## Ketubot Daf 46b

###### Ketubot 46b:1
[Ketubot 46b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:1)

אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי כְּדַרְכָּהּ בָּעֵינַן! אֶלָּא שְׁלַח רַב כָּהֲנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּבְעוֹל כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְיוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע בִּכְדַרְכָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**we require both this,** i.e., the act of intercourse between the husband and wife, **and that,** i.e., the woman’s alleged act of intercourse with another man, to be performed in **a typical** manner in order for the laws of a defamer to apply, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov interprets the verses literally, meaning that the husband had intercourse with her and discovered she was not a virgin. **Rather, Rav Kahana sent** word **in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan** that the statement was as follows: **He is obligated** to pay the fine **only if he had intercourse** in **a typical** manner **and defamed** her with regard to intercourse performed in **a typical** manner, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.


###### Ketubot 46b:2
[Ketubot 46b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאָב זַכַּאי בְּבִתּוֹ בְּקִידּוּשֶׁיהָ בְּכֶסֶף, בִּשְׁטָר, וּבְבִיאָה. זַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּבַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ, וּמְקַבֵּל אֶת גִּיטָּהּ. וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A father has authority** over **his daughter** with regard to **her betrothal through money, through** a marriage **document, or through intercourse.** Likewise, a father **is entitled to items she** has **found, and to her earnings, and to** effect **the nullification of her vows,** i.e., a father may nullify his daughter’s vows. **And he accepts her bill of divorce** on her behalf if she is divorced from betrothal before she becomes a grown woman. **And** although he inherits her property when she dies, e.g., property she inherited from her mother’s family, **he does not consume the produce** of her property **during her lifetime.**


###### Ketubot 46b:3
[Ketubot 46b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:3)

נִשֵּׂאת — יָתֵר עָלָיו הַבַּעַל, שֶׁאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ, וְחַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, וּבְפִרְקוֹנָהּ, וּקְבוּרָתָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי חֲלִילִין וּמְקוֹנֶנֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the daughter **married, the husband has more** rights and obligations **than** her father had before the marriage, **as he consumes the produce** of her property **during her lifetime, and he is obligated** to provide **her sustenance, her redemption** if she is captured, **and her burial** upon her death. **Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the poorest** man **of the Jewish people may not** provide **fewer than two flutes and a lamenting woman,** which it was customary to hire for a funeral, as these too are included in the duties of burial.


###### Ketubot 46b:4
[Ketubot 46b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:4)

**גְּמָ׳** בְּכֶסֶף מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף״, אֵין כֶּסֶף לְאָדוֹן זֶה, וְיֵשׁ כֶּסֶף לְאָדוֹן אַחֵר, וּמַנּוּ? אָבִיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna indicates that a father receives the money of his daughter’s betrothal. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that the father is entitled to the **money** of her betrothal? **Rav Yehuda said** that **the verse states,** with regard to an emancipated Hebrew maidservant: **“Then she shall go out for nothing, without money”** (Exodus 21:11), from which it is inferred: **There is no money for this master,** i.e., her master does not receive money when she leaves him, **but there is money for a different master, and who is** this? **Her father,** who also had authority over her, like her master. When she leaves her father’s jurisdiction via betrothal, he is entitled to the betrothal money.


###### Ketubot 46b:5
[Ketubot 46b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:5)

וְאֵימָא לְדִידַהּ! הַשְׁתָּא אָבִיהָ מְקַבֵּל קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה״, אִיהִי שָׁקְלָא כַּסְפָּא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** one can **say** that the betrothal money should go **to her,** as one can derive from the verse that there is no money for this master but there is money for the woman herself when she leaves her father’s domain. The Gemara refutes this suggestion: **Now** consider, **her father accepts her betrothal,** i.e., he can accept the money or document of betrothal from the man of his choice, **as it is written: “I gave my daughter to this man”** (Deuteronomy 22:16). Can one then say that **she takes the money** when her father accepts the betrothal on her behalf?


###### Ketubot 46b:6
[Ketubot 46b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:6)

וְאֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי קְטַנָּה, דְּלֵית לַהּ יָד. אֲבָל נַעֲרָה, דְּאִית לַהּ יָד — אִיהִי תְּקַדֵּשׁ נַפְשַׁהּ וְאִיהִי תִּשְׁקוֹל כַּסְפָּא! אָמַר קְרָא: ״בִּנְעוּרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״ — כׇּל שֶׁבַח נְעוּרִים לְאָבִיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** one can **say** that **this applies** only to **a minor, who does not have a hand,** i.e., she is not legally competent to carry out transactions on her own behalf. **However,** in the case of **a young woman, who does have a hand, she should betroth herself and she should** also **take** her own betrothal **money.** The Gemara answers that there is a different exposition in this regard, as **the verse states: “Being in her youth, in her father’s house”** (Numbers 30:17), which teaches that **all gains** that a daughter accrues in her **youth,** i.e., when she is a young woman, belong **to her father.**


###### Ketubot 46b:7
[Ketubot 46b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:7)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה הַבַּת לְאָבִיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכִי יִמְכּוֹר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְאָמָה״, מָה אָמָה מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְרַבָּהּ — אַף בַּת מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְאָבִיהָ. לְמָה לִי? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִ״בִּנְעוּרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״! אֶלָּא: הָהוּא בַּהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** consider **that which Rav Huna said** that **Rav said: From where** is it derived **that the earnings of a daughter** belong **to her father?** It is **as it is stated: “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant”** (Exodus 21:7); **just as** with regard to **a maidservant, her earnings** belong **to her master, so too** with regard to **a daughter, her earnings** belong **to her father. Why do I** need this exposition? **Let him derive it from** the phrase **“being in her youth, in her father’s house.” Rather, that** phrase, “being in her youth, in her father’s house,” **is written with regard to the nullification of vows,** but it is not referring to monetary matters.


###### Ketubot 46b:8
[Ketubot 46b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:8)

וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִינַּהּ — מָמוֹנָא מֵאִיסּוּרָא לָא יָלְפִינַן. וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִקְּנָסָא — מָמוֹנָא מִקְּנָסָא לָא יָלְפִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Let us derive from here** that just as she is under her father’s authority with regard to vows, the same applies to monetary matters, this is not possible, because there is a principle that **we do not derive monetary matters from ritual matters,** as these are two separate areas of *halakha*. **And if you would say: Let us derive** this *halakha* **from** the **fine** paid by the rapist of a young woman, which the Torah explicitly states goes to her father (Deuteronomy 22:29), there is another principle, that **we do not derive monetary matters from fines.** Each fine imposed by the Torah is a novel law, from which nothing can be learned with regard to other monetary liabilities.


###### Ketubot 46b:9
[Ketubot 46b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:9)

וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִבּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם — שָׁאנֵי בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם דְּאָבִיהָ נָמֵי שָׁיֵיךְ בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Let us derive** it **from** the compensation paid by a rapist for his victim’s **humiliation and degradation,** which is also paid to her father, the compensation for **humiliation and degradation is different, as her father also has a share in it,** because he too is humiliated and harmed by this unfortunate episode, and therefore one cannot learn the *halakhot* of other monetary matters from here.


###### Ketubot 46b:10
[Ketubot 46b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:10)

אֶלָּא, מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּכִי מְמַעֵט רַחֲמָנָא — יְצִיאָה דִּכְווֹתַהּ קָא מְמַעֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara returns to the previous exposition of the verse: “Then she shall go out for nothing, without money” (Exodus 21:11). As for the question of why she does not receive the money herself, the Gemara explains that **it is reasonable** to assume **that when the Merciful One excludes** a case by means of this verse, **He excludes** a case where a girl **leaves** someone’s authority **in the corresponding** situation to the case of the Hebrew maidservant.


###### Ketubot 46b:11
[Ketubot 46b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:11)

וְהָא לָא דָּמְיָא הָא יְצִיאָה לְהָא יְצִיאָה: הָתָם, גַּבֵּי אָדוֹן, נָפְקָא לַהּ מֵרְשׁוּתֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי, יְצִיאָה דְּאָב — אַכַּתִּי מְחַסְּרָא מְסִירָה לְחוּפָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But this leaving** of her father’s authority **is not comparable to that leaving** of her master’s authority: **There, with regard to a master,** when he frees her **she leaves his authority entirely,** whereas in the case of a girl who **goes out** from the jurisdiction **of** her **father,** she **still lacks** the process of being **brought to the wedding canopy.** As long as she is not fully married she remains partially under her father’s authority, as he is her heir and has rights to her earnings.


###### Ketubot 46b:12
[Ketubot 46b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:12)

מֵהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים מִיהָא נָפְקָא לַהּ מֵרְשׁוּתֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין לָהּ נְדָרֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **From** the perspective of her father’s right to effect the **nullification of** her **vows, at least, she has left his domain** via betrothal, as he no longer maintains exclusive rights to nullify her vows. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Nedarim* 66b): With regard to **a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband nullify her vows** together. Since her father cannot nullify her vows on his own, the two types of leaving are indeed comparable.


###### Ketubot 46b:13
[Ketubot 46b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:13)

שְׁטָר וּבִיאָה מְנָא לַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר״, אִיתַּקּוּשׁ הֲווֹיוֹת לַהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that a father is entitled to accept betrothal of his daughter through a marriage **document or** through **intercourse.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? The Gemara answers that **the verse states: “And she becomes another man’s wife”** (Deuteronomy 24:2). Since the verse does not specify how she becomes his wife, the different ways of **becoming** a wife **are compared to each other,** i.e., they are considered equal. Accordingly, the various methods of betrothal are the same with regard to the authority of the father.


###### Ketubot 46b:14
[Ketubot 46b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46b:14)

זַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further taught that a father **is entitled to items she** has **found.**