned [a similar ruling]:  A man who has intercourse with a betrothed girl incurs no penalties  unless she is a na'arah,  a virgin, betrothed, and in her father's house.  Now one can well see that 'na'arah' excludes  one who is adolescent, 'virgin' excludes  one with whom a man has had intercourse, and 'betrothed' excludes one who married [by entry into the bridal chamber].  What, [however, could the expression] 'in her father's house' exclude? Obviously this:  [The case where] her father delivered her to the agents of the husband. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We also learned [a similar ruling]:  Should one have intercourse with a 'married woman'  the latter,  provided she entered under the authority of her husband,  although no intercourse had taken place, is to he punished by strangulation.  'She entered under the authority of her husband' [implies]  in any form whatever.  This is conclusive proof. MISHNAH. A FATHER  IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN HIS DAUGHTER. THIS EXPOSITION  WAS MADE BY R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH  IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SAGES IN THE VINEYARD OF JABNEH:  [SINCE IT WAS ENACTED THAT] THE SONS SHALL BE HEIRS [TO THEIR MOTHER'S KETHUBAH]  AND THE DAUGHTERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED [OUT OF THEIR FATHER'S ESTATE,  THE TWO CASES MAY BE COMPARED:] AS THE SONS CANNOT BE HEIRS EXCEPT AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER, SO THE DAUGHTERS CANNOT CLAIM MAINTENANCE EXCEPT AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER. GEMARA. [Since it has been said that] he is UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN HIS DAUGHTER Only, it follows  that he is under an obligation to maintain his son, [and in the case of] his daughter also, since he is only exempt from  legal OBLIGATION he is, obviously, still subject  to a moral duty; who, [then, it may be asked, is the author] of our Mishnah? [Is it] neither R. Meir nor R. Judah nor R. Johanan b. Beroka? For it was taught: It is a moral duty  to feed one's daughters, and much more so ones sons, (since the latter are engaged in the study of the Torah);  so R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: It is a moral duty to feed ones sons, and much more so one's daughters, (in order [to prevent their] degradation).  R. Johanan b. Beroka ruled: It is a legal obligation to feed one's daughters  after their father's death; but during the lifetime of their father neither sons nor daughters need be  fed.  Now who [could be the author of] our Mishnah? If R. Meir, he, surely, [it may be objected] ruled that [the maintenance of] sons [was only] a moral duty.  If R. Judah, he, surely ruled that also  [the maintenance of] sons [was only] a moral duty.  And if R. Johanan b. Beroka [should be suggested, the objection would be: Is not his opinion that] one is not even subject to  a moral duty?  — If you wish I might say [that the author is] R. Meir; If you wish I might Say: R. Judah; and if you prefer I might Say: R. Johanan b. Beroka. 'If you wish I might say [that the author is] R. Meir', and it is this that he meant:  A FATHER IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN HIS DAUGHTER, and the same law applies to his son. [Maintenance], however, is a moral duty in the case of his daughter and, much more so, in the case of his sons; and the reason why  HIS DAUGHTER was mentioned  was to teach us this: