## Ketubot Daf 49a

###### Ketubot 49a:1
[Ketubot 49a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/49a:1)

וְאֵימָא: הֵיכָא דְּהָדְרָא לְבֵי נָשָׁא — הָדְרָא לְמִילְּתָא קַמַּיְיתָא? אָמַר רָבָא: הָהוּא כְּבָר פַּסְקַהּ תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks another question: **But say** that in a case **where she returns to her father’s house,** she **returns** to the **previous matter,** i.e., her former status, as though she had never left her father’s authority. **Rava said: That** question **has already been resolved** by **the *tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.**


###### Ketubot 49a:2
[Ketubot 49a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/49a:2)

דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְנֵדֶר אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ יָקוּם עָלֶיהָ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? וַהֲלֹא מוּצֵאת מִכְּלַל אָב וּמוּצֵאת מִכְּלַל בַּעַל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as** the *tanna* of **the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “But the vow of a widow or of a divorcée, everything with which she has bound her soul shall stand against her”** (Numbers 30:10). **What** is the meaning when **the verse states** this? **Is it not** already known that if she is widowed or divorced **she has** already **been removed from the category** of one under the authority of her **father and she has** likewise **been removed from the category** of one under the authority of her **husband?** Who, then, could possibly nullify her vows?


###### Ketubot 49a:3
[Ketubot 49a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/49a:3)

אֶלָּא, הֲרֵי שֶׁמָּסַר הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁמָּסְרוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, וְנִתְאַרְמְלָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה, הֵיאַךְ אֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ: בֵּית אָבִיהָ שֶׁל זוֹ, אוֹ בֵּית בַּעְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ: כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצְאָה שָׁעָה אַחַת מֵרְשׁוּת הָאָב — שׁוּב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this is referring to a case **where the father delivered** his daughter **to the husband’s messengers or where the father’s messengers delivered** her **to the husband’s messengers, and she was widowed or divorced on** her **way** to the wedding canopy. **How do I consider her?** Is she a member of **her father’s house, or** a member of **her husband’s house?** Her status is entirely unclear. **Rather,** this verse comes **to tell you: Since she has left her father’s domain** for **a short time** her father **is no longer able to nullify** her vows, as she is considered a widow or a divorcée in all regards. The same applies to the issue at hand: She retains the status of a married woman even if she returns to her father’s house.


###### Ketubot 49a:4
[Ketubot 49a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/49a:4)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַבָּא עַל נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא נַעֲרָה בְּתוּלָה מְאוֹרָסָה, וְהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. בִּשְׁלָמָא ״נַעֲרָה״ — וְלֹא בּוֹגֶרֶת, ״בְּתוּלָה״ — וְלֹא בְּעוּלָה, ״מְאוֹרָסָה״ — וְלֹא נְשׂוּאָה. ״בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי מָסַר הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: We, too, learn** this principle in a mishna (*Sanhedrin* 66b): **One who has intercourse with a young woman betrothed** to another **is liable** to stoning **only if she is a virgin, a young woman, betrothed, and she is in her father’s house.** The Gemara analyzes this mishna: **Granted,** the term **young woman** indicates that this punishment does **not** apply if she is **a grown woman;** similarly, this punishment applies only if she is **a virgin, but not** if she is **a non-virgin,** and only if she is **betrothed, but not** if she is **a married woman.** However, when the mishna states that she is **in her father’s house, what** does that phrase come **to exclude?** Does it **not** serve **to exclude** a case when **the father delivered** her **to the husband’s messengers,** indicating that in such a case the punishment of stoning no longer applies?


###### Ketubot 49a:5
[Ketubot 49a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/49a:5)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל לְנִשּׂוּאִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה — הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶנֶק. נִכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל בְּעָלְמָא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We, too, learn** this principle in another mishna (*Sanhedrin* 89a): With regard to **one who has intercourse with a married woman, once she has entered her husband’s authority for marriage, even though she has not had intercourse** with him, **one who has intercourse with her is** punished **by strangulation,** which is the punishment for adultery with a married woman. It is clear that this *halakha* applies if **she merely entered the husband’s authority** for the purpose of marriage, even if they have not yet entered the wedding canopy. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from here** that this is so.


###### Ketubot 49a:6
[Ketubot 49a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/49a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאָב אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בִּתּוֹ. זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בַּכֶּרֶם בְּיַבְנֶה: הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ וְהַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ. מָה הַבָּנִים אֵינָן יוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב — אַף הַבָּנוֹת אֵין נִיזּוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A father is not obligated to** provide **his daughter’s sustenance. This exposition was expounded** by **Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne:** Since the Sages instituted that after the father’s death, **the sons inherit** the sum of money specified in their mother’s marriage contract, **and the daughters are sustained** from their father’s estate, these the two *halakhot* are equated: **Just as the sons inherit only after the father’s death,** not during his lifetime, **so too, the daughters are sustained** from his property **only after their father’s death.**


###### Ketubot 49a:7
[Ketubot 49a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/49a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בִּתּוֹ הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב, הָא בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בְּנוֹ — חַיָּיב. בִּתּוֹ נָמֵי: חוֹבָה הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא, הָא מִצְוָה אִיכָּא. מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְלָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the mishna’s statement that a father is not obligated to provide his daughter’s sustenance, the Gemara infers: **It is with regard to** providing **his daughter’s sustenance that he is not obligated, but with regard to** providing **his son’s sustenance, he is obligated.** Furthermore, with regard to **his daughter, too, there is no obligation,** and therefore the court cannot compel him to provide sustenance for his daughter, **but there is a mitzva,** i.e., it is proper, for him to do so. With this interpretation in mind, **whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna?** It is **not Rabbi Meir, nor Rabbi Yehuda, nor Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.**


###### Ketubot 49a:8
[Ketubot 49a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/49a:8)

דְּתַנְיָא: מִצְוָה לָזוּן אֶת הַבָּנוֹת, קַל וְחוֹמֶר לַבָּנִים — דְּעָסְקִי בַּתּוֹרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִצְוָה לָזוּן אֶת הַבָּנִים, וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לַבָּנוֹת — מִשּׁוּם זִילוּתָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה לָזוּן אֶת הַבָּנוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן, אֲבָל בְּחַיֵּי אֲבִיהֶן — אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ אֵינָן נִיזּוֹנִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*, it is **a mitzva to sustain daughters,** and the same applies by **an *a fortiori*** inference **to sons, who are engaged in** the study of **Torah.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:** It is **a mitzva to sustain sons,** and the same applies by **an *a fortiori*** inference **with regard to daughters, due to** the **dishonor** they will suffer if they are forced to go around begging. **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says:** It is **an obligation to sustain the daughters after their father’s death; however, during their father’s lifetime** both **these and those,** sons and daughters alike, **are not sustained.**


###### Ketubot 49a:9
[Ketubot 49a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/49a:9)

מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָא אָמַר בָּנִים מִצְוָה?! אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא אָמַר בָּנִים נָמֵי מִצְוָה! אִי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא, אֲפִילּוּ מִצְוָה נָמֵי לֵיכָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara restates its question: **Whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna? If** you say it is **Rabbi Meir, didn’t he say** that providing sustenance even to one’s **sons** is merely **a mitzva,** not an obligation? **If** the mishna expresses the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say** that providing sustenance to one’s **sons** is **also a mitzva,** not an obligation? **If** it is **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka,** according to his opinion **there is not even a mitzva** to provide sustenance for one’s daughters. Consequently, none of opinions of the *tanna’im* of the *baraita* fits the ruling of the mishna.


###### Ketubot 49a:10
[Ketubot 49a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/49a:10)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that the mishna can be explained in several different ways. **If you wish, say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir; if you wish, say** that it follows the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda;** and **if you wish, say** it is the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.**


###### Ketubot 49a:11
[Ketubot 49a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/49a:11)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: הָאָב אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בִּתּוֹ, וְהוּא הַדִּין לִבְנוֹ. הָא מִצְוָה בְּבִתּוֹ אִיכָּא, קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַבָּנִים. וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי בִּתּוֹ — הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains in detail: **If you wish, say** it is **Rabbi Meir, and this is what he said** in the mishna: **A father is not obligated to** provide **his daughter’s sustenance, and the same is true with regard to** providing sustenance for **his son.** This indicates that **there is a mitzva,** though not an obligation, to provide for **his daughter,** and by **an *a fortiori*** inference it is a mitzva with regard **to the sons. And** the reason **that** the mishna **teaches** only the case of **his daughter,** and omitted any mention of sons, is not because a father is obligated to feed his sons. Instead, it **teaches us this:**