daf bit: Ketuvot 47

[cellio]

The rabbis describe the priveleges and responsibilities of a father and his unmarried daughter. A father can anul her vows and is entitled to the wages of her handiwork, like a husband, but he may not control property the daughter receives from her mother. A husband, on the other hand, has access to this property. Why the difference? If she owns the property and needs to be ransomed, the husband might say "then let her ransom herself" instead of fulfilling his obligation to do so. However, the rabbis say, no father would ever say that; he would ransom his daughter with his own money regardless of what assets she has. (47a)

The gemara does not here address the question of how the daughter's mother, who is after all her father's wife, can own that proprerty in order to pass it on to her daughter. Perhaps this is more of a "joint access" thing than full control by the husband -- something like a joint checking account where either can distribute funds (but once they're gone they're gone)?

Comments

[kerryp.livejournal.com]

I assumed that the property was passed from a first widowed mother from mother to daughter down the line (i.e., the mother's husband couldn't touch it because it came to her from her mother). I find it interesting that a father, and then the husband, can anul the vows of the daughter/wife. However, in reviewing some old United States law texts from the early last century, this also seems to be the case. Because contracts made by the wife bind the husband to their fulfillment or penalties, it seems that, early on in our own legal system, the wife was "incompetent to contract" and such contracts made by her could be anulled. I wonder, however, if contracts of the husband historically bind the wife?

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

Keep in mind that there are multiple types of property (land, plants attached to land, fully movable objects) and multiple possible sources of property (bought, gifted, inherited, earned). Husbands get rights to do what they want with only some kinds of property and with the interest/fruits from only some kinds of property.

Additionally, those rights are only by default - variations can be written into the ketuba both for categories (e.g. all that the wife earns) and for individual items (e.g. the field gifted to her by friend/relative X, which would answer how a woman could own property to pass on to her daughter, who could then have it written into the ketubah that it stays fully "hers" so she can pass it on, etc). I haven't learned most of the gemara on this topic, but the mishna in nashim (which I learned b'chevruta within the past year or so) is very full of details.

Similarly with vows, there are some types of vows a father/husband may annul and some he can't.

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

As I explained in my bechina (effectively final exam in this context) when I learned this in yeshiva, So you have a guy, let's call him Jed. Jed has three daughters (or any number) and no sons. One of them (Ellie) gets married and has a daughter (Abby). Ellie dies before her father, which is very sad for him. Ellie's husband inherits all her stuff, which basically just means the ketuba, b/c in Bava Kamma we learn that women don't usually have property (which is why the MIshna there says it is bad to bump into them, there a bit more literally than usual). Then Jed dies, leaving his ranch in New Hampshire to be divided up by his three daughters (evenly b/c there is no double portion for a first-born daughter). Ellie's portion is given to her heirs, which in this case means Abby since there are no sons. So Abby has part of a ranch in New Hampshire, the rental of which, or the more literal fruit of which, her father has no rights to.

Alternatively, some beleive that a gift to the wife on condition that it not be shared by the husband can also be hers alone. Or a woman could sell her ketuba for anything she can get, which will presumably be no more than 200 zuz (a team of oxen, 10 pidyon habens, or 100 goats at the end of a seder). Then her husband doesn't own whatever she sold it for, but would inherit that stuff. So essentially, one is forced to say that the mishna means the case in the previous paragraph. Or at least that is what got me good marks on my exam.