(Mishnah): If one married a woman, and she stipulated with him to feed her daughter for five years, he must feed her for five years. If [her mother] married someone else (after the first divorced her) and she stipulated with him to feed her daughter for five years, he must feed her for five years.

[The first] cannot say 'when she comes to me I will feed her.' Rather, he sends food to where she is.

Similarly, both [husbands] cannot say 'we will feed her together.' Rather, one feeds her, and the other pays her the cost of food.

(Gemara) Question: How does he become obligated to her?

Did not R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish both say that one who writes a loan document against his friend with the Chazakah (others understood) that he owes him, and it turns out that he does not owe him, he is not obligated to pay him? (We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

Answer (Reish Lakish): They made it like an addition to the Kesuvah. (One obligates himself amidst dearness of Nisu'in.)

Question: [If so,] he should pay at the end (when he divorces her, just like additions to the Kesuvah)!

Answer: They made [food of a step-daughter] like Kidushin of a woman (he pays immediately).

Question: He should pay from the beginning (for all five years)!

Answer: They made it like one who was Mekadesh a woman on condition to give to her 12 gold Dinarim in a year - he gives to her a gold Dinar each month.

(Beraisa): He feeds her the first five years, whether [food] is expensive or cheap;

[If he did not feed her the first five years - if food] was expensive and became cheap, if he caused [that he was not feeding her], he gives like the expensive rate. If she caused, he gives like the cheap rate.

If [food] was cheap and became expensive, whether he caused or she caused, he gives like the cheap rate.

This is like a Beraisa taught - a daughter does not rise or descend. (He always feeds her for five years, even when he does not give to her based on the current price of food, e.g. food was expensive and became cheap, and he caused. We do not say that he feeds her now for more years (e.g. seven) so that in all he pays like he should have. Rather, for five years he gives to her based on the initial price. Perhaps this is the intent of SEDEI YEHOSHUA.)

(Mishnah): [It says in the Kesuvah] 'female children that you will have from me, they will dwell in my house and be fed from my property [until they marry men]';

A Beraisa taught on this [Mishnah] says 'and they will be covered with my garments (i.e. from my estate).'

Question: Who receives a daughter's earnings?

Note: Just before this, the Yerushalmi cited a Mishnah about a daughter fed from her father's estate due to Tenai Kesuvah. This suggests that we ask about such a daughter. However, if so, what proof do we bring from men who stipulated to feed step-daughters?! Therefore, we explain like KORBAN HA'EDAH, that we discuss one whose step-father stipulated to feed her.

Answer: We learn from the following (Mishnah): If she made Nisu'in, her husband must feed her, and they (her step-fathers) give to her the money for food. This teaches that he feeds her, and her earnings belong to her husband. (We must say that before she married, her earnings were her own. If not, her husband would not get her earnings, and would not be obligated to feed her.)

Inference (R. Yosi): If one stipulated to feed his daughter-in-law, he feeds her, and her earnings belong to his son (her husband).

If he (one who stipulated to feed his step-daughter or daughter-in-law) wants her to come to him, and she does not want, the law favors her (he must feed her even if she is not with him).

Source (Mishnah): [If she married, her husband feeds her,] and [her step-fathers] give to her the money for food.

If she became sick, it is as if she married. (He gives to her the money for food, even if she does not eat normally due to her illness.)

Question: If she died, is it as if she married (and he gives to her heirs the money for food)?

Answer: If she died, she died (there is no more obligation).

(Mishnah): If the daughter made Nisu'in, her husband feeds her, and [her step-fathers] give to her the money for food.

If [her step-fathers] died, their own daughters are fed from Bnei Chorin. She (their step-daughter) is fed [even] from Meshubadim (property sold after they stipulated to feed her), because she is like a creditor.

Clever men would write '[I marry you] on condition that I will feed your daughter for five years, as long as you are with (married to) me.'

(Gemara): If Tanayim of the Kesuvah were written in a document, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this. R. Yochanan says, they were written for Chizuk (merely to strengthen the matter). Reish Lakish says, they were written to enable collection from Meshubadim.

R. Yirmeyah reversed the opinions (R. Yochanan says, for collection from Meshubadim. Reish Lakish says, for mere Chizuk.)

(R. Yudan): A Mishnah supports the one who says that they were written for Chizuk;

(Mishnah): We do not take [compensation for] consumed Peros (if Reuven bought a field from Shimon, and really it was Levi's, Levi takes back the field with any Peros that are on it, and Reuven collects their value from Shimon), Shevach to land (in the above case, Shimon compensates Reuven for improvements that he made to the field), or food for the widow and (orphaned) daughters [from the deceased's estate] from Meshubadim, due to Tikun ha'Olam.

Is this not [even] with a document?! (It is no Chidush not to take for consumed Peros or Shevach if there was no document.) Also here (food for the widow or daughters) is [even] with a document.

(R. Chananyah): [Also our Mishnah supports him! If they died, their own daughters are fed from Bnei Chorin. Their step-daughter is fed from Meshubadim] because she is like a creditor. Does she not have a document (in order to collect from Meshubadim)?! Also here (the daughters) is with a document! (It connotes that the only difference between them is that the step-daughter is like a creditor.)

[If he wrote to feed her daughter as long as the mother is with him,] if she died, she is not with him. If she was divorced, she is not with him.

If he remarried her - the one who says that he returned her for the Kesuvah but not for Tana'im, also here (the Tenai for her daughter does not return). The one who says that he returned her both for Kesuvah and Tana'im, also here (he resumes to feed her daughter).

(Mishnah): Clever men would write 'on condition that I will feed your daughter for five years, as long as you are with me.'

A Beraisa taught about this 'only from the first Nisu'in.' (Seemingly, this is like the opinion that he returned her only for Kesuvah. SHIREI KORBAN - the other opinion can explain, such a stipulation is acquired verbally only in the first Nisu'in.)

This is like R. Chanina said - one who married off his son in a house, [the son] acquired the house. This is only for the first Nisu'in (amidst great pleasure, the father resolves to give it).