[Avodah] amah Ivria

[Ben Bradley via Avodah]

Unless I'm much mistaken, the sugyas in kesubos make clear that the context of a woman being under the reshus of her father is only when she is a ketana. That's certainly true of kiddushin, that the father only has zechus to be mekadesh her (and take the kesef kiddushin) before she is a bogeres. Once she has simanei bogrus she must accept kiddushin for herself. And zechus in kiddushin is the context in which the gemara there talks about going from her father's reshus to her husband's.

Thus, once divorced, even if still a ketana, she is in her own reshus ie not the father's, which specifically refers to rights to her own earnings and to accept her own kiddushin money in future.

Once she becomes a bogeres in her father's home he can no longer be mekadesh her. He still has the right to her earnings since she's living at his table, although even that is subject to the gemara's discussion, but in any case I believe that's not called being in his reshus.

It's true that the process of chuppa as described in the gemara is a formalisation of transfering from the father's to the husband's reshus but in the gemara's context, that seems likely because it's assuming the girl is not yet boggeres.


In any case, given that a bogeres automatically gains autonomy in kiddushin, and that even a ketana gains this if widowed or divorced (excepting yibum) I can't see that it can be true that a woman has to be in the reshus of father or husband.

Note that an amah ivriya is also talking about a ketana. Once she gets simanei bagrus she outa there into her own reshus as free woman.


So, is there a Torah rule forbidding a woman to be under the  control of
anyone other than her father or husband?  And if there is such a  rule, is the
amah ivriah an exception?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170226/83ec58b8/attachment-0007.html>