Talmud for Ketubot 6:1

So is the Mishnah: And so those who provide for the orphan girl⁷³Cf. Note 68, parenthesis.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, this means that one says to the overseers to take out a loan⁷⁰The overseers of charity can use public money and even impose a tax on the public to provide a minimal dowry for a fatherless girl. (It is really the mother and/or the brothers who marry off the girl but the overseers of charity provide the money.). For he explains it, if nothing is in the wallet one takes out a loan up to fifty. But if there is money in the wallet, one may add. Rebbi Yose said, this means that one does not say to the overseers to take out a loan. For he explains if there is money in the wallet⁷⁴It seems that he does not accept the last sentence in his Mishnah text.. But if there is no money one diminishes. As the following, about a girl in the days of Rebbi Immi. He said, let it be held over for the holiday⁷⁵R. Immi did not want to give public funds for the dowry of an orphan girl because he needed the money to distribute to the poor for their holiday needs.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said to him, you are causing a loss⁷⁶The orphan girl will not be able to marry., but give everything, for the Lord of the holiday exists⁷⁷Give her a dowry of what is available in the charity account and God will see to it that money will be donated to charity for the holiday.. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina holds with Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose with Rebbi Immi⁷⁸If R. Immi thought that the overseers of charity can take out loans, he would not have to worry about the holiday..

HALAKHAH: ““The female children you will have by me,” etc. Rav Ḥisda said, if they became adults, they lost the support²⁴⁹Since support for daughters is stipulated only until marriage, the support ends once the usual age for marriage, adolescence, has passed.. If they married, they lost their dowries²⁵⁰If after the father’s death she did not claim her dowry at the moment of marriage, she is presumed to have renounced her right to a dowry which on average is 10% of the estate (cf. Halakhah 6:6). In the Tosephta, 4:17, this is the opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated²⁵¹Tosephta 4:17, opinion of the anonymous majority.: “If they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Hila: They all agree on the following: If a widow sues the heirs, she says I did not receive my ketubah, but the heirs say you received your ketubah. Before she remarried, the burden of proof is on the heirs that she received her ketubah²⁵²There is a parallel text in the Babli, 96a/b, but it deals with the case that the widow comes at the end of a year and claims not to have received support for the past year. There is no mention of ketubah in the Babli since it requires either that the widow present the ketubah, which will be torn up upon payment, or bring witnesses that she married at a place where routinely no ketubah is written; then she has to deliver a receipt.. After she remarried, the burden of proof is on her that she had not received her ketubah²⁵³Since all support by the estate stops upon remarriage of the widow, it would be a most unusual circumstance if the ketubah was not liquidated at that time.. But did we not state²⁵⁴Mishnah 6:6.: “If an orphan was married off by her mother or her brother and they wrote her [a dowry of] 150 zuz, after she grows up she can extract from them.” The reason, because she was underage. Therefore, a grown up gave up her claim²⁵⁵She is supposed to have renounced her claim if she did not request her dowry at the time of the marriage; the underage girl may wait until she becomes an adult able to act in legal matters.. Explain it that she had received partial payment²⁵⁶If the quarrel is not about the entire amount of the ketubah, there can be no argument that the widow renounced her claim.. Did not Rebbi Avina say in the name of Rebbi²⁵⁷This must be Rav Assi, quoted in the Babli, Baba Batra 136a. Assi: If a firstborn took as a simple [brother]²⁵⁸The ms. formבְּפָשׁוּט , in his quality of “simple” brother (i. e., taking only one portion in contrast to the firstborn’s double share), is good rabbinic Hebrew style and does not have to be changed into כְּפָשׁוּט., this is prima facie evidence that he gave up his claim. Still, if she had received part payment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this one did not take anything from his primogeniture²⁵⁹Therefore, the case of the firstborn is different from that of widow or orphan girl. In the Babli, Baba Batra 136a, this is very much in dispute since a dissenting opinion holds that the firstborn only lost his right to re-open past distributions but that he is not restrained from asserting his double claim in the future.. There came a case before Rebbi Mana, who wanted to act following Rav Ḥisda. Rebbi Ḥananiah said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “if they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries”? He said to him: I quoted a tradition, you quoted a Baraita. Let the tradition be disregarded before the Baraita.