in order [to avert] ill feeling.1
TO HER HANDIWORK. Whence do we deduce this? — [From that] which R. Huna quoted in the name of Rab: Whence is it deduced that a daughter's handiwork belongs to her father? — [From Scripture] where it is stated, And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant,2 as the handiwork of a maidservant belongs to her master so does the handiwork of a daughter belong to her father.3 But may it not be suggested that this4 [applies only to] a minor whom he may sell, but the handiwork of a na'arah5 whom he cannot sell belongs to herself? — It is but logical to assume that it should belong to her father; for should it be imagined that her handiwork does not belong to him [the objection could well be advanced against] the right6 which the All-Merciful has conferred upon a father to consign his daughter to the bridal chamber: How could he consign her when he thereby7 prevents her from doing her work?8 R. Ahai demurred: Might it not be suggested that he9 pays her compensation [for the time] she is taken away [from her work] or else, that he consigns her during the night,10 or else that he might consign her on Sabbaths11 or festivals?11 — [The fact], however, [is that in the case of] a minor no Scriptural text was necessary.12 For since13 is he may even sell her was it at all necessary [to state that her handiwork belongs to him]?14 If a Scriptural text15 then was at all necessary [it must have been] in respect of a na'arah.
BUT HE HAS NO USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME. Our Rabbis taught: A father has no usufruct21 during the lifetime of his daughter.22 R. Jose the son of R. Judah ruled: A father is entitled to usufruct21 in the lifetime of his daughter. On what principle do they differ? — The first Tanna is of the opinion that the Rabbis were well justified in allowing usufruct to a husband, since otherwise he might refrain from ransoming [his wife].23 What, however, can be said24 in respect of a father? That he would refrain from ransoming her? [It is certain that] he would ransom her in any case. R. Jose the son of R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that a father also might refrain from ransoming [his daughter], for he might think: She is carrying a purse25 about her, let her proceed to ransom herself.26
WHEN SHE MARRIES, THE HUSBAND SURPASSES HIM [IN HIS RIGHTS] IN THAT HE HAS USUFRUCT etc. Our Rabbis taught: If [a father] promised his daughter in writing27 fruit,28 clothes or other movable objects29 that she might take30 with her31 from her father's house to that of her husband, and she died,32 her husband does not acquire these objects. In the name of R. Nathan it was stated: The husband does acquire them. Must it be assumed that they33 differ on the same principles as those on which R. Eleazar b. Azariah and the Rabbis differed? For we learned: A woman who was widowed or divorced, either after betrothal or after marriage, is entitled to collect all34 [that is due to her]. R. Eleazar b. Azariah ruled: [Only a woman widowed or divorced] after her marriage recovers all [that is due to her], but if after a betrothal a virgin recovers only two hundred zuz35 and a widow only one maneh35
for the man wrote [the additional jointure] for her with the sole object of marrying her.1 [Must it then be assumed] that he who ruled that 'her husband does not acquire' [upholds the same principle] as R. Eleazar b. Azariah2 while he3 who ruled that 'the husband does acquire' [upholds the same principle] as the Rabbis?4 — No; all5 [may, in fact, hold the same view] as R. Eleazar b. Azariah.6 [For] he who ruled, 'her husband does not acquire', [is obviously] in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah.7 And as to him3 who ruled, 'the husband does acquire' [it may be explained that] only [in respect of undertakings] from him8 towards her9 did R. Eleazar b. Azariah maintain his view,10 [for the reason that] 'the man wrote [the additional jointure] for her with the sole object of marrying her',11 but [in respect of undertakings] from her12 towards him13 even R. Eleazar b. Azariah may admit [that betrothal has the same force as marriage] since [undertakings of such a nature]14 are due to [a desire for] matrimonial association, and such association, surely, had taken place.15
HE IS ALSO UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF MAINTAINING HER etc. Our Rabbis taught: Maintenance was provided for a wife in return for her handiwork, and her burial16 in return for her kethubah.17 A husband is, therefore, entitled to usufruct. 'Usufruct'! Who mentioned it?18 — A clause is missing, and this is the proper reading: Maintenance was provided for a wife in return for her handiwork, her ransom In return for usufruct,19 and her burial in return for her kethubah;20 a husband, therefore, is entitled to usufruct.19
What [was the need for] 'therefore'?21 — It might have been presumed [that a husband] must not consume the fruits19 but should rather leave them,22 since, otherwise,23 he might refrain from ransoming her, hence we were informed that that [course]24 was preferable, for sometimes [the proceeds of the fruit] might not suffice25 and he26 would have to ransom her at his own expense.
Said Raba: The following Tanna is of the opinion that maintenance31 is a Pentateuchal duty. For it was taught: She'erah32 refers to33 maintenance, for so it is said in Scripture, Who also eat the she'er34 of my peaple;35 Her raiment36 [is to be understood] according to its ordinary meaning; 'Onatha37 refers to the time for conjugal duty38 prescribed in the Torah,39 for so it is said in Scripture, If than shalt afflict40 my daughters.41 R. Eleazar said: 'She'erah' refers to the prescribed time for conjugal duty,39 for so it is said in Scripture, None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin42 to him to uncover their nakedness;43 'Her raiment' [is to be taken] according to its literal meaning; 'Onatha refers to maintenance, for so it is said in Scripture, And he afflicted thee,44 and suffered thee to hunger.45
- To Next Folio -