The [legal] power of the husband is greater than the power of the father [in some respects] and the power of the father is greater than the power of the husband [in other respects]. The power of the husband is greater—for the husband can eat the fruit (i.e. can use the interest from her property) in her lifetime—which is not true for the father. The power of the father is stronger—for the husband is obligated in her food, in her redemption, her burial, and, in a place where they practice to do the funeral procession, to do the procession—which is not true for the father.

The [legal] power of a wife is greater than the power of a yevamah (one whose husband died with no children and now is in a legal bond with her former brother-in-law which either ends in marriage or halitzah) [in some respects], and the power of a yevamah is greater than the power of a wife [in other respects]. The power of a wife is stronger—for a wife eats terumah [if her husband is a kohen] as soon as she enters the bridal chamber, even before she has had sex—which is not true for the yevamah. The power of the yevamah is stronger—for a man who has sex with his yevamah (i.e. his dead brother's wife), whether intentionally or unintentionally, whether forced or willingly, even if she is in her father's house, he acquires [her as a wife]—which is not true of a wife [with whom a man would need to have sex with the purpose of betrothal].

If the father went with her agents or with the husband's agents, or the father's agents went with the husband's agents—if she had a courtyard on the road and she entered and slept in it, or if she entered the bridal chamber not for the purpose of marriage, and she died—even though her ketubah is with her husband [i.e. he is responsible for it], her father inherits it. The father handed her to the husband's agents, or the father's agents handed her to the father's agents—if she had a courtyard on the way and she entered and slept in it, or if she entered the bridal chamber for the sake of marriage and she died—even though her ketubah is with her father, her husband inherits it. When does this apply? With her ketubah, but regarding terumah, she cannot eat terumah until she enters the bridal chamber.

If [a wife] is captured, he is not required to redeem her. When does this apply? When she is a captive of the government, but if she is a captive of bandits he redeems her—if he wants to uphold it he can [and pay the bandits to redeem her], or else he divorces her and gives her a ketubah of 100 zuz. If she is captured after the death of her husband, her levirs are not required to redeem her. And that's not all—even if she were captured while her husband was alive and after that he died, the levirs are not required to redeem her.

If she is supported from his property and needs healing—this is like her [required] support [and the husband has to pay for it]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Healing that has a fixed price is healed [i.e. paid for] from her ketubah; but without a fixed price—this is like her support. If there were years of drought and he said to her: Take your get and your ketubah, go and finance yourself—he is allowed.

If he did not write for her "Male children that you will have from me will inherit the money of your ketubah over and above their inheritance portions with their brothers" (ketubat banin dikhrin), he is obligated [to follow that procedure anyway], since it is a stipulation of the court. All lands write like the people of Jerusalem. (This seems to be a comment on Mishnah Ketubot 4:12, what is reported their to be Jerusalemite practice is here endorsed for everyone, that widows will be financed from the dead husband's estate for as long as they live there).

A man can marry a wife with the understanding that he will not feed her, with the understanding that he will not finance her. And not only this but he can decide with her that she will feed him, finance him and teach him Torah [by giving him the money so that he can not work and spend his time learning]. A case: Yehoshua son of Rabbi Akiva married a wife and decided with her [that they would be married] with the understanding that she would feed him, finance him and teach him Torah. There were years of famine. They began to dispute. She began to complain about him to the Sages. But when he came to court, he said to them: "She is more trustworthy to me than any man." She said to them: "Certainly, this is what he stipulated with me." The Sages said to her: "There is nothing after the agreement." [I.e. the original agreement stands].

Ideally, one should feed [his] daughters, and it is not necessary to say [also his] sons. Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah says: It is required to feed daughters.

Hillel the Elder would explain lay-language [of contracts as if it were the biblical text]. When the people of Alexandria would betroth wives, another would come and seize her from the street. The matter came to the Sages. They sought to make their children bastards [since the betrothal was valid, so when they are married to others in the meantime their children will be illegitimate]. Hillel the Elder said to them: "Bring to me the ketubah of your mothers." They brought them for him, and it was written in it "When you enter my house, you will be my wife according to the law of Moshe and Yisrael" [in other words, based on a fine reading of the ketubah text, the betrothal only takes full effect when she enters his house, which means that the other husband was not illegitimate and her children aren't bastards].

Explained Rabbi Meir: One who receives a field from his fellow, and after he acquired it he neglected it, they evaluate it how much it was worth to do and pay him, for thus he writes to him [in the contract]: "If I neglect it and do not work it, I will pay with the best" [the derash being understanding "the best" as referring to do how much work would have appropriate for it to not go into disrepair].

Explained Rabbi Yehudah (sic!, printed edition is against all the manuscripts): A man can bring on behalf of his wife all the sacrifices that she is obligated in—even if she ate forbidden fat, even if she desecrated shabbat—for thus he writes to her [in the ketubah]: "The responsibility for you is upon me from now on" [and the derash includes even sacrifices that she would be responsible for]. If she gave him a receipt for some of her ketubah, she has given him a receipt for all of it, for thus she writes to him [in the receipt]: "My responsibility for you is upon me from now" [the derash being that all responsibilities have to cease, there is no giving a receipt for some of the ketubah and maintaining the rest].

Explained Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korhah: One who lends to his fellow, he should not give a pledge with him for more than his debt, for he writes to him [in the contract]: "Payment from property that I have, from property that I acquire from now" [the derash being that XXXX].

Explained Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili: Anywhere they write (sic!, based on Ehrfurt) a loan into a ketubah (i.e. a combined document with aspects that are a loan, e.g. in the dowry, and other aspects that are a normal ketubah), he (sic!) can collect the lone but she (sic!, Ehrfurt has גובה in both instances) can't collect the ketubah. Anywhere they double the ketubah, she can only collect half. (This is my explanation—against everyone I have found!—trying to account for the simple meanings of the words in the Ehrfurt manuscript, which Robert Brody has shown to probably be the best text, but there is a LOT of confusion about this halakhah. See Lieberman and traditional commentators on Baba Metzia 104b for more details).

A son's father who became a guarantor for his daughter-in-law's ketubah—if the son has enough property, they collect from the son's [property]; but if not, they collect from the father's. If the father made a house or field as a mortgage for the ketubah of his daughter-in-law, whether [the son has enough property] or [not], they collect from [the house or field].

A man who went to the land beyond the sea, they said to him: Your son died. He began to write all of his property as a gift [to someone else], and afterwards it was known that his son was still alive—his gift stands. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasia says: His gift does not stand, for had he known that his son was alive he would not have done the gift. If he were ill and abed, and they said to him: "Your property is for whom?" He said to them: "I imagined that I would have had a son [by now], but now that I do not have a son, my property is for Ploni"—but afterwards it was known that he has a son, he said nothing. If he were ill and abed and they said to him: "Your property is for whom?" He said to them: "I imagined that my wife would be pregnant [by now], but now that my wife is not pregnant, my property is for Ploni"—but afterwards it was known that his wife is pregnant, he said nothing.

A convert that died and Jews divided up his property [if he has no children, since he has no legal connections to his Gentile family], but afterwards it was known that he had children or that his wife was pregnant—all of them [the Jews] are required to return [the property they took]. They returned everything, but his sons died or his wife miscarried, anyone who held possession [over his stuff] the second time keeps it, but from the first time does not.

Daughters—whether they were married before they became adults or became adults before they were married—they lose their food [i.e. the requirement of their father to feed them] but not their financial support. Rabbi Shimon ben Lazar says: They even lose their financial support. What should they do? They should rent [the property] to their husbands and collect their financial support [from the husbands].

Both property that has capacity for mortgage [i.e. real estate] and property that does not have capacity for mortgage [i.e. moveable property] can be collected from for a wife and daughters' sustenance—words of Rabbi. Rabbi Lazar bar Rabbi Shimon says: Property that has capacity for mortgage—sons can take it out of the hands of sons, daughters from the hands of daughters and daughters from the hands of sons, but not sons from the hands of daughters; property that does not have capacity for mortgage—sons can take it out of the hands of daughters, daughters out of the hands of daughters and sons out of the hands of daughters, but not daughters out of the hands of sons. Whether the father mortgaged something while he was alive or the inheritors mortgaged something after their father's death—they do not collect from them for the ketubah, but do collect from them for financial support.