Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Ketubot 52b states that an allusion to this concept can be found in Jeremiah 29:6: ‘‘Give your daughters to men.’’ Our Sages ask ‘‘Is it possible for a father to initiate marriage proceedings?’’ And they explain that the intent of the verse is that a man should provide his daughter with a dowry attractive enough for a man to desire her.

I.e., 50 zuz, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

From the Rambam’s wording, it appears that one tenth is the average, but that if a man is known to be generous, his daughter may be given more than a tenth. The Rama (Even HaEzer 113:1) mentions the opinion of certain authorities who maintain that a girl should never be given more than a tenth of the estate, but states that the common practice is not to follow this view.

The dowry is given to the daughter only when she prepares to marry, not beforehand. Nevertheless, she is given a tenth of the value of the estate at the time of her father’s death, regardless of its present value (Maggid Mishneh; Rama, Even HaEzer 113:4).

I.e., even according to the Sages who ordained that the payment of the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah may come from movable property (Chapter 16, Halachah 8), the payment of the dowry is from landed property alone.

Based on the wording of Halachah 12, the Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam’s opinion is that the movable property in the estate is not included in the calculation of the size of the estate on which the amount of the dowry is based. Rav Moshe HaCohen and Rabbenu Asher differ, emphasizing that although the dowry allotment is not collected from movable property, the movable property is included in this appraisal. Both authorities agree, however, that if an assessment is made of the amount that the father would have given his daughter, that assessment includes the movable property in the estate.

This refers to rent due the father for landed property that was uncollected at the time of his death. The Rama (loc. cit.) states that if the heirs have already collected the rental fee, they are not obligated to give it to their sister.

That she has not received any of the estate.

Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 14:1, 19:1.

The rationale is that it is known that a girl is entitled to receive a dowry, and the purchasers of the property of the estate should have taken precautions before buying the property.

Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 18:1.

Ketubot 69a explains that the rationale for this ruling is that the daughter has received a far larger portion of the estate than she could have hoped for.

The Rambam’s opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 113:8). The

The provisions of the ketubah — e.g., the support of the daughters — become binding at the time of the marriage, and the man’s statements have no effect regarding them (Chapter 19, Halachah 13). The dowry, by contrast, is a gift that we assume a man would make. Therefore if he explicitly states that he does not desire that it be made, his wishes are heeded.

Chapter 19, Halachah 21.

The Chelkat Mechokek 113:17 and the Beit Shmuel 113:16 state that the same ruling applies with regard to the daughters. I.e., if there are older daughters who wish to collect their dowry and marry, and younger daughters who still have to receive support from the estate, the younger daughters are entitled to object to the property being given to their sisters. The rationale is that the support for the widow and for the daughters is considered to be a debt owed by the estate, while their dowry is considered to be a debt owed by the heirs.

Once the widow has remarried or received payment for her ketubah, the daughter is entitled to inherit the tenth of the estate that should have been given to her. Even when she has already married, her brothers are required to give her these funds from the remainder of the estate.

At times a woman’s husband is considered to be a purchaser of the property he inherits from his wife, and at times an heir. If he were considered to be a purchaser, he would be entitled to take possession of the dowry due his wife, for a widow is not entitled to collect her support from property that has been sold. Nevertheless, in this instance, out of consideration for the widow, our Sages considered him like an heir and thus enabled the widow to continue receiving her sustenance (Bava Batra 139b).

The Maggid Mishneh cites this phrase as proof that the tenth of the estate set aside as a dowry is expropriated from landed property alone.

See the following halachah.

And thus the fact that she did not object at the time of the marriage is not significant. The Maggid Mishneh adds that even if the girl did not object immediately at the time she reached majority, she is entitled to object afterwards. This decision is quoted by the Rama (Even HaEzer 113:7).

Rabbenu Asher writes that a girl who reached the age of bagrut in her father’s lifetime is not entitled to a dowry from her brothers. The later Ashkenazic authorities (see Beit Shmuel 113:19) state, however, that this ruling is not applied.

Chapter 19, Halachah 10.

Hence, she is ashamed to come to them with this request (Ketubot 68b).

Implied is that once a bogeret marries without demanding her dowry, she has forfeited it even though her brothers continue to provide her with her sustenance (Maggid Mishneh). In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro writes that if the brothers of a na’arah continue to provide her with her sustenance after marriage, she does not forfeit her dowry, even if she does not protest. Although his wording in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 113:7) is slightly problematic, the later authorities explain that this is his intent. A source for both the statements of the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh can be seen in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ketubot 6:6).

We assume that the father’s intent was that the money should be entrusted to a third party only until after her marriage (Rashi, Ketubot 69b).

For it is a mitzvah to carry out the directives of a person who dies, even if he was healthy at the time he gave these directives (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:5).

We assume that the father’s intent was to safeguard his daughter and her husband against wasting the funds intended for them.

The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 54:1) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Rama refers to this ruling in Choshen HaMishpat 252:2, which states that this applies only if the funds were specifically entrusted to the third party for this purpose by the deceased at the time he made this statement. If they came into his possession afterwards, the concept that it is a mitzvah to carry out the directives of a person who dies does not apply.