## Ketubot Daf 48b

###### Ketubot 48b:1
[Ketubot 48b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:1)

לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל לְנִשּׂוּאִין. מָסַר הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל — הֲרֵי הִיא בִּרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל. הָלַךְ הָאָב עִם שְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁהָלְכוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב עִם שְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל — הֲרֵי הִיא בִּרְשׁוּת הָאָב. מָסְרוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל — הֲרֵי הִיא בִּרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
her **husband’s authority in marriage** via the wedding canopy. If the father **delivered** his daughter **to the husband’s messengers** to bring her to her husband and the wedding canopy, once she has been handed over **she is under the husband’s authority.** However, if **the father went with the husband’s messengers, or if the father’s messengers went with the husband’s messengers, she is** still **under the father’s authority,** as he has not fully delivered her to the husband’s messengers. If her father sent her with his own messengers **and the father’s messengers delivered** the woman **to the husband’s messengers,** from that moment onwards **she is under** her **husband’s authority.**


###### Ketubot 48b:2
[Ketubot 48b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי לְעוֹלָם? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִמִּשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. דִּתְנַן: הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא נִישְּׂאוּ — אוֹכְלוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, לְעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna taught that a daughter always remains under her father’s authority until she has fully entered her husband’s jurisdiction. The Gemara asks: **What is** the significance of the term: **Always,** in the mishna? The Gemara explains: This comes **to exclude** the opinion stated in the **initial** version of the **mishna. As we learned** in a mishna (57a): If **the time** that the groom designated for the wedding **arrived,** and the wedding was postponed, **and they were not married,** the brides are entitled to **eat from his** food **and,** if he is a priest, **eat *teruma*,** like married women. The mishna here **teaches us** that the *halakha* is not in accordance with this earlier ruling cited in that mishna. Rather, they are **always** under their father’s authority until they actually enter the wedding canopy.


###### Ketubot 48b:3
[Ketubot 48b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:3)

מָסַר הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, הֲרֵי הִיא בִּרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: מְסִירָתָהּ לַכֹּל, חוּץ מִתְּרוּמָה. וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: אַף לִתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that if **the father delivered** his daughter **to the husband’s messengers, she is under the husband’s authority,** unless the father or his messengers accompanied them. **Rav said:** When her father **delivers her** she leaves his jurisdiction **in all** respects, **apart from** the issue of partaking of ***teruma*.** Even if her husband is a priest, if she is not from a family of priests, she may not partake of *teruma* until she is fully married. **And Rav Asi said** that once she has been delivered to the husband’s messengers she is under her husband’s authority **even** with regard **to *teruma*.**


###### Ketubot 48b:4
[Ketubot 48b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרַב אַסִּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ חִיָּיא בַּר רַב לְרַב אַסִּי: לְעוֹלָם הִיא בִּרְשׁוּת הָאָב עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לַחוּפָּה! אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב: לָאו אָמֵינָא לְכוּ לָא תֵּיזְלוּ בָּתַר אִיפְּכָא?! יָכֵול לְשַׁנּוֹיֵי לְכוּ: מְסִירָתָהּ, זוֹ הִיא כְּנִיסָתָהּ לְחוּפָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rav Asi, and some say** that it was **Ḥiyya, son of Rav,** who raised an objection **to** the opinion of **Rav Asi:** The mishna states that **she is always under her father’s authority until she enters the wedding canopy.** According to Rav Asi, however, as soon as her father delivers her to the husband’s messengers she is no longer under her father’s authority. **Rav said to them: Didn’t I tell you not to follow,** i.e., attempt to refute rulings, on the basis of sources that can be explained in **opposing** manners? Rav Asi **can answer you** that the mishna means that **her delivery** to the husband’s messengers **is** equivalent to **her entrance to the wedding canopy,** and the same *halakhot* apply in both cases.


###### Ketubot 48b:5
[Ketubot 48b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:5)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לִירוּשָּׁתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel said** that once a woman’s father has delivered her to the messengers of her husband, she is under her husband’s authority only with regard **to her inheritance,** i.e., her husband inherits her property upon her death as though she had already entered the wedding canopy.


###### Ketubot 48b:6
[Ketubot 48b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:6)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לִכְתוּבָּתָהּ. כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מַאי הִיא? דְּאִי מֵתָה יָרֵית לַהּ, הַיְינוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל! אָמַר רָבִינָא: לוֹמַר כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מֵאַחֵר מָנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said:** Her delivery is also effective with regard **to her marriage contract.** The Gemara asks: **What is** Reish Lakish referring to when he says that she is under her husband’s authority with regard to **her marriage contract?** If you say it means **that if she dies** he **inherits** all **her** property, including the dowry specified in her marriage contract, **that is** the same as the statement of **Shmuel,** and Reish Lakish has added nothing to his ruling. **Ravina said:** Reish Lakish is coming **to say** that if the man dies before marrying her, and she then marries someone else, **her marriage contract from** the **other** man **is one hundred dinars,** as she is considered a widow from marriage rather than a widow from betrothal.


###### Ketubot 48b:7
[Ketubot 48b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:7)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מְסִירָתָהּ לַכֹּל, אַף לִתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina both say** that a woman’s **delivery** to the messengers of her husband causes her to be under his authority **for all** matters, **even** including partaking of ***teruma*.**


###### Ketubot 48b:8
[Ketubot 48b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:8)

מֵיתִיבִי: הָלַךְ הָאָב עִם שְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁהָלְכוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב עִם שְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהּ חָצֵר בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְנִכְנְסָה עִמּוֹ לָלִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּתוּבָּתָהּ בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ, מֵתָה — אָבִיהָ יוֹרְשָׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from the *Tosefta* (*Ketubot* 4:4): If **the father went with the husband’s messengers, or** if **the father’s messengers went with the husband’s messengers, or** if **she owned a courtyard along the way and she entered with** her groom **to lodge,** not for the purpose of marriage but merely to stay overnight until they arrive at his residence, then **even if** the dowry specified in **her marriage contract is** already **in her husband’s house,** if **she dies, her father inherits** from **her,** as she is not considered to have entered her husband’s domain.


###### Ketubot 48b:9
[Ketubot 48b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:9)

מָסַר הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁמָּסְרוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ חָצֵר בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְנִכְנְסָה עִמּוֹ לְשׁוּם נִישּׂוּאִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּתוּבָּתָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, מֵתָה — בַּעְלָהּ יוֹרְשָׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Conversely, if **the father delivered** her **to the husband’s messengers, or if the father’s messengers delivered** her **to the husband’s messengers, or if** the groom **owned a courtyard along the way and she entered with him for the purpose of marriage,** then **even if** the dowry specified in **her marriage contract is** still **in her father’s house** and has not yet been given to her husband, if **she dies, her husband inherits** from **her.**


###### Ketubot 48b:10
[Ketubot 48b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:10)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — לִירוּשָּׁתָהּ, אֲבָל לִתְרוּמָה, אֵין אִשָּׁה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לַחוּפָּה. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְכוּלְּהוּ! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *Tosefta* concludes: **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is stated with regard to the husband’s right **to inherit** from **her. However,** with regard **to *teruma*,** the *halakha* is that **a woman** who marries a priest **may not partake of *teruma* until she** actually **enters the wedding canopy.** This *baraita* is apparently **a refutation of all of them,** i.e., all of the opinions cited previously that hold that once the woman is delivered to the husband’s messengers, if the husband is a priest, the woman may partake of *teruma*. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Ketubot 48b:11
[Ketubot 48b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:11)

הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ נִכְנְסָה עִמּוֹ לָלִין. טַעְמָא דְּלָלִין, הָא סְתָמָא — לְשֵׁם נִישּׂוּאִין. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נִכְנְסָה עִמּוֹ לְשֵׁם נִישּׂוּאִין, הָא סְתָמָא, לָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This matter itself is difficult. You said** in the *Tosefta* that if **she entered with him** to her courtyard **to lodge** for one night, and she dies, her father inherits her property. The **reason** is because it specified that they entered only **to lodge** there, from which it may be inferred that if they entered **without specification** it is as though she entered **for the sake of marriage. Say the latter clause** of the *Tosefta*: If **she entered with him** to his courtyard **for the purpose of marriage,** and she dies, her husband inherits her property. This indicates that if she entered **without specification,** i.e., without saying that they were doing so for marriage, it is considered as though they entered merely **to lodge.** The inferences from these two clauses of the *Tosefta* apparently contradict one another.


###### Ketubot 48b:12
[Ketubot 48b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:12)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: סְתָמֵי סְתָמֵי קָתָנֵי. סְתַם חָצֵר דִּידַהּ — לָלִין. סְתַם חָצֵר דִּידֵיהּ — לְנִשּׂוּאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** This is an incorrect interpretation, as the *tanna* **taught** the *halakha* of entering one type of courtyard **without specification** and the *halakha* of entering a different type of courtyard **without specification,** as follows: If they entered **her courtyard without specification** it is assumed that they entered merely **to lodge,** whereas if they entered **his courtyard without specification,** it is assumed that they did so **for** the sake of **marriage,** unless they expressly stated that they had another purpose in mind.


###### Ketubot 48b:13
[Ketubot 48b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:13)

תַּנָּא: מָסַר הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל וְזִינְּתָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶנֶק. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי בַּר חָמָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לִזְנוֹת בֵּית אָבִיהָ״, פְּרָט לְשֶׁמָּסַר הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ A Sage **taught** in a *baraita*: If **the father delivered** his daughter **to the husband’s messengers and she** subsequently **committed adultery, she is** sentenced **to strangulation,** in accordance with the *halakha* of a married woman who committed adultery, rather than stoning, which is the punishment for a betrothed woman who commits adultery. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rabbi Ami bar Ḥama said** that **the verse states,** in the context of the command to stone a young woman who commits adultery during betrothal: **“To play the whore in her father’s house”** (Deuteronomy 22:21), which **excludes** a case **when the father has delivered** her **to the husband’s messengers,** when she is no longer in her father’s house.


###### Ketubot 48b:14
[Ketubot 48b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:14)

וְאֵימָא: פְּרָט שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחוּפָּה וְלֹא נִבְעֲלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** one can **say** that the verse is **excluding** a case **where she has entered the wedding canopy but she has not** yet **had intercourse,** whereas if her father has merely delivered her to the husband’s messengers she is still considered to have sinned in his house and is punishable by stoning like any other betrothed woman.


###### Ketubot 48b:15
[Ketubot 48b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:15)

אָמַר רָבָא: אֲמַר לִי אַמֵּי, חוּפָּה בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיבָא: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה מְאוֹרָשָׂה לְאִישׁ״. ״נַעֲרָה״ — וְלֹא בּוֹגֶרֶת, ״בְּתוּלָה״ — וְלֹא בְּעוּלָה, ״מְאוֹרָשָׂה״ — וְלֹא נְשׂוּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In answer to this question, **Rava said:** The verse cannot be excluding that case, as **Ami said to me** that the case where she already entered the **wedding canopy is** not derived by inference from that verse; it is **explicitly written** in the following verse: **“If there is a young woman who is a virgin betrothed to a man”** (Deuteronomy 22:23). The terminology of the verse indicates that it applies to a **“young woman” and not** to **a grown woman;** to a **“virgin” and not** to **a non-virgin;** and to a **“betrothed”** woman **and not** to **a married woman.**


###### Ketubot 48b:16
[Ketubot 48b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/48b:16)

מַאי ״נְשׂוּאָה״? אִילֵימָא נְשׂוּאָה מַמָּשׁ, הַיְינוּ ״בְּתוּלָה״ וְלֹא בְּעוּלָה! אֶלָּא לָאו, שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לְחוּפָּה וְלֹא נִבְעֲלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this statement: **What is** the meaning of the term: **A married woman,** in this context? **If we say** that she is **actually married** and has already engaged in intercourse with her husband, **this** ruling **is** the same as the previous one, that she must be **a virgin and not a non-virgin. Rather, is it not** the case that it is referring to a woman **who has entered the wedding canopy but has not had intercourse,** and yet if she committed adultery at this stage she is sentenced to strangulation, like one who had engaged in relations with her husband? Consequently, the other verse, cited by Rabbi Ami bar Ḥama, cannot be referring to this case.