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?