Ketubot

That even in the case of his daughter  he is only exempt from a legal obligation but is nevertheless subject to a moral duty.  'If you wish I might say: R. Judah'; and it is this that he meant: A FATHER is UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN HIS DAUGHTER, and much more so  his son.  It is, however, a moral duty [to maintain] one's son and, much more so, ones daughters; and the only reason why HIS DAUGHTER was mentioned Was to teach us this: That even [the maintenance of] one's daughter is no  legal obligation. 'And if you prefer I might say: R. Johanan b. Beroka', and what Was meant is this: HE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN HIS DAUGHTER, and the same law applies to his son; and this, furthermore, means  that [such maintenance] is not even  a moral duty; only because [the maintenance of daughters] after their father's death is a legal obligation, the expression, HE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION, was used here also. R. Elai stated in the name of Resh Lakish who had it from R. Judah  b. Hanina: At Usha  it was ordained that a man must maintain his sons and daughters while they are young.  The question was raised: Is the law in agreement with his statement or not? — Come and hear: When people came before Rab Judah,  he used to tell them, 'A Yarod  bears progeny and  throws them upon [the tender mercies of] the townspeople'. When people came before R. Hisda,  he used to tell them, 'Turn a mortar  for him upside down,  in public and let one  stand [on it] and say: The raven cares  for its young but that man  does not care for his children'.  But does a raven care  for its young? Is it not written in Scripture,  To the young ravens which cry?  — This is no difficulty. The latter  applies to white ravens  and the former  to black ones.  When a man  came before Raba he used to tell him, 'Will it please you that your children should be maintained from the charity funds?'  This ruling,  however, has been laid down only for one who is not a wealthy man, but if the man is wealthy he may be compelled  even against his wish; as was the case with  Raba who used compulsion against R. Nathan b. Ammi  and extracted front him four hundred zuz  for charity.  R. Elai stated in the name of Resh Lakish: It was enacted at Usha  that if a man assigned all his estate to his sons in writing, he and his wife  may nevertheless  be maintained out of it. R. Zera, or as some say, R. Samuel b. Nahmani, demurred: Since the Rabbis went so far as to rule  that [in the case that follows] a widow is maintained out of her husband's estate, was there any necessity [to state that such maintenance is allowed to] the man himself and his wife? For Rabin had sent in his letter:  If a man died and left a widow and a daughter, his widow is to receive her maintenance from his estate?  If the daughter married,  his widow is still to receive her maintenance from his estate. If the daughter died?  Rab  Judah the son of the sister of R. Jose b. Hanina said: I had such a case, and it was decided  that his widow was to receive her maintenance from his estate.  [In view of this ruling we ask: Was it] necessary [to give a similar ruling  in respect of] the man himself  and his wife? — It might have been assumed [that the law applies only] there,  because there is no one else to provide for her,  but here [it might well be argued:] Let him provide for himself and for her;  hence we were taught [that here also the same ruling applies]. The question was raised: Is the law in agreement with his view  or not? — Come and hear: R. Hanina and R. Jonathan were once standing together when a man approached them and bending down kissed R. Jonathan upon his foot. 'What [is the meaning of] this?' said R. Hanina to him.  'This man', the other  replied, 'assigned his estate to his sons in writing