Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

This and the laws that follow are relevant only in situations where a man has children from two different wives and he did not divorce the wives before their death. When a man’s wives die before he does, he inherits their nedunyah and is not required to pay them the money due them by virtue of their ketubot. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that a woman’s children should benefit from her investment in the household and the commitment made to her. Hence, before the father’s estate is divided among all the heirs, the children of each of his wives are entitled to receive the monies mentioned above.

Note the statements of the Rama (Even HaEzer 111:16), who states that this practice is not followed in the present age. The rationale is that the practice was instituted in the Talmudic era to encourage a father to give his daughter a generous nedunyah. (For because of this practice, he can be assured that the money he gives will remain within his family.) In the present age, however, this encouragement is not necessary, for it has become customary for parents to endow their daughters generously before marriage.

As the Rambam stated in Chapter 16, Halachah 7, the children’s inheritance of the money due their mother by virtue of her ketubah applies only when there is enough landed property remaining in the estate to pay for both ketubot.

I.e., once the woman took the oath required of her, the money due her by virtue of her ketubah is considered to be justly hers. Her children then inherit her property.

In this instance, they are entitled to inherit the money due their mother by virtue of her ketubah even if the estate is not large enough to allow for the division of the inheritance according to Scriptural Law afterwards (Ketubot 91a; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 111:8).

Since the woman did not take the oath required of a widow, there is room to suspect that her husband already gave her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, or that she took possession of it herself. Therefore, her sons are not entitled to collect her ketubah.

Nor are the sons entitled to inherit the money due their mothers by virtue of their ketubot based on the provision mentioned above, because this is applicable only when the woman dies in her husband’s lifetime.

The sons of the widow who did not take the oath are not entitled to inherit the money due their mother by virtue of her ketubah.

See Chapter 21, Halachah 18, which states that the daughters are granted this right even when their father divorced their mother before his death, and they took up residence with their mother.

Once the daughter is consecrated by a husband, her support is no longer the responsibility of her father’s estate. (See also Halachah 15.)

During a man’s lifetime, he is required only to provide his daughters with their sustenance until the age of six (Chapter 12, Halachah 14). After his death, however, they are entitled to support until the age of twelve and a half.

From the Rambam’s wording, it would appear that he maintains that a girl forfeits her right to support if she becomes consecrated while she is a minor. This ruling is not universally accepted by the Rishonim. The Maggid Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Chananel and the Rashba as saying that she does not forfeit this right in such an instance. The Tur (Even HaEzer 112) mentions a third view: that if she consecrates herself, she forfeits her support, but if her brothers are involved in her consecration, she is still entitled to support. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 112:3) quotes the Rambam’s view, while the Rama mentions the other opinions.

Although during his lifetime, her father is entitled to her earnings and the objects she discovers, this right is not given to his sons. The rationale is that the father would prefer for his daughter to receive her own earnings than to have them given to his sons.

Although a widow is not required to take an oath when collecting her support, this is because she is required to take an oath when she collects the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. Therefore, one might think that a daughter would be required to take such an oath. Indeed, the Beit Shmuel 112:15, based on the statements of Tosafot, requires that such an oath be taken.

The Ra’avad and the Maggid Mishneh question the Rambam’s ruling with regard to the support the man’s daughters receive for their sustenance. They maintain that this support is not dependent on whether the mother receives the money due her by virtue of her ketubah (and therefore, the waiver of that payment has no effect). The Rambam’s opinion appears to be based on his statements in Chapter 17, Halachah 19, in which he states that a woman who waives payment of her ketubah forgoes all the provisions of her ketubah. The Shulchan Aruch does not mention this issue and the Rama (Even HaEzer 112:1) cites the opinion of the Ra’avad.

The rationale is that the obligation took effect at the time of his marriage and he is incapable of negating it at a later time.

An oral will refers to a person’s disposition of his property verbally before his death. As explained in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, Chapter 8, our Sages ordain that such a disposition of property is acceptable.

Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 8:8. (See also Hilchot Nachalot 8:9.)

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam with regard to the rights of a person’s sons and daughters. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 111:17) follows the Rambam’s view.

This ruling has been contested by other authorities on several grounds. First, the Ra’avad challenges the Rambam, asking: how is it possible for a girl who nullifies her marriage through mi’un to have a child? By definition, mi’un is possible when a girl is a k’tanah, a minor (see Chapter 4, Halachah 7), and while she is a minor it is impossible for her to conceive a child. He explains that Ketubot 53b is speaking about a girl who leaves her husband through mi’un — she is entitled to return to her deceased father’s home and receive support for her sustenance.
Second, the Maggid Mishneh accepts the fact that a girl can conceive a child while a minor, but asks: Since the mother nullifies the marriage through mi’un, it is as if her husband had never had any obligations to her at all. Her ketubah and all of its provisions are nullified entirely. Why then is his estate liable for the support of his daughter after his death? See the Beit Shmuel 112:11 for a possible explanation.

When a man dies childless, his brother (the yavam) inherits his entire estate, and that estate is responsible for the ketubah of the yevamah (the widow who is married by the yavam). If a yevamah bears a girl, the deceased brother’s estate is not liable for the girl’s support after her father’s (the yavam’s) death, for she is not the daughter of the deceased brother. Nor is the yavam’s estate responsible for her support, for he never gave a ketubah to the yevamah.

Since the mother’s marriage is forbidden, our Sages did not grant her a ketubah.

Who was born before the couple entered the phase of nisu’in (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.). Since the ketubah takes effect only after nisu’in, this daughter is not entitled to support.

The term anusah refers to a virgin who was raped. The rapist is required to marry her and is forbidden to divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:28). Since he is forbidden to divorce her, she is not granted a ketubah.

The Beit Shmuel 112:6 interprets the Rambam’s wording as implying that after the girl reaches the age of bagrut, she is required to support herself.
The Beit Shmuel also mentions that other Rishonim interpret Ketubot 53b, the source for this halachah, differently. According to their interpretation, the husband is not liable for the girl’s support. If the husband desires, continues the Beit Shmuel, he may rely on this opinion.

It is as if he had made a commitment to support her when he consecrated her.

The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 112:4) cites the Rambam’s view. The Rama differs, however, citing the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, who maintains that from the time a girl becomes consecrated after her father’s death, and onward, she is not entitled to support from his estate.

The estate is given to them and they may use it as they see fit. They are, however, forbidden to sell the property except in an extreme situation — e.g., to use the proceeds to redeem captives (Rama, Even HaEzer 112:11). Moreover, if the court sees that the sons are spending lavishly and abusing the resources of the estate, they should set aside the daughters’ portion.

They are entrusted to a guardian appointed by the court.

For it is more common for males to beg for alms than for females to do so (Ketubot 67a).

The Rama (Even HaEzer 112:12) states that according to the custom to include within the ketubah a clause stating that the obligations of the estate are binding on movable property as well, the estate is considered to be meager and the support for the daughters is set aside.

I.e., the property should remain in the possession of the sons, and they must continue to provide for their sisters’ sustenance. It is not expropriated from the sons and given to a guardian.

The Maggid Mishneh mentions a difference of opinion with regard to the interpretation of the word ‘‘afterwards.’’ Rashi (Ketubot 91a) maintains that this means ‘‘after the man’s death, but before the matter is brought to the court and a guardian appointed.’’ Others (Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and the Rashba) maintain that even after a guardian is appointed, the property can be given to the heirs if its value increases.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 112:14) quotes the Rambam’s wording without relating to this issue. The Rama mentions the latter view.

The opinion of Tosafot, et al. is that even if the property has been entrusted to a guardian, if it is sold by the heirs the sale is binding. The Rama (loc. cit.), however, appears to follow the view that the sale is binding only before the property has been entrusted to a guardian.
According to Rabbenu Asher, the daughters have no lien on the money received from the sale. Although Rav Hai Gaon differs, it appears that Rabbenu Asher’s view is favored (Chelkat Mechokek 112:30).

See Chapter 23, Halachah 17.

The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 112:15) states that the payment of the money due the widow by virtue of her ketubah is, however, considered in determining whether the estate is ample or not.

This ruling entitles the sons to derive their sustenance from the estate together with the daughters until the funds are depleted.

According to the Rambam, the property set aside for the widow’s support should be given to a third party and he should follow the guidelines set in Chapter 18, Halachah 21 (Maggid Mishneh)
There are opinions that maintain that property is set aside for the widow’s support only when there is a son and a daughter, and the estate is too meager to support both of them. In that instance, since property is being set aside for the daughters’ support, and the widow takes precedence over the daughters, property is also set aside for her. When property is not required to be set aside for the daughters, it is not set aside for the widow’s support either. Instead, she, the daughters and the sons, all derive their sustenance from the estate together.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 93:4) mentions both opinions, and the Beit Shmuel 93:9 states that the latter view is favored by most authorities. This difference of opinion also leads to another (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 112:15): Does the obligation to support the widow cause the estate to be considered meager or not? According to the Rambam it does, but according to the other authorities, it does not.