## Ketubot Daf 47a

###### Ketubot 47a:1
[Ketubot 47a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/47a:1)

מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The reason is **due to enmity,** so that he should not bear a grudge against her for finding articles and withholding them from him, which might lead him to become reluctant to provide her with sustenance.


###### Ketubot 47a:2
[Ketubot 47a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/47a:2)

בְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ. מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה הַבַּת לָאָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכִי יִמְכּוֹר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְאָמָה״, מָה אָמָה מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְרַבָּהּ — אַף בַּת מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְאָבִיהָ. וְאֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי קְטַנָּה, דְּמָצֵי מְזַבֵּן לַהּ, אֲבָל נַעֲרָה, דְּלָא מָצֵי מְזַבֵּן לַהּ — מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ דִּידַהּ הָווּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further taught that a father is entitled **to** his daughter’s **earnings.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? The Gemara answers: **As Rav Huna said** that **Rav said: From where** is it derived **that the earnings of a daughter** belong **to her father? As it is stated: “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant”** (Exodus 21:7), which indicates that **just as** with regard to **a maidservant, her earnings** belong **to her master,** as she was sold for this purpose, **so too** with regard to **a daughter, her earnings** go **to her father.** The Gemara asks: **But** one can **say** that **this applies** only to **a minor, as** a father **can sell her** as a maidservant. **However,** with regard to **a young woman, whom he cannot sell,** perhaps **her earnings** should belong **to her.**


###### Ketubot 47a:3
[Ketubot 47a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/47a:3)

מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּאָבִיהָ הָווּ, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לָאו דְּאָבִיהָ, אֶלָּא הָא דְּזַכִּי לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְאָב לְמִימְסְרַהּ לְחוּפָּה, הֵיכִי מָצֵי מָסַר לַהּ? הָא קָמְבַטֵּל לַהּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: It **is reasonable** that her earnings should go **to her father, as, if it should enter your mind** to say that **her earnings** do **not** belong **to her father,** what about the fact **that the Merciful One entitles a father to bring** his daughter, when she is a young woman, **to the wedding canopy? How can he bring her** to the wedding canopy? **Doesn’t he** thereby **cause her to neglect her earnings** at that time, as she cannot work while getting married? If she has the rights to her own earnings, she can object on these grounds.


###### Ketubot 47a:4
[Ketubot 47a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/47a:4)

פָּרֵיךְ רַב אַחַאי: אֵימָא דְּיָהֵיב לַהּ שְׂכַר פְּקַעְתַּהּ. אִי נָמֵי דִּמְסַר לָהּ בְּלֵילְיָא. אִי נָמֵי דִּמְסַר לַהּ בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥai refutes** this claim: **Say that** when he brings her to the wedding canopy, **he gives her the wages she neglects** by taking a break from her work, and therefore the above objection does not apply. **Alternatively,** it is referring to a case **where he brought her** to the wedding canopy **at night,** when she does not work. **Alternatively,** it means **that he brought her** to the wedding canopy **on *Shabbatot* or Festivals,** when it is prohibited to work.


###### Ketubot 47a:5
[Ketubot 47a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/47a:5)

אֶלָּא: קְטַנָּה לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא — הַשְׁתָּא זַבּוֹנֵי מְזַבֵּין לַהּ, מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ מִיבְּעֵי?! [אֶלָּא] כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, לְנַעֲרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara reverts to the original exposition based upon the case of a Hebrew maidservant, and argues that with regard to **a minor,** it **is not necessary** to derive from **a verse** that her father is entitled to her earnings, for the following reason: **Now,** if her father has the right to **sell her** as a maidservant, is it **necessary** to state that **her earnings** belong to him? **Rather, when the verse was necessary,** it was **to** teach that the earnings of **a young woman** also belong to her father.


###### Ketubot 47a:6
[Ketubot 47a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/47a:6)

בַּהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״בִּנְעוּרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that a father is entitled **to** effect **the nullification of** his daughter’s **vows.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? The Gemara answers **that it is written: “Being in her youth, in her father’s house”** (Numbers 30:17), and the Torah proceeds to explain that during this period a father can nullify his daughter’s vows.


###### Ketubot 47a:7
[Ketubot 47a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/47a:7)

וּמְקַבֵּל אֶת גִּיטָּהּ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְיָצְאָה ... וְהָיְתָה״, אִיתַּקּוּשׁ יְצִיאָה לַהֲוָיָיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further taught: **And he accepts her bill of divorce** on her behalf. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? The Gemara answers **that it is written: “And she departs** out of his house and goes **and becomes** another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2). This verse **juxtaposes departing** a marriage **and becoming** a wife, which teaches that the *halakhot* of betrothal apply to her departing her husband’s home via a bill of divorce. Consequently, just as a father has the right to accept betrothal on his daughter’s behalf, he can also receive a bill of divorce on her behalf.


###### Ketubot 47a:8
[Ketubot 47a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/47a:8)

וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאָב אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֵּי בִתּוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָב אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֵּי בִתּוֹ. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּעַל, תַּקִּינוּ לֵיה רַבָּנַן פֵּירֵי, דְּאִם כֵּן מִימְּנַע וְלָא פָּרֵיק,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that a father **may not consume** the **produce** of his daughter’s property **during her lifetime. The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **A father may not consume the produce** of his daughter’s property **during his daughter’s lifetime. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A father may consume** this **produce during his daughter’s lifetime.** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do they disagree?** The Gemara explains that **the first *tanna* holds: Granted,** in the case of **a husband, the Sages decreed for him** that he should consume her **produce, as if** this were not **so, he would refrain from redeeming** her if she were captured. The right of a husband to consume the produce of his wife’s property was instituted in order to correspond to his obligation to redeem his wife from captivity.


###### Ketubot 47a:9
[Ketubot 47a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/47a:9)

אֶלָּא אָב, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר — דְּמִימְּנַע וְלָא פָּרֵיק? בְּלָאו הָכִי פָּרֵיק לַהּ! וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: אָב נָמֵי מִימְּנַע וְלָא פָּרֵיק. סָבַר: כִּיסָא נְקִיטָא עִילָּוַהּ, תֵּיזִיל וְתִפְרוֹק נַפְשַׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** in the case of **a father, what is there to say? That he will refrain from redeeming** her? Even **without this** right to the produce of her property **he will redeem her,** as she is his daughter and he will certainly not turn a blind eye to his own flesh and blood. **And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds:** If he is deprived of the right to the produce of his daughter’s property, **a father will also refrain from redeeming** her, as he **will reason: A pouch** of money **is held in her** hand for a time of need, so **let her go and redeem herself.**


###### Ketubot 47a:10
[Ketubot 47a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/47a:10)

נִיסֵּת, יָתֵר עָלָיו הַבַּעַל שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כָּתַב לָהּ פֵּירוֹת, כְּסוּת וְכֵלִים שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ עִמָּהּ מִבֵּית אָבִיהָ לְבֵית בַּעְלָהּ — מֵתָה, לֹא זָכָה הַבַּעַל בִּדְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נָתָן אָמְרוּ: זָכָה הַבַּעַל בִּדְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further taught that if the daughter **married, the husband has more** rights **than** her father, **as he consumes** the produce of her property. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If the father **wrote for her** in her marriage contract that he was providing **produce, clothing, and vessels that would come with her** as a dowry **from her father’s house to her husband’s house,** and **she died** during the betrothal period, **the husband does not have the right to these objects. They said in the name of Rabbi Natan: The husband does have the right to these objects.**


###### Ketubot 47a:11
[Ketubot 47a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/47a:11)

לֵימָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דִּתְנַן: נִתְאַרְמְלָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה, בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין — גּוֹבָה אֶת הַכֹּל. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין — גּוֹבָה אֶת הַכֹּל, וּמִן הָאֵירוּסִין — בְּתוּלָה גּוֹבָה מָאתַיִם, וְאַלְמָנָה מָנֶה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that the dispute** of these *tanna’im* **is** parallel to **the dispute** between **Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and the Rabbis. As we learned** in a mishna (54b): If a woman **was widowed or divorced, whether from marriage or from betrothal, she collects** the **entire** sum specified in her marriage contract, including any extra amount her husband added to the standard sum required by the Sages. **Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says:** If she was widowed or divorced **from marriage, she collects** the **entire** amount. **But** if she was widowed or divorced **from betrothal,** she is entitled to collect only the standard minimum sum required by the Sages: If she was betrothed as **a virgin she collects two hundred** dinars, **and** if she was **a widow** she is entitled to **one hundred dinars.**