WHO GETS INCOME OF AN ORPHANED GIRL? [daughter:orphan:earnings]
41b (Mishnah): If a Na'arah was seduced, the payments for her embarrassment and blemish and her fine go to her father. If the trial was before the father died, the payments belong to the father. If he died afterwards, his sons inherit them. If the father died before the trial, she receives the payments;
R. Shimon says, if she did not collect before the father died, she receives the payments.
Her father receives her earnings and Metzi'os (Hefker objects that she finds), even if she did not collect them yet. If her father dies, they belong to the brothers.
43a - Question (R. Avina): Who receives earnings of a girl who is fed by her brothers (after the father died)?
Just like her earnings went to her father (in his lifetime), they go to the brothers, who are in place of the father. Or, perhaps here is different. The father chose to feed her. A provision of her mother's Kesuvah obligates the brothers to feed her.
Answer (Rav Sheshes - Mishnah): A widow is fed from the orphans' estate. They receive her earnings.
Question #1: A widow is different. A man is concerned for the prosperity of his daughter, but not of his widow!
Question #2 (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): The sons receive the earnings and Metzi'os of a daughter, even if the father died before she collected them.
This is because she earned or found them in the father's life. After his death, she keeps them!
Suggestion: The case is, she is being fed by the brothers.
Answer: No, it is when she is not being fed.
(Rabah bar Ula): In this case, obviously she keeps her earnings! The Mishnah teaches that she keeps even earnings above the cost of her food.
Rava: Surely, Rav Yosef anticipated this answer! He found a difficulty in the Mishnah itself. It says that the sons receive her earnings and Metzi'os, even if the father died before collecting them. One does not collect Metzi'os!
Rather, the Mishnah equates her earnings to her Metzi'os. Metzi'os she found in the father's lifetime go to him; what she finds after his death is hers. The same applies to her earnings.
(R. Zeira citing Rav, and Avimi citing Shmuel): A daughter who is fed by the brothers keeps her earnings - "You will bequeath them (Kena'ani slaves) to your sons", but rights to your daughter's revenue do not go to your sons.
(Mar bar Amemar citing Chachamim of Nehardai): The Halachah follows Rav Sheshes.
(Rav Ashi): The Halachah follows Rav.
The Halachah follows Rav.
Kidushin 16b (Beraisa #1): An Amah Ivriyah keeps her own Anak (gifts when she goes free);
Contradiction (Beraisa #2): The Anak and Metzi'os (Hefker objects that she finds) of an Amah belong to her father.
Answer: In both cases, she left slavery upon becoming a Na'arah. In Beraisa #1 this was after her father's death. (The Beraisa teaches that her brothers do not get the Anak.) In Beraisa #2 she left in her father's lifetime.
Rif and Rosh (4:1): Rav Yosef derived from the Mishnah that the sons receive the earnings of a daughter. Rav agrees; this is the Halachah.
Ran (DH Gemara): A daughter is not fed from the brothers, rather, due to her mother's Kesuvah. It is obvious that she keeps her Metzi'os, for even in her father's lifetime he gets them only if he feeds her. This is due to enmity, i.e. since he is not obligated to feed her, if she keeps her Metzi'os perhaps he will not want to feed her. This does not apply to the brothers. She is fed from her father's property against their will.
Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 19:10): A daughter who is fed from her father's property after his death keeps her earnings and Metzi'os. They do not go to the brothers.
Rambam (Hilchos Avadim 3:15): An Amah Ivriyah's Anak belong to her father. The same applies to her Metzi'os. If her father died before receiving them, they belong to her. Her brothers have no rights to them, for a man does not bequeath privileges in his daughter to his son.
Question (Kesef Mishneh): This connotes that even if she received them before her father died, her brothers have no rights to them. The Gemara in Kesuvos connotes that the brothers get them in this case! We must say that coming to her hand is like coming to her father's hand (and the Rambam agrees that the brothers get them).
Rebuttal (Mishneh l'Melech): This implies that even if she was freed in her father's lifetime and her master was obligated to give an Anak to her, if she did not get it before her father died she keeps it. In Kesuvos, we say that if the trial was before the father died, the money belongs to him, and to his sons after he dies, even if it was not collected! And there, we must say that the trial was before the father died only due to the fine! It is not considered money until the trial, for the seducer could admit and exempt himself. We could answer for the Rambam, with difficulty, that whenever the obligation came in her father's lifetime, it is as if the money came to the father. We cannot answer so for the Kesef Mishneh. The Maharit says that Anak is different than earnings. If so, we can explain the Rambam simply, that whenever the father did not receive it, she keeps it.
Question (Maharit, brought in Mishneh l'Melech): Why do we need "you will bequeath them..." to teach that rights to your daughter's revenue do not go to your sons? The source that they belong to the father is from his right to sell her to be an Amah, and his sons cannot do so!
Answer (Mishneh l'Melech): "You will bequeath..." teaches about all money that comes to a daughter, not only earnings.
Tosfos (43a DH Bas): Clearly, mid'Oraisa she keeps her earnings, like we learn from the verse. Rav Sheshes holds that mid'Rabanan, they receive her earnings, just like they receive a widow's earnings. However, we say that there would be more reason for the brothers to get a daughter's earnings if she were not fed due to Beis Din's enactment, rather, they chose to feed her. We say oppositely regarding a widow! This requires investigation.
Shulchan Aruch (EH 112:2): A daughter who is fed from her father's property after his death keeps her earnings and Metzi'os. They do not go to the brothers.
Beis Shmu'el (5): This is because a man does not bequeath privileges in his daughter to his son. Even though the brothers get a widow's earnings, a man is more concerned for the prosperity of his daughter than of his widow.