Ishut - Chapter 16

I.e., the article or land that the woman brings to the household is evaluated, and the husband takes responsibility for the value of the article. From this time onward, it is as if the article were his, and he is obligated to pay his wife a fixed amount if he divorces her or she is widowed.

This term literally means ‘‘property [that is like] iron sheep.’’ The term ‘‘iron’’ is used to indicate that the husband’s obligation is unchanging, like iron. The reference to sheep stems from the fact that during the Talmudic period in Eretz Yisrael, a similar agreement was frequently made with a shepherd with regard to the sheep entrusted to him. He was given a herd that was evaluated at a given price, and he was obligated to return either sheep of that value, or payment for them to their owner. (See the commentary of Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro, Yevamot 7:1.)

With this statement, the Rambam indicates that — in contrast to the opinion of certain authorities — the property belonging to a woman does not automatically become nichsei tzon barzel. For it to be placed in that category, the husband must explicitly accept responsibility for it (Maggid Mishneh).

With regard to this type of property as well, the husband has the privilege to manage the use of the property and reap its benefits during the time he remains married to the woman, but the property itself belongs to her.

The term m’log means ‘‘to pull out hairs’’ (Jerusalem Talmud, Yevamot 7:1). Just as a person pulls out the hairs from a head, leaving it uncovered, so too, the husband continues to use his wife’s property even though its value depreciates.

By making a distinction between the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah and her nedunyah, the Rambam is emphasizing that they are governed by different laws. With regard to the money of the ketubah, the husband or his estate is granted certain leniencies. But with regard to the nedunyah, by contrast, the woman is considered the same as any other of her husband’s creditors (Maggid Mishneh).

See Chapter 10, Halachah 7.

Although a creditor has the right to collect his due from the properties of intermediate value, the woman is given this disadvantage. The rationale is that a woman desires to marry and therefore is willing to accept this stipulation (Gittin 50a).

The Aruch HaShalem interprets this term as being derived from an Arab word meaning ‘‘a rocky field.’’ The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 101:5) states that it refers to a bee that stings and is therefore considered one of the lower forms of life.

I.e., a Torah scroll, as mentioned in Hilchot Sh’vuot 11:8. An oath is required because the woman is seeking to collect money from an estate bequeathed to heirs, and whenever payment is to be collected from an estate, an oath is necessary (Ketubot 87a; Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 14:1).

The Tur (Even HaEzer 96) states that the woman must also take an oath that she did not seize any of her husband’s property. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 96:2) quotes this view.

In contrast to the opinion of the Tur (loc. cit.) and the Hagahot Maimoniot, the Rambam maintains that even if a woman is in possession of her ketubah, she is required to take these oaths. (See Halachah 21.) The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) mentions the Rambam’s view, but appears to favor that of the Tur.

This refers to a trousseau given to the woman by her husband. Although the husband gave his wife these clothes as a gift, he did not give them to her with the intent that she take them and leave his household (Ketubot 54a).

In the first half of this halachah, the oath is instituted by the court to protect the interests of the heirs. In this instance, however, unless the husband himself issues a claim requiring an oath (see Halachah 19), no oath is required.

From Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 1:5, it appears that this does not apply to a woman’s Sabbath and festival clothing, or to her jewelry. Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 99:1) states that those articles should be evaluated and deducted from the sum due her by virtue of her ketubah.

If, however, the husband is compelled to divorce his wife, her wardrobe should be evaluated and deducted from the money due her by virtue of her ketubah (Maggid Mishneh; see Ketubot 77a).

This restriction applies to a widow, but not to a divorcee. The Rashba and other authorities differ and maintain that the same ruling applies to a divorcee. It appears that it is their opinion that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 100:1).

I.e., and not from movable property. This ruling also applies to other creditors, as stated in Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 8:11. (See, however, Halachah 7 below.)

E.g., a woman was owed 200 zuz by virtue of her ketubah. Her husband’s property was worth 150 zuz at the time of his death. Although its value rose afterwards to 200, the woman is entitled to only 150, because that was its value at the time of her husband’s death.

This is one of the conditions of a woman’s ketubah.

Landed property that was owned by a man at the time of his marriage or acceptance of a financial obligation is considered to be on lien to his wife or to his creditor. Even if it is sold to another person, the debt can be collected from it, if the person or his estate has no other property, as stated in Halachah 10. (See also Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh, Chapter 19.) As mentioned in Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 21:1, a creditor is entitled to collect not only the property itself, but also any increment in its value, whether an increment that comes naturally, or even one that results because of effort on the part of the purchaser. A woman is not, however, given this privilege with regard to the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.

I.e., the woman’s ketubah mentioned 200 silver coins without specifying the type of coin, and there was a difference between the value of the silver coins used in the country where the ketubah was written and those used in the country where the divorce takes place. If this were a loan contract, we would say that the intent is the coins of the country in which the loan was given. As a leniency to the husband, however, the law is different with regard to a ketubah, and he is obligated to pay only the lesser of the two values.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 100:5) state that this law applies only when the value of the money the woman receives is not less than 100 zuz of the Talmudic period for a non-virgin, and 200 zuz for a virgin.

Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 4:11.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that this ruling reflects a difference in the socio-economic status of the Jewish people. Land was commonly owned in the Talmudic period, and hence a woman would not feel secure unless the obligation of her ketubah were supported by land. In contrast, the ownership of land was less common in the era of the geonim. Movable property, thus, rose in importance, and a woman would feel secure even when an obligation was supported only by movable property.

See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 8:12.

Since it was accepted by the majority of the Jewish people, it should be adhered to. See, however, the following halachot.

I.e., in certain places this practice was not followed. Although the Rambam maintains that the sons should be granted that privilege, their rights should not be extended beyond their original scope.

The Rambam’s opinion is accepted by many authorities. Nevertheless, there are dissenting views. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 111:14) mentions both views without appearing to favor either one.

See the Rambam’s text of the ketubah, Hilchot Yibbum 4:33.

A person has the license to bind his estate to a particular obligation, although he would not be required to pay it by law. Once he makes such a commitment, his estate is bound by it.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that in the Rambam’s era, the observance of this ordinance had not spread throughout the entire Jewish world. Note the introduction to the Mishneh Torah which states that, in contrast to the ordinances of the Sages of the Talmud, an ordinance instituted by the geonim is not binding unless its observance has spread throughout the entire Jewish people.
The Chelkat Mechokek 100:2 and the Beit Shmuel 100:2 emphasize that the observance of this ordinance spread in the subsequent generations, and it is now universal Jewish practice. Therefore, it is binding even when it was not explicitly stated in the ketubah, and the husband’s heirs claim that he was unaware of it.

If, however, the husband or his estate possesses property that has not been sold, neither the woman nor another creditor may expropriate property that has already been sold (Gittin 5:2).

Rashi, the Ramban and the Rashba state that when an oath is made outside the court, God’s name is not mentioned, and a Torah scroll is not held. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 96:19) quotes this view. The Maggid Mishneh states, however, that the fact that the Rambam does not mention such a distinction indicates that he does not accept this concept.

Gittin 35a explains that since a widow carries out certain activities on behalf of the heirs of her deceased husband’s estate (who are, in most instances, her children), she feels free to take certain articles belonging to the estate, without taking this into consideration. Hence, she might be ready to take an oath that she did not benefit from the estate, when in fact she did. Since the sin of — and the punishment for — taking a false oath is very harsh, our Sages wished to reduce this severity by having the oath administered outside the court.

I.e., the woman will vow never to eat bread on the condition that she benefited from property belonging to the estate. Breaking a vow is considered a less severe transgression than taking a false oath.

Since the woman’s second husband has the option of annulling any vows made by his wife, it is possible that she will take a false vow, relying on her husband to nullify it (Gittin 35b).

Our Sages required the woman to take an oath because they were not sure that she made a complete account of the money she received. Requiring her to take an oath insures that she will, in fact, be careful regarding this account (Ketubot 87b).

The fact that witnesses were made to observe payment of one portion of the ketubah is no proof that a second payment was not made without being observed by witnesses.

The fact that she appears precise in reporting what she admits to having received is not proof that she has made a totally precise accounting (Ketubot, loc. cit.).
Similar laws apply to a creditor who states that he is actually owed a lesser amount than is stated in the contract of loan (Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 14:1).

Since the husband has only one witness to support his claim, and the woman’s claim is supported by her ketubah, she is entitled to collect her full claim. Nevertheless, because of the witness, an oath is required.

In contrast to a woman who diminishes the amount of money due her by virtue of her ketubah (Halachah 14), this woman does not admit receiving any funds. Hence, there is no need to require an oath so that she will make a careful account (Bayit Chadash, Even HaEzer 96).

Unless a specific statement was made to that effect, the stipulation that her husband accepted at the time of the composition of the ketubah applies only to himself and not to his heirs.

The Ra’avad maintains that the woman’s claim should be accepted without an oath. Since the husband made such a stipulation, it would have become public knowledge. Any person who purchased the property knew about the matter and accepted the risk. It is, however, the Rambam’s ruling that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.).

The fact that she maintained possession of her ketubah indicates that her delay in presenting her claim does not indicate a willingness to forego it.

This distinction is, however, relevant in Halachah 23.

For perhaps she has already received the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, or she has waived payment of this debt.

In the Talmudic period, there were places where it was not customary to compose a written document spelling out the marriage contract. Nevertheless, it was understood by both the husband and the wife that the financial dimensions of their marriage would be governed by the rules expressed in our Sages’ requirements for the ketubah.

When the husband claims to have paid the woman her due, he must prove his assertion. Otherwise, the woman’s claim is accepted (Maggid Mishneh).

This amount is granted the woman voluntarily by her husband and is not required by Jewish law. Therefore, unless the woman has proof that the commitment was made, she is not entitled to collect anything from her husband (Maggid Mishneh).
The Tur (Even HaEzer 100) states that even if a woman can prove that her husband made a commitment for an additional amount to her at the time of the marriage, she must also prove that this commitment was not met.

The Tur (Even HaEzer 101) maintains that the Rambam’s wording indicates that even if she remains silent, she foregoes only the essential requirement of the ketubah, but not the additional commitment that her husband made. However, Rav Yosef Caro dismisses this interpretation in the Kessef Mishneh and does not mention it in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 101).

As reflected in the conclusion of this halachah, although a widow has the right to continue dwelling in her deceased husband’s home, the heirs also have the right to dwell there. Since she is deriving her subsistence from them, she is ashamed to demand payment of her due from them.

Or she remarries (Rama, Even HaEzer 101:1).

Objections to this statement are raised by the Ra’avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen and others. The claim for which the husband is required to take an oath involves a liability for which landed property is under lien. In such instances, a Scriptural oath is never administered. The Tur (Even HaEzer 96) and others, therefore, maintain that a Rabbinic oath (sh’vuat hesset) is administered.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam is referring to an instance in his time, when, as stated in Halachot 8-9, the lien of the ketubah applies to movable as well as landed property. Nevertheless, the Maggid Mishneh’s explanation is challenged by other authorities, and even the Maggid Mishneh himself raises questions. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 96:16) mentions both opinions.

As in all cases of Torah law, the testimony of two witnesses is required in this instance. The Maggid Mishneh states that according to the Rambam, both of these witnesses may have witnessed the events under consideration when they were minors. In both the Kessef Mishneh and in the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), Rav Yosef Caro differs and states that it is acceptable if one of these witnesses observed the events as a minor, but the other must have been past majority at that time.

Generally, a witness’s testimony is not accepted unless he is past majority — not only at the time he testifies in court, but also at the time he sees the event under discussion. In this instance, however, leniency is granted, because we rely on the fact that, by and large, most women are virgins when they marry. Moreover, the obligation of the ketubah is a point of Rabbinic Law (Ketubot 28a; Hilchot Edut 14:3).

For if a ketubah was composed, the text of the ketubah will clarify the matter. There is, however, an instance where this ruling would be applicable in a place where it is customary to compose a ketubah: an instance where the woman brings witnesses who testify that her ketubah was lost (Maggid Mishneh).

The simple meaning of the Rambam’s words is that if a woman makes such a statement, she is free to marry another person. As in Chapter 4, Halachah 13, the Ra’avad differs, explaining that the woman’s statements are accepted only after the fact — i.e., after she has already married another person — and only insomuch as to require that other person to divorce her.

The Ra’avad and the Rama differ, as above.

The essential requirement of the ketubah is an obligation imposed by our Sages, granted so that she would have the means to marry another person in the case of divorce or widowhood. Hence, since she is granted the opportunity of remarrying in this instance, she is also entitled to the money due her by virtue of the ketubah. The additional amount, by contrast, is not an obligation, but rather a present promised by her husband. It is self-understood that he did not make this promise to enable her to marry another man, when he does not admit that a divorce took place (Maggid Mishneh).

The authorities who free the husband of obligation in the previous halachah also free him of all liability in this instance (Chelkat Mechokek 100:40; Beit Shmuel 100:40).

Halachot 21-22.

We assume that the man divorced his wife and did not pay her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. Afterwards, the couple remarried, and the husband subsequently divorced her a second time, without paying her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.

The laws that follow apply when the dates of both the ketubot precede the date of the bill of divorce, and thus it is apparent that the woman was divorced only once.

As mentioned previously, all of a husband’s property is under lien to the ketubah. Therefore, if he sells his landed property to others and he does not possess sufficient property after the divorce to give his wife her due, she may collect that money by expropriating property that was sold. In this instance, we say that the woman waived payment of her ketubah originally to free from the lien property that was sold. Afterwards, her husband wrote her a second ketubah for the same amount.

In this instance, we assume that the husband wrote the woman a second ketubah that would preempt the first one. In this instance, the woman has the choice of selecting which ketubah she desires — the one with the greater sum, or the one that is dated first and thus gives her greater power with regard to the expropriation of property that has been sold.

As reflected in the continuation of the Rambam’s statements, this refers to a situation in which the man divorced his wife and did not pay her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. Afterwards, he remarried her without composing a second ketubah.

We assume that her husband divorced her and did not pay her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. Afterwards, he remarried her and composed a ketubah.

As explained in Halachah 28.

We assume that her husband remarried her and incurred an obligation to pay her a second ketubah. The fact that he wrote a new ketubah after they remarried shows that he did not rely on the first ketubah.

Chapter 12, Halachah 15. (See also Hilchot Nachalot 7:2.)

I.e., the oath made by all widows before collecting the money due them by virtue of their ketubah (Maggid Mishneh; Kessef Mishneh), in contrast to the opinion of the Tur (Even HaEzer 100), who requires the woman to take an oath that her husband died. (See Chelkat Mechokek 17:83.)

This is a question that is left unresolved by the Talmud (Yevamot 117a). The Rambam rules that since the matter is very severe — if the woman remarries, and it is discovered that she lied, she will be prohibited to remain married to both her first or second husbands, and her children from her second husband will be considered illegitimate — and if her first husband is alive, it is likely that the fact will be discovered — in theory, the woman should be allowed to remarry. Because she mentions her ketubah, however, there is a doubt, and because of the doubt, the money in question is allowed to remain in the hands of the party in whose possession it is at the time the question is raised — i.e., the heirs. That doubt, however, applies only to the financial dimension of the relationship, and not to the permission to remarry (Kessef Mishneh).
Rabbenu Asher differs and maintains that the doubt raised by the Talmud also applies with regard to the woman’s permission to remarry. Both opinions are mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 17:44), although it appears that the Rambam’s approach is favored.