Ketubot

'You are deprived of your benefaction;  it is cast upon the thorns',  for R. Hoshaia has already expounded his traditional teachings  in Babylon. THE FEMALE CHILDREN THAT WILL BE BORN FROM OUR MARRIAGE etc. Rab  taught: Until they shall be taken in marriage;  but Levi taught: Until they shall attain adolescence.  [Would daughters then be maintained] according to Rab although they attained adolescence, and according  to Levi even though they married?  — The fact, however, [is that where a daughter] attained adolescence though she was not married or where she was married though she did not attain adolescence no one  disputes [the ruling that she is not entitled to maintenance]. They  differ only on the question of a [daughter who was] betrothed but did not attain adolescence. So also did Levi teach in his Baraitha:  Until they shall attain adolescence and the time for their marriages arrives. Both?  — What was meant is this:  Either they shall attain adolescence or  the time for their marriage  shall arrive. [They  differ on the same principles] as the following Tannaim: How long is a daughter to be maintained? Until she is betrothed. In the name of R. Eleazar it was stated: Until she attains adolescence. R. Joseph learnt: [Daughters must be maintained] until they become [wives]. The question was raised: Does this  mean becoming [wives] at marriage or becoming [wives] at betrothal? — The question must stand unanswered. Said R. Hisda to R. Joseph: Did you ever hear from Rab Judah whether a betrothed [orphan] is entitled to maintenance  or not?  The other replied: I have not actually heard it, but it may logically be concluded that she is not entitled, because [her future husband], having betrothed her, would not allow  her to be degraded.  'If you have not actually heard this', [R. Hisda] retorted 'it may logically be concluded that she is entitled, for [her intended husband], not being sure of her,  would not throw his money away for nothing'.  Another reading:  He  replied: I have not actually heard it, but it may logically be concluded that she is entitled [to maintenance]; for [her intended husband], not being sure of her, would not throw his money away for nothing. The other  retorted: If you have not actually heard this it may logically be concluded that she is not entitled to maintenance; because [her future husband], having betrothed her, would not allow her to be degraded. (Mnemonic of the men:  SHaK ZaRaP.  [Subjects:] She refused and a sister-in-law of the second degree is betrothed and he outraged her.) R. Shesheth was asked: Is a minor who exercised her right of refusal  entitled to maintenance  or not?  — You, replied R. Shesheth, have learned this: A widow  in her father's house, a divorced woman  in her father's house or a woman  who was awaiting the decision of a levir  in her father's house is entitled to maintenance. R. Judah ruled: [Only a woman who] is still in her father's house is entitled to maintenance but [a woman who] is no longer in her father's house is not entitled to maintenance. [Now is not] R. Judah's ruling exactly the same as that of the first Tanna?  Consequently it may be concluded that  the difference between them is the case of a minor who had exercised her right of refusal,  the first Tanna being of the opinion that she is entitled [to maintenance]  while R. Judah upholds the view that she is not entitled to it. Resh Lakish enquired: Is the daughter of a sister-in-law  entitled to maintenance  or not? Has she no claim to it, since the Master said,  Her kethubah is a charge on the estate of her first husband  or is it possible that she is entitled to it since the Rabbis have enacted that whenever she  is unable to collect her kethubah from [the estate of] the first, she may recover it from that of the second?  — The question must remain unanswered. R. Eleazar enquired: Is the daughter of a forbidden relative of the second degree of incest  entitled to maintenance  or not?