Ketubot

But did not each one receive what was hers?  — It is this that was meant: If all of theme wish  to marry at the same time they are to receive equal shares.  This provides support for [the opinion] of R. Mattena; for R. Mattena has said: If all of them wish to marry at the same time they are to receive one tenth. 'One tenth'! Can you imagine [such a ruling]?  The meaning must consequently be that  they are to receive their tenths at the same time. Our Rabbis taught: The daughters,  whether they had attained their adolescence before they married or whether they married before they had attained their adolescence, lose their right to maintenance  but not to their allowance for marriage outfit; so Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: If they also attained their adolescence, they lose the right to their marriage outfit.  How should they proceed?  — They hire for themselves husbands  and exact their outfit allowance. R. Nahman stated: Huna told me, The law is in agreement with Rabbi. Raba raised an objection against R. Nahman: IF AN ORPHAN WAS GIVEN IN MARRIAGE BY HER MOTHER OR HER BROTHERS [EVEN IF] WITH HER CONSENT, AND THEY ASSIGNED TO HER A HUNDRED, OR FIFTY ZUZ, SHE MAY, WHEN SHE ATTAINS HER MAJORITY, RECOVER FROM THEM THE AMOUNT THAT WAS DUE TO HER. The reason then  is because she was a minor;  had she, however, been older  her right  would have been surrendered!  — This is no difficulty; the one  is a case where she protested;  the other,  where she did not protest.  This expla nation may also be supported by a process of reasoning. For otherwise  there would arise a contradiction between two statements of Rabbi.  For it was taught, 'Rabbi said, A daughter who is maintained by her brothers is to receive a tenth of [her father's] estate', [which implies] only when  she is maintained  but not  when she is not maintained.  Must it not in consequence be concluded that one [statement deals with one] who protested and the other [with one] who did not protest. This proves it. Rabina said to Raba: R. Adda b. Ahaba told us in your name, If she attained her adolescence she need not lodge a protest;  if she married she need not lodge a protest;  but if she attained her adolescence and was also married it is necessary for her to lodge a protest.  But could Raba have made such a statement? Surely, Raba pointed out an objection against R. Nahman [from the Mishnah of] AN ORPHAN, and the other replied that 'the one is a case where she protested, the other where she did not protest'!  — This is no difficulty. One  is a case where she is maintained  by them;  the other,  where she is not maintained by them. R. Huna stated in the name of Rabbi: [The right  to] marriage outfit is not the same as that  conferred by a condition in a kethubah.  What is meant by 'is not the same as that conferred by a condition in a kethubah'? Should it be suggested  that whereas for the allowance for a marriage outfit even property pledged  may be seized,  [for the fulfilment of an obligation  under] the terms of a kethubah no pledged property  may be seized,  what [new point, it may be objected,] does this teach us? Surely it is a daily occurrence [that pledged property] is seized for marriage outfit but not for maintenance! [Should it], however, [be suggested that] whereas for a marriage outfit movable objects also may be seized, [for the fulfilment of an obligation under] a condition in a kethubah only real estate. but not movable objects, may be seized, [it may be objected that,] according to Rabbi, for the one as well as the other  [movable objects] may be seized. For it was taught: Both landed property and movable property may be seized for the maintenance of a wile or daughters;  so Rabbi! What, then, is meant by '[The right to] marriage outfit is not the same as that conferred by a condition in a kethubah'? — As it was taught: If a man  said that his daughters must not be maintained out of his estate he is not to be obeyed.  [If, however, he said, that] his daughters shall not receive their marriage outfit out of his estate he is obeyed, because [the right to] marriage outfit is not the same as that conferred by a condition in a kethubah.