## Ketubot Daf 43a

###### Ketubot 43a:1
[Ketubot 43a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:1)

וּמוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס פָּטוּר. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי, כִּי קָא תָבַע — בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם קָא תָבַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the principle is that **one who admits** that he is liable to pay **a fine is exempt.** Since the man would not have been liable to pay even if he had admitted his guilt, his denial of guilt is not considered a denial of monetary liability, and even if he swears falsely that he is not liable, he still does not become liable to bring an offering. **And the Rabbis hold** that **when** the father **claims** payment in court, it is the compensation for the **humiliation and degradation** that **he claims.** His main focus is not on the fine, and therefore the denial refers to a regular monetary claim.


###### Ketubot 43a:2
[Ketubot 43a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:2)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: לָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ מִידֵּי דְּקִיץ, וְתָבַע מִידֵּי דְּלָא קִיץ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ מִידֵּי דְּכִי מוֹדֵי בֵּיהּ לָא מִיפְּטַר, וְתָבַע מִידֵּי דְּכִי מוֹדֵה בֵּיהּ מִיפְּטַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If this explanation is correct, **with regard to what do** the *tanna’im* **disagree? Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Shimon holds** that **a person does not leave** aside **something that** is **fixed,** e.g., a fine, **and claim something that** is **not fixed,** e.g., the compensation for humiliation and degradation, which need to be assessed by the court. Consequently, a claim of rape is essentially a demand for the fine. **And** conversely, **the Rabbis hold** that **a person does not leave** aside **something that, if** the defendant **admits to it, he is not exempt** from payment, e.g., humiliation and degradation, **and claim something that, if** the defendant **admits to it, he is exempt** from payment. Consequently, they contend that the lawsuit is mainly focused on the compensation for the humiliation and degradation.


###### Ketubot 43a:3
[Ketubot 43a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:3)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֲבִינָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בַּת הַנִּיזּוֹנֶת מִן הָאַחִין — מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְמִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Avina raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet:** With regard to **a daughter who is sustained by** her **brothers,** i.e., an orphan whose brothers provide her with her sustenance from their father’s estate, in accordance with the stipulation in the marriage contract between their parents that requires the father to pay for his daughter’s sustenance from his property, **to whom do her earnings** belong?


###### Ketubot 43a:4
[Ketubot 43a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:4)

בִּמְקוֹם אָב קָיְימִי, מָה הָתָם — מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לָאָב, הָכָא נָמֵי — מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לָאַחִין, אוֹ דִלְמָא: לָא דָּמֵי לְאָב. הָתָם — מִדִּידֵיהּ מִיתַּזְנָא, הָכָא — לָאו מִדִּידְהוּ מִיתַּזְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Avina explains the sides of the dilemma. One might say that the brothers **stand in place of** the **father: Just as there,** if their father is alive, **her earnings** go **to the father, here too her earnings** go **to the brothers. Or perhaps** this is **not similar** to the case of a living **father.** Why not? Because **there, she is sustained from his** own property, and therefore he is entitled to receive her earnings, whereas **here, she is not sustained from their** possessions but from the estate of their father, and consequently they should not receive her earnings.


###### Ketubot 43a:5
[Ketubot 43a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: אַלְמָנָה נִיזּוֹנֶת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ שֶׁלָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet **said to him: You** already **learned** the answer to this dilemma from a mishna (*Ketubot* 81a): **A widow is sustained from the property of the orphans, and her earnings are theirs.** This indicates that although a widow receives her sustenance from the estate of her deceased husband, in accordance with the stipulations of the marriage contract, the orphans are nevertheless entitled to her earnings. The same reasoning should apply to an orphan sustained by her brothers.


###### Ketubot 43a:6
[Ketubot 43a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:6)

מִי דָּמֵי? אַלְמְנָתוֹ, לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ בְּהַרְוָוחָה. בִּתּוֹ, נִיחָא לֵיהּ בְּהַרְווֹחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this argument: **Are** the two situations **comparable?** In the case of **his widow,** the deceased **is not** necessarily **amenable** to **her** living **in comfort.** Consequently, she is entitled only to the minimum guaranteed to her in the marriage contract, while her earnings go to his heirs. Conversely, with regard to **his daughter, he is amenable** and is interested **in her** living in **comfort,** and therefore he allows her to retain her earnings so that she can have the extra money.


###### Ketubot 43a:7
[Ketubot 43a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:7)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּבִתּוֹ עֲדִיפָא לֵיהּ מֵאַלְמְנָתוֹ? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: עָשׂוּ אַלְמָנָה אֵצֶל הַבַּת כַּבַּת אֵצֶל אַחִין בִּנְכָסִין מוּעָטִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that to say that** the welfare of **his daughter is** more **preferable to him than** that of **his widow? But didn’t Rabbi Abba say** that **Rabbi Yosei said:** The Sages **established** the *halakha* of **a widow with regard to the daughter,** who is also entitled to sustenance from the estate, **like** the *halakha* of **a daughter with regard to** the **brothers in** a case of **a small estate** that is insufficient for the livelihoods of both the girl and her brothers?


###### Ketubot 43a:8
[Ketubot 43a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:8)

מָה הַבַּת אֵצֶל אַחִין — הַבַּת נִיזּוֹנֶת, וְהָאַחִין יִשְׁאֲלוּ עַל הַפְּתָחִים, אַף אַלְמָנָה אֵצֶל הַבַּת — אַלְמָנָה נִיזּוֹנֶת, וְהַבַּת תִּשְׁאַל עַל הַפְּתָחִים. לְעִנְיַן זִילוּתָא — אַלְמְנָתוֹ עֲדִיפָא לֵיהּ. לְעִנְיַן הַרְוָוחָה — בִּתּוֹ עֲדִיפָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Abba explains: **Just as** in the case of **a daughter with regard to** the **brothers,** the *halakha* is that **the daughter is sustained** from the father’s estate, **and** if **the brothers** have nothing to eat they must go and **beg** for charity **at** people’s **doors, so too,** in the case of **a widow with regard to the daughter, the widow is sustained and the daughters beg** for charity **at** people’s **doors.** This indicates that a man is more concerned for his widow than his daughter. The Gemara explains: The two cases are not comparable. **With regard to degradation, one’s widow is preferable to him,** i.e., if one of them must be forced to go around requesting handouts, a man would rather it be his daughter than his widow. By contrast, **with regard to comfort,** the comfort of **his daughter is** more **preferable to him** than that of his widow.


###### Ketubot 43a:9
[Ketubot 43a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:9)

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּמְצִיאָתָהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא גָּבְתָה — מֵת הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל אַחִין. טַעְמָא דִּבְחַיֵּי הָאָב, הָא לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב — לְעַצְמָהּ. מַאי לָאו בְּנִיזּוֹנֶת? לָא, בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ נִיזּוֹנֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raised an objection** to Rav Sheshet’s conclusion that the orphan girl’s earnings belong to the brothers, from the mishna: With regard to **her earnings and** the lost **items** that **she** has **found, although she has not collected** them, if **the father died, they** belong to **her brothers.** Rav Yosef infers: **The reason** for this *halakha* is that she acquired her earnings **in** her **father’s lifetime,** which indicates that the money she earns **after the father’s death** belongs **to her. What, is it not** referring even **to** a daughter **who is sustained** from his estate? The Gemara refutes this claim: **No,** it deals **with** a daughter **who is not sustained** from his property but who sustains herself through her own earnings.


###### Ketubot 43a:10
[Ketubot 43a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:10)

אִי בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ נִיזּוֹנֶת, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יָכוֹל הָרַב לוֹמַר לָעֶבֶד ״עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי וְאֵינִי זָנָךְ״. הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״עִמָּךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the mishna is speaking **of** one **who is not sustained** from his estate, **what** is the purpose **of stating** this? It is obvious that this is the *halakha*, as **even according to the one who said** that **a master can say to** his **slave: Work for me but I will not feed you,** i.e., a master is not legally obligated to provide sustenance to his slave, **this applies only to a Canaanite slave, with regard to whom it is not written** in the Torah: **“With you,”** and therefore his master is not obligated to feed him.


###### Ketubot 43a:11
[Ketubot 43a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:11)

אֲבָל עֶבֶד עִבְרִי דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״עִמָּךְ״ — לֹא. כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן בִּתּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** in the case of **a Hebrew slave, as it is written with regard to him: “With you”** (Deuteronomy 15:16), which indicates that he is entitled to live with his master as an equal, the master **may not** compel the slave to serve him unless he feeds him. **All the more so** concerning **his daughter,** it cannot be the case that this young woman has to work and give her wages to the brothers if they are not obligated to sustain her at the same time.


###### Ketubot 43a:12
[Ketubot 43a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:12)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְהַעֲדָפָה. אָמַר רָבָא: גַּבְרָא רַבָּה כְּרַב יוֹסֵף לָא יָדַע דְּאִיכָּא הַעֲדָפָה, וְקָמוֹתֵיב תְּיוּבְתָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Ulla said:** It is **necessary only for the surplus.** The mishna is not implying that the brothers can take her earnings produced after the father's death and not sustain her, leaving her with nothing. Rather, the question concerns a young woman whose earnings provide her with more than she needs for her sustenance, leaving her with a surplus. It is this surplus that belongs to her, and not to her brothers. **Rava said** in response to Rabba bar Ulla’s explanation: Is it possible that **a man** as **great as Rav Yosef does not know that there is** an explanation according to which the implied case of the mishna is referring to the **surplus, and** in his ignorance **he raises a refutation** against Rav Sheshet? This certainly cannot be the case.


###### Ketubot 43a:13
[Ketubot 43a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:13)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: רַב יוֹסֵף מַתְנִיתִין גּוּפָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ. דְּקָתָנֵי: מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּמְצִיאָתָהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא גָּבְתָה. מְצִיאָתָהּ מִמַּאן גָּבְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said: The mishna itself** poses **a difficulty to** the opinion of Rav Sheshet, and this difficulty led **Rav Yosef** to his conclusion. This is **as** the mishna **teaches: Her earnings and** the lost **items** that **she** has **found, although she has not collected** them. Rava analyzes this statement: With regard to **items** that **she** has **found, from whom does she collect** them? The concept of collecting is inappropriate in this case.


###### Ketubot 43a:14
[Ketubot 43a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:14)

אֶלָּא לָאו, הָכִי קָאָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ כִּמְצִיאָתָהּ, מָה מְצִיאָתָהּ בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב — לָאָב, לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב — לְעַצְמָהּ, אַף מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ נָמֵי: בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב — לָאָב, לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב — לְעַצְמָהּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** the case that **this is what** the mishna **said: Her earnings** are **like items she** has **found: Just as items she** has **found in** her **father’s lifetime** belong **to** her **father,** and **after the father’s death** they belong **to her, so too,** the same rule applies to **her earnings as well: In the father’s lifetime,** they go **to the father,** and **after the father’s death** they belong **to her,** even when she is sustained from the inheritance. The Gemara concludes: We can **learn from this** inference that the mishna deals with her earnings themselves, not their surplus, in contrast to the interpretation of Rav Sheshet.


###### Ketubot 43a:15
[Ketubot 43a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:15)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בַּת הַנִּיזּוֹנֶת מִן הָאַחִין, מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְעַצְמָהּ. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מַאי טַעְמָא — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אוֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם״. ״אוֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם״, וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם לִבְנֵיכֶם. מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ זְכוּת בִּתּוֹ לִבְנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This *halakha* **was also stated** by *amora’im*, as **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** In the case of **a daughter who is sustained by the brothers, her earnings** nevertheless belong **to her. Rav Kahana said: What is the reason** for this? **As it is written** with regard to slaves: **“And you may make them an inheritance for your sons after you”** (Leviticus 25:46), from which it is inferred: It is **them,** slaves alone, that you bequeath **to your sons, and** you do **not** bequeath **your daughters to your sons.** This verse **teaches that a man does not bequeath a right** that he has over his **daughter to his son.** All the rights a man possesses over his daughter are personal rights, which are not transferable by inheritance.


###### Ketubot 43a:16
[Ketubot 43a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:16)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבָּה: וְאֵימָא בְּפִיתּוּי הַבַּת וּקְנָסוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְכֵן תָּנָא רַב חֲנִינָא: בְּפִתּוּי הַבַּת וּקְנָסוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba** strongly **objects to this** explanation that the verse is referring to a man’s rights to his daughter’s earnings: **But** one can **say** that **the verse is speaking of the** fine that a father is paid in the case of the **seduction of** his **daughter, and** the **fines** paid to him if she is raped, **and** compensation due to him for **injuries** that she suffered, and the verse indicates that these rights are not bequeathed to his heirs. **And Rav Ḥanina likewise** explicitly **taught** that **the verse is speaking of** payments a father is paid in the case of **the seduction of** his **daughter, and** the **fines** due to him if she is raped, **and** compensation for **injuries** she has suffered.


###### Ketubot 43a:17
[Ketubot 43a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/43a:17)

חֲבָלוֹת, צַעֲרָא דְגוּפָא נִינְהוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this interpretation: With regard to **injuries, they are** the result of **her bodily pain,** and the guiding principle is that any compensation for a daughter’s physical pain does not belong to her father, who merely keeps it in trust for her. If so, the category of injuries should not have been included in this list. **Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:**