Torah Community Connections

Week 62 - Sunday - 28 January 2001

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 4

A father has jurisdiction over his daughter regarding her kiddushin with money, with a document, or by cohabitation; and he has jurisdiction over what she finds, and over her handiwork and over the annulment of her vows; and he receives her get, but he does not enjoy usufruct during her lifetime. When she weds the husband exceeds him in that he enjoys usufruct during her lifetime; and he is liable for her maintenance and for her ransom, and for her burial. Rabbi Yehudah says, Even the poorest in Israel should not have less than two flutes and a wailing woman.

Kehati

Our mishnah continues to enumerate the rights of a father over his daughter until she matures or weds. The last section of the mishnah also discusses the rights and obligations of a husband toward his wife.

A father has jurisdiction over his daughter - when she is a minor (ketanah) or a girl (na'arah), regarding her kiddushin with money - the money from her betrothal belongs to him, with a document - the father receives his daughter's document of betrothal, and the erusin is binding, or by cohabitation - the father is permitted to give his daughter to a man for betrothal through cohabitation; and he - the father,

Has jurisdiction over what she finds - any lost objects picked up by his daughter.

The Gemara explains that this is "to prevent resentment," lest he discontinue supporting her; and over her handiwork - this is learned from what is written regarding a Hebrew maidservant: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant" (Ex. 21:7) - just as the maidservant's handiwork belongs to her master, so, too, a daughter's handiwork belongs to her father. Even though this refers to a ketanah, for the father cannot sell a na'arah to be a maidservant (as mentioned above, 3:8), nevertheless, from the (superfluous) text "to be a maidservant" it is learned to compare a daughter to a maidservant, as stated above, and we do not need this lesson regarding a ketanah, for if the father can sell her, her handiwork certainly belongs to him; the comparison therefore applies to a na'arah; we learn that although her father cannot sell her, her handiwork is nevertheless his; and over the annulment of her vows - the father may dissolve his daughter's vows on hearing them, as it is written, "But if her father disallows her in the day that he hears, none of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she has bound her soul, shall stand" (Num. 30:6). The Gemara learns from the verse "being in her youth in her father's house" (ibid., v. 17), that as a na'arah she is under her father's authority, (Rashi) i.e., we learn from this verse that when she is a na'arah her father is empowered to annul her vows. According to another interpretation, we learn all of the father's rights regarding his daughter from this verse - "being in her youth, in her father's house" - all the gains of her youth belong to her father. In his Mishnah Commentary Rambam writes: "These are the things to which a father is entitled as long as his daughter is a na'arah, as it is written, 'being in her youth, in her father's house,' and by tradition we learn that the gains of a na'arah belong to her father. However, once she becomes a bogeret, her father has no rights or jurisdiction over her";

And he receives her get - if she was divorced after betrothal (erusin), when she is a na'arah. This is learned from the verse, "And she leaves his house, and she becomes another man's wife" (Deut. 24:2) - the leaving is compared to the entering; just as the father is entitled to his daughter's betrothal until she matures, so, too, is he entitled to receive her get from the arus; however, once she comes of age or weds (nisu'in), the father no longer has any authority over her; but he does not enjoy usufruct during her lifetime - if she inherited property from her maternal grandfather, her father may not benefit from their produce during her lifetime; if she dies, however, her father inherits her property.

When she weds - her husband acquires the father's rights to anything she finds, her handiwork and the annulment of her vows; moreover, the husband exceeds him - her father by an additional right, in that he enjoys usufruct - the fruits of any property which she inherits after their marriage, during her lifetime; and he - her husband, is liable for her maintenance - to provide his wife with food, clothing and housing and for her ransom - if she is taken captive, and for her burial - if she dies, he must see to her interment. The Gemara quotes a baraita: "They stipulated her maintenance because of her handiwork (which he receives), and ransom because of the produce (which he enjoys from the property she inherited after the nesu'in, and burial because of her ketubah (i.e., in return for his right to the dowry which she brought into the marriage, which is written in her ketubah, and which he inherits - Rashi).

Rabbi Yehudah says, Even the poorest in Israel should not have less than two flutes and a wailing woman - it was the practice to hire a eulogizer, flute players and a mekonenet (a wailing woman). Rabbi Yehudah holds that even the poorest person in Israel must hire at least two flute players and a wailing woman for his wife's funeral, since these are considered part of the funeral. The Gemara explains that if her family's custom is to hire flute players and wailing woman, then even if this is not his family's practice, the First Tanna also requires the husband to follow her family's custom, since "she rises with him but does not decline with him," i.e., she shares his advantages but not his disadvantages, even after her death. Our mishnah, however, refers to a case in which it is his, but not her family's. Whereas the First Tanna confines "she rises with him" to her lifetime, Rabbi Yehudah upholds this principle even after her death. However, Rabbi Yehudah agrees that it is sufficient to hire the minimum of two flute players and a wailing woman.

We have interpreted the first section of the mishnah, "The father is entitled regarding her kiddushin with money, with a document, and by cohabitation," according to Rashi and Bartenura. Tosefot Rid interprets the mishnah variantly: "The father is entitled regarding her kiddushin" - he may betroth his daughter when she is a ketanah or a na'arah in one of the three ways in which a woman is acquired, as specified in Kidd. 1:1, i.e., with money - received by her father from the bridegroom, or with a document - the bridegroom writes to her father on paper: "Your daughter is betrothed to me," and the father receives from him the document, whereupon he grants him possession of his daughter, or by cohabitation - the father may grant his daughter to the bridegroom for cohabitation and thereby effect nisu'in. Hameiri, following the Jerusalem Talmud, explains that the father derives a monetary benefit in each of these three ways: with money - as explained above, the kiddushin payment is his; with a document - which might be rolled into a flask plug; and by cohabitation - for which the father receives a present from the bridegroom.

The Gemara learns that the kiddushin payment belongs to the father from the law of the Hebrew maidservant, "then shall she go out free, without money" (Ex. 21:11), - this master (who purchased her, whom she leaves upon showing signs of puberty) receives no money, but another master receives money, i.e., the father who receives her kiddushin payment, even when she is a na'arah (Ket. 46b). The benefit of the document, or cohabitation is learned from the passage, "and she becomes another man's wife" - the ways of becoming (i.e., effecting marriage) are compared to one another: just as "she becomes another man wife" by money when under the authority of her father, so, too, under the authority of her father.

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 5

She remains under the father's authority, until she enters the authority of her husband at marriage. If her father delivered her to the agents of her husband, then she is under the authority of her husband. If her father went with the agents of her husband, or the agents of her father went with the agents of her husband - then she is under the authority of her father. If the agents of her father delivered her to the agents of her husband, then she is under the authority of her husband.

Kehati

As already mentioned ( 1:1, above) in early times the engagement (erusin, i.e., kiddushin) preceded the marriage (nisu'in) by a long period of time, during which period, the bride lived in her father's house until the nisuin when the husband led her under the bridal canopy (hupah) and then brought her to his home as his wife (see 1:1 above). As taught below (chap.5) if the date of the marriage arrived, and she is not led under the hupah due to a delay on the part of the bridegroom (the arus), then he is liable for her maintenance. Our mishnah elaborates the laws taught in the preceding mishnah concerning the transition of a betrothed girl (na'arah) from the authority of her father to that of her husband. The Gemara explains that this law is taught here primarily concerning the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a kohen, who while under her father's authority may not eat terumah (see Yev. 7:4).

She - the girl (na'arah), remains - even after the time appointed for her marriage - under the father's authority - so long as she has not gone over to the authority of the husband, regarding all the rights listed in the previous mishnah, and if she is the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a kohen, she may not eat terumah, until she enters the authority of her husband at marriage - i.e., until she is led under the bridal canopy (hupah) to effect the nisu'in (marriage) with her husband (Rashi); another version reads "until she enters the hupah."

If her father delivered her - his betrothed daughter - to the agents of her husband - to receive her from her father, then she is under the authority of her husband - regarding the rights and obligations listed in the previous mishnah. The Gemara cites a dispute between Rav and Rav Assi: "Rav says, She is delivered in every respect, except for terumah" - if she is the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a kohen, even though she has been delivered to the authority of the husband, she may not eat of the terumah until she enters the hupah; "but Rav Assi said, She may even eat terumah" - and that which was taught above, "until she enters the authority of the husband for marriage," means, "until she is delivered to the authority of the husband to be married" - "her delivery is equivalent to her entrance under the hupah."

If her father - did not deliver his daughter to the agents of the husband, but rather went - together - with the agents of her husband, or the agents of her father went with the agents of her husband - although the agents of the father met the agents of the husband, they did not deliver her to them, but rather went together with them, to bring her to her husband's home, then she - still is under the authority of her father.

If the agents of her father - when they met the agents of the husband, delivered her - the daughter - to the agents of her husband, then she is under the authority of her husband - as explained above.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives