## Ketubot Daf 53b

###### Ketubot 53b:1
[Ketubot 53b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:1)

שְׁקִילָא טֵיבוּתָךְ שַׁדְיָא אַחִיזְרֵי, כְּבָר תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ בְּבָבֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Your good is taken** and **cast on thorns,** i.e., we do not owe you a debt of gratitude for informing us of this statement, as **Rav Hoshaya** himself **already interpreted** and ruled this ***halakha*** of yours **in Babylonia.**


###### Ketubot 53b:2
[Ketubot 53b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:2)

בְּנָן נוּקְבָן דְּיִהְוְיָין לִיכִי מִינַּאי וְכוּ׳. רַב תָּנֵי: ״עַד דְּתִלַּקְחָן לְגוּבְרִין״, וְלֵוִי תָּנֵי: ״עַד דְּתִבְגְּרָן״. לְרַב, אַף עַל גַּב דִּבְגַר?! וְלֵוִי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִינְּסִיב?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that one of the stipulations of the marriage contract is the clause: Any **female children you will have from me** will be sustained from my property. The Gemara notes that **Rav** would **teach** that the daughters are entitled to sustenance **until they are taken** as wives **by men, and Levi** would **teach** that they are entitled to sustenance **until they become grown women.** The Gemara asks: **According to** the opinion of **Rav,** are daughters entitled to sustenance **even though they have become grown women,** if they are still unmarried? Yet how can this be correct? After all, adult daughters are no longer under their father’s jurisdiction even in his lifetime. **And** can **Levi** possibly maintain that **even though they are married** they still receive sustenance from their father’s estate until they become grown women?


###### Ketubot 53b:3
[Ketubot 53b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:3)

אֶלָּא: בְּגַר וְלָא אִינְּסִיב, אִינְּסִיב וְלָא בְּגַר — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בַּאֲרוּסָה וְלָא בְּגַר. וְכֵן תָּנֵי לֵוִי בְּמַתְנִיתֵיהּ: ״עַד דְּתִבְגְּרָן וְיִמְטֵי זִמְנֵיהוֹן דְּאִינַּסְבָן״. תַּרְתֵּי? אֶלָּא: אוֹ תִּבְגְּרָן אוֹ יִמְטֵי זִמְנֵיהוֹן לְאִיתְנַסְבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** in a case where **they became grown women and were not married,** or were **married and had not become grown women, everyone agrees** that they are not entitled to sustenance. **When they disagree** it is **with regard to** a daughter **who was betrothed and had not become a grown woman.** Levi maintains that as she is still unmarried she remains under her father’s jurisdiction. **And Levi likewise taught** the following version of this stipulation **in his *baraita*: Until they become grown women and the time arrives for their marriage.** The Gemara asks: Are these **two** conditions both necessary? She leaves her father’s domain when one of these conditions is fulfilled. **Rather,** Levi means that they can continue to receive sustenance **either** until **they become grown women or their time arrives for marriage.**


###### Ketubot 53b:4
[Ketubot 53b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:4)

כְּתַנָּאֵי: עַד מָתַי הַבַּת נִזּוֹנֶית — עַד שֶׁתֵּאָרֵס, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמְרוּ: עַד שֶׁתִּבְגַּר. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״עַד דִּיהֶוְויָין״. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֲוָיָה דְאֵירוּסִין, אוֹ הֲוָיָה דְנִישּׂוּאִין? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara observes: The dispute between Rav and Levi is **like** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** As we have learned: **Until when is a daughter sustained** from her father’s property? **Until she is betrothed. In the name of Rabbi Elazar they said: Until she becomes a grown woman. Rav Yosef taught** the version: **Until they become** married. The meaning of the expression: Until they become married, is unclear, and therefore **a dilemma was raised before** the scholars: Does this refer to **becoming betrothed or** to **becoming married?** No answer was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Ketubot 53b:5
[Ketubot 53b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מִי שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אֲרוּסָה יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, אוֹ אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשְׁמָע לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, אֶלָּא מִסְּבָרָא לֵית לַהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּאֵירְסַהּ, לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּתִיתְּזִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Yosef: Have you heard** anything **from Rav Yehuda** with regard to whether **a betrothed** orphan **has sustenance** from the brothers’ inheritance of their father’s estate, **or** whether **she does not have sustenance?** Rav Yosef **said to him:** As for **hearing, I have not heard** anything, **but by logical** reasoning I can conclude that **she does not have** sustenance from the inheritance. The reason is that **since** her husband **has betrothed her it is not satisfactory for him that she be demeaned** by having to request her sustenance from the inheritance, when he himself can provide for her.


###### Ketubot 53b:6
[Ketubot 53b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם מִשְׁמָע לָא שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ, מִסְּבָרָא אִית לַהּ. כֵּיוָן דְּלָא קִים לֵיהּ בְּגַוַּהּ, לָא שָׁדֵי זוּזֵי בִּכְדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda **said to** Rav Yosef: **If you have not heard** this *halakha*, **by logical** reasoning **she** should **have** sustenance from the brothers. The reason is that **since** her husband **is not sure** that he will marry **her, he will not throw away money for nothing.**


###### Ketubot 53b:7
[Ketubot 53b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:7)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשְׁמָע לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, מִסְּבָרָא אִית לַהּ — כֵּיוָן דְּלָא קִים לֵיהּ בְּגַוַּהּ, לָא שָׁדֵי זוּזֵי בִּכְדִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מִשְׁמָע לָא שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ, מִסְּבָרָא לֵית לַהּ. כֵּיוָן דְּאֵירְסַהּ, לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּתִיתְּזִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some say** a different version of this discussion. Rav Yosef **said to** Rav Ḥisda: As for **hearing, I have not heard** anything, but **by logical** reasoning I would say that **she does have** sustenance from the brothers: **Since he is not sure** that he will marry **her, he will not throw away money for nothing.** In response, Rav Ḥisda **said to him: If you have not heard** this *halakha*, **by logical** reasoning **she** should **not have** sustenance from the inheritance: **Since he has betrothed her it is not satisfactory for him that she be demeaned** by having to ask the brothers for food, and he would rather provide for her himself.


###### Ketubot 53b:8
[Ketubot 53b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:8)

סִימָן דְּגַבְרֵי: שַׁק זְרַף. מֵאֲנָה, וִיבָמָה, שְׁנִיָּה, אֲרוּסָה, וַאֲנֻסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara states **a mnemonic** device **for** the **men,** i.e., the Sages, who appear in the following discussion: ***Shin*, *kuf*, *zayin*, *reish*, *peh*.** This refers to Rav Sheshet, Reish Lakish, Rabbi Elazar, Rava, and Rav Pappa. The dilemmas themselves are listed in the following mnemonic: **She refused, and a *yevama*, a secondary** forbidden **relationship, a betrothed woman, and a woman who was raped.**


###### Ketubot 53b:9
[Ketubot 53b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:9)

בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְמָאֶנֶת, יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, אוֹ אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes these cases one by one: The Sages **raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet:** With regard to **one who refused,** i.e., a minor orphan girl who was married off by her brothers or mother and then refused her husband, thereby nullifying the marriage, does **she have sustenance** from her father’s inheritance **or** does **she not have sustenance?** Is she considered to have been married, and therefore her right to sustenance has lapsed, or does her refusal nullify the marriage to the extent that it is as though she were never married at all, and therefore she is still entitled to sustenance?


###### Ketubot 53b:10
[Ketubot 53b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:10)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: אַלְמָנָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, וּגְרוּשָׁה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ — יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ — יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, אֵינָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ — אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it** in the following *baraita*: In the case of **a widow in her father’s house, or a divorcée in her father’s house, or a widow awaiting her *yavam* in her father’s house, she has sustenance. Rabbi Yehuda says:** If **she is still in her father’s house she has sustenance;** if **she is not in her father’s house she does not have sustenance.**


###### Ketubot 53b:11
[Ketubot 53b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:11)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא?! אֶלָּא לָאו, מְמָאֶנֶת אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר אִית לַהּ, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לֵית לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet analyzes this *baraita*: The opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda is** to all appearances the same as that of **the first *tanna*.** What is their dispute? **Rather, is it not** the case that **there is** a practical difference **between them** concerning a girl **who refused** her husband, **as the first *tanna* maintains** that **she has** sustenance, as her marriage has been annulled and it is as though it never occurred, **and Rabbi Yehuda maintains** that **she does not have** sustenance, as she permanently forfeited this right when she left her father’s house in marriage.


###### Ketubot 53b:12
[Ketubot 53b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:12)

בָּעֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בַּת יְבָמָהּ, יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת אוֹ אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish raised a dilemma:** With regard to the **daughter** of **a *yevama*,** i.e., a woman who married her *yavam* in levirate marriage and gave birth to a daughter before he passed away, does **she have sustenance** from the property of the *yavam*, i.e., the girl’s father, **or** does **she not have sustenance?**


###### Ketubot 53b:13
[Ketubot 53b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:13)

כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן, לֵית לַהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאִי לֵית לַהּ מֵרִאשׁוֹן, תַּקִּינוּ לַהּ רַבָּנַן מִשֵּׁנִי, אִית לַהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: **Since the Master said** that the payment of the **marriage contract** of a *yevama* is taken **from the property of her first husband,** not that of the *yavam*, her daughter should therefore **not have** rights to sustenance from the property of the *yavam*. Her sustenance is a stipulation of the marriage contract, which does not apply to the *yavam*. **Or perhaps, since if she does not have** enough to cover the amount of her marriage contract **from the** property of the **first** husband, **the Sages enacted for her** a marriage contract **from the second** one, i.e., the *yavam*. Therefore, her daughter should **have** sustenance from his property. No answer was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Ketubot 53b:14
[Ketubot 53b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/53b:14)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בַּת שְׁנִיָּה, יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, אוֹ אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma:** With regard to the **daughter** of **a secondary** forbidden **relationship,** i.e., a girl born to a man and women forbidden to each other by rabbinic law, whose mother is penalized by being deprived of a marriage contract, does her daughter **have sustenance or** does **she not have sustenance?**