Ketubot

Has she no claim to maintenance  since [her mother] is not entitled to a kethubah, or is it likely that the Rabbis have imposed a penalty only upon her mother who had committed a transgression but not upon her who had committed no transgression? — This remains unanswered. Raba asked: Is the daughter of a betrothed wife entitled to maintenance  or not? Is she entitled to maintenance  since [her mother] is entitled to a kethubah  or is it possible that she is not entitled [to maintenance],  since the Rabbis have not ordained [the writing of] the kethubah until the time of the marriage?  — The question must stand unanswered. R. Papa asked: Is the daughter of an outraged woman  entitled to maintenance  or not? According to the ruling of R. Jose the son of R. Judah, who has laid down  that [her mother] is entitled to recover  a kethubah for one maneh,  the question does not arise.  It arises only according to the ruling of the Rabbis who have laid down that the fine  is regarded as a quittance for her kethubah. What, [it may be asked, is the decision]?  Has she no claim to maintenance  since [her mother] is not entitled to a kethubah,  or might it possibly [be argued thus:] What is the reason why a kethubah [has been instituted for a wife]? In order that the man might not find it easy  to divorce her;  but [this man],  surely, cannot  divorce her?  — This must stand unanswered. YOU SHALL DWELL IN MY HOUSE etc. R. Joseph learnt: IN MY HOUSE  but not in my hovel.  She is entitled, however, to maintenance.  Mar son of R. Ashi ruled: She is not entitled even to maintenance.  The law, however, is not in agreement with Mar son of R. Ashi. R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: If marriage was proposed to her  and she accepted, she is no longer entitled to maintenance.  [This is to imply that] if she did not accept,  she would not be entitled to maintenance! — R. Anan replied: This was explained to me by Mar Samuel: If she said, '[l cannot accept the proposal] out of respect for the memory of  So-and-so, my husband', she is entitled to maintenance; [but if she said], 'Because the men are not suitable for me,' she is not entitled to maintenance. R. Hisda ruled: If she  played the harlot she is not entitled to maintenance. R. Joseph ruled: If she painted her eyes  or dyed her hair  she is not entitled to maintenance.  He who ruled: 'If she played the harlot'  would even more so deprive her of maintenance if she paints her eyes or dyes her hair. He, however, who ruled: 'If she painted her eyes or dyed her hair'  would allow her maintenance  if she played the harlot. What is the reason? — Her passions have overpowered her. The law, however, is not in agreement with any of these reported rulings but with that which Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: She  who claims her kethubah at court is not entitled to maintenance. But is she not entitled? Surely it was taught: If she sold her kethubah, pledged it, or mortgaged [the land that was pledged  for] her kethubah to a stranger, she is not entitled to maintenance. [Does not this imply] that only such  [acts deprive a widow of her maintenance] but not [the act of] claiming [her kethubah at court]? — These [acts  deprive her of her maintenance] whether she appeared at court or not, but the act of claiming [her kethubah deprives her of maintenance] only if she appeared  in court but does not [deprive her of it] if she did not appear at court. SO DID THE MEN OF JERUSALEM etc. It was stated: Rab ruled, 'The halachah is in agreement with [the practice of] the MEN OF JUDAEA', but Samuel ruled, 'The halachah agrees with [the practice of] the MEN OF GALILEE'. Babylon  and all its neighbouring towns  followed a usage in agreement with the ruling of Rab; Nehardea  and all its neighbouring towns  followed a usage agreeing with the ruling of Samuel. A woman of Mahuza  was once married to [a man of] Nehardea. When they came to R. Nahman,  and he observed from her voice that she was a native of Mahuza, he said to them, '[The decision must be in agreement with Rab, for] Babylon and all its neighbouring towns have adopted a usage in agreement with the ruling of Rab'. When, however, they pointed out to him, 'But, surely, she is married to [a man of] Nehardea,' he said to them, 'If that is the case, [the decision will be in agreement with Samuel for] Nehardea and all its neighbouring towns followed a usage agreeing with the ruling of Samuel. How far does [the usage of] Nehardea extend? — As far afield as the Nehardean kab  is in use. It was stated: [When a kethubah is being paid to] a widow, said Rab, assessment is made of what she wears,  but Samuel said: That which she wears is not assessed. Said R. Hiyya b. Abin: [Their opinions  are] reversed  in the case off retainer.  R. Kahana taught: And so  [are their opinions]  in the case of a retainer;  and [Rab] had laid down this mnemonic, 'Strip the widow and the orphan  and go out'. R. Nahman said: Although we have learned in a Mishnah in agreement with the view of Samuel  the law is in agreement with that of Rab. For we learned: Whether a man has consecrated his estate, or whether he has consecrated the valuation of himself  [the Temple treasurer]  has no claim either upon the clothes of that man's wife,  or upon the clothes of his children, or the coloured articles that were dyed for them,  or any new sandals that [their father] may have bought  for them. Said Raba to R. Nahman: Since, however, we have learned in a Mishnah in agreement with the view of Samuel, why does the law agree with that of Rab? The other replied: At first sight it might appear  to run parallel to the principle of Samuel, but if you examine it carefully [you will find that] the law, in fact, must be in agreement with [the view of] Rab. For this  is the reason:  When he  bought  [the clothes] for her [he did so] on the assumption that she would live with him.  He did not, however, buy  them for her on the assumption that she should take them  and depart. A daughter-in-law of the house of Bar Eliashib was claiming her kethubah from orphans. When she summoned them to court and they said, 'It is degrading for us that you should come with us in such [clothes]', she went home and dressed and wrapped herself in all her garments. When they came before Rabina he told them: The law is in agreement with the ruling of Rab who laid down [that when a kethubah is being paid to] a widow, assessment is made of what she wears. A man  once said, 'Let a bride's outfit  be provided for my daughter', and the price of an outfit was subsequently reduced. 'The benefit',  ruled R. Idi b. Abin, 'belongs to the orphans'. A man  once said,