Get the best of content every week!
Find answers to fascinating Jewish questions, enjoy holiday tips and guides, read real-life stories and more!

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Ishut - Chapter Twenty, Ishut - Chapter Twenty One, Ishut - Chapter Twenty Two

Classes on 3 Chapters Rambam
Show content in:

Ishut - Chapter Twenty


Our Sages decreed that a man give a certain portion of his holdings to his daughter as a dowry.1 This is referred to as parnasah. When [a man] marries off his daughter, he should provide her with at least the wardrobe that is given to the wife of a poor Jewish man, as we have explained.2

When does the above apply? When [the bride's] father is poor. If he is wealthy, he should provide for his daughter according to his standards.


צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּתֵּן אָדָם מִנְּכָסָיו מְעַט לְבִתּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּנָּשֵׂא בּוֹ וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא פַּרְנָסָה. הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת בִּתּוֹ סְתָם לֹא יִפְחֹת לָהּ מִכְּסוּת שֶׁפּוֹסְקִין לְאֵשֶׁת עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהָיָה הָאָב עָנִי אֲבָל אִם הָיָה עָשִׁיר הֲרֵי זֶה רָאוּי לִתֵּן לָהּ כְּפִי עָשְׁרוֹ:


If a father explicitly tells the prospective husband that his daughter does not possess anything, and that [his intent is that] he marry her although she does not possess a wardrobe, [the bride] is not entitled to anything of her father's.

[In such a situation, the prospective] husband should not say: "When she comes to my home, I will provide her with a wardrobe." Instead, he should provide her with a wardrobe while she is living in her father's home.


פֵּירֵשׁ עַל הַבַּעַל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ כְּלוּם וְשֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנָּה עֲרֻמָּה אֵין לָהּ כְּלוּם. וְלֹא יֹאמַר הַבַּעַל כְּשֶׁתָּבוֹא לְבֵיתִי אֲכַסֶּנָּה אֶלָּא מְכַסֶּנָּה וְהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ:


When a father dies and leaves [at least one son and] a daughter [she is provided with a dowry from his estate]. We estimate what the father would have desired to give the daughter as a dowry, and she is given [that sum].

How is it possible to arrive at such an estimate? [We survey the habits of] his friends and acquaintances, his business affairs and his standard of living. If he married off a daughter during his lifetime, we base our estimate [on what she was given]. If the court is unable to determine what he would have desired [to give his daughter], she is given a tenth of his estate as a dowry.3


הָאָב שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בַּת אוֹמְדִין דַּעְתּוֹ כַּמָּה הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לִתֵּן לָהּ לְפַרְנָסָה וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ. וּמִנַּיִן יוֹדְעִין אֻמְדַּן דַּעְתּוֹ. מֵרֵעָיו וּמְיֻדָּעָיו וּמַשָּׂאוֹ וּמַתָּנוֹ וּכְבוֹדוֹ. וְכֵן אִם הִשִּׂיא בַּת בְּחַיָּיו אוֹמְדִין בָּהּ. וְאִם לֹא יָדְעוּ לוֹ בֵּית דִּין אֻמְדַּן דַּעַת נוֹתְנִין לָהּ מִנְּכָסָיו עִשּׂוּר לְפַרְנָסָתָהּ:


When a man leaves [a son and] many daughters, the first [daughter] who desires to marry4 is given a tenth of the estate. The second [daughter to marry] receives a tenth of what was left after providing the first [daughter with her dowry]. And the third daughter receives a tenth of what was left after providing the second [daughter].

If all [a man's] daughters come to marry at the same time, [money is set aside for them according to the above pattern,] even if there are ten daughters [or more]. Afterwards, [all the allotments are pooled], and then divided equally among the daughters. The remainder of the estate is given to the sons.


הִנִּיחַ בָּנוֹת רַבּוֹת כָּל שֶׁתָּבוֹא לְהִנָּשֵׂא נוֹתְנִין לָהּ עִשּׂוּר הַנְּכָסִים. וְשֶׁלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ עִשּׂוּר מַה שֶׁשִּׁיְּרָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. וְשֶׁל אַחֲרֶיהָ עִשּׂוּר מַה שֶׁשִּׁיְּרָה שְׁנִיָּה. וְאִם בָּאוּ כֻּלָּן לְהִנָּשֵׂא כְּאַחַת רִאשׁוֹנָה נוֹטֶלֶת עִשּׂוּר. וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה עִשּׂוּר מַה שֶּׁשִּׁיְּרָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית עִשּׂוּר מַה שֶּׁשִּׁיְּרָה שְׁנִיָּה וְכֵן אֲפִלּוּ הֵן עֶשֶׂר וְחוֹזְרוֹת וְחוֹלְקוֹת כָּל הָעִשּׂוּרִים בְּשָׁוֶה. וּשְׁאָר הַנְּכָסִים לַאַחִים:


The allotment of a tenth [of the estate] as a dowry is not one of the provisions of the ketubah. Therefore, even according to the enactment of the later Sages,5 it is only to be collected from landed property.6 It may, however, be collected from rent due for landed property.7 If, however, [a girl's] brothers desire to give her money in lieu of a tenth of the landed property, they have that right.


עִשּׂוּר זֶה שֶׁהוּא לְפַרְנָסָה אֵינוֹ מִתְּנָאֵי כְּתֻבָּה לְפִיכָךְ אֲפִלּוּ לְפִי תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים (הָרִאשׁוֹנִים) וְאַחֲרוֹנִים אֵינָהּ נוֹטֶלֶת אֶלָּא מִן הַקַּרְקַע וְיֵשׁ לָהּ לִגְבּוֹת עִשּׂוּר זֶה מִשְּׂכִירוּת הַקַּרְקַע וְאִם רָצוּ הָאַחִין לִתֵּן לָהּ מָעוֹת כְּנֶגֶד עִשּׂוּר הַקַּרְקַע נוֹתְנִין:


With regard to this allotment of a tenth [of the estate], the daughter is considered to be a creditor of her brothers. Therefore, she is entitled to collect it from property of intermediate quality. An oath is not required of her.

If her brothers die, she is entitled to collect it from their sons, [expropriating] property of inferior quality, and an oath8 is required of her. For she is collecting property from heirs, and [it is an accepted principle that] a person who comes to collect property from heirs may collect only from that of inferior quality and is required to take an oath [before doing so], as will be explained in the laws of loans.9


הַבַּת בְּעִשּׂוּר זֶה כְּבַעֲלַת חוֹב שֶׁל אַחִין הִיא לְפִיכָךְ נוֹטֶלֶת אוֹתוֹ מִן הַבֵּינוֹנִית בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. וְאִם מֵתוּ הָאַחִין נוֹטֶלֶת אוֹתוֹ מִן בְּנֵיהֶם מִזִּבּוּרִית וּבִשְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא נִפְרַעַת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים וְהַבָּא לִפָּרַע מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא מִזִּבּוּרִית וּבִשְׁבוּעָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת הַלְוָאָה:


Should her brothers have sold the landed property of their father's estate, or given it as collateral, the daughter may collect her dowry from the purchasers,10 just as other creditors are entitled to collect from the purchasers, as will be explained in the laws of loans.11


וְהָאַחִים שֶׁמָּכְרוּ אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנוּ קַרְקַע אֲבִיהֶם הַבַּת טוֹרֶפֶת מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת פַּרְנָסָתָהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁטּוֹרְפִים כָּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת הַלְוָאָה:


When a man has [several daughters, but] no sons, [his estate] is divided equally [among his daughters at the time of his death]. Although he married off the older daughters during his lifetime [and provided them with dowries], we do not grant dowries to the younger daughters and then divide the estate.


מִי שֶׁהִשִּׂיא בָּנוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת וְנִשְׁאֲרוּ קְטַנּוֹת וּמֵת בְּלֹא בֵּן אֵין נוֹטְלִין פַּרְנָסָה לִקְטַנּוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוֹלְקוֹת הַנְּכָסִים אֶלָּא חוֹלְקוֹת כֻּלָּן בְּשָׁוֶה:


[The following rules apply when a man] has died, leaving two daughters and a son. The older daughter received a tenth of the estate as a dowry, but before the younger daughter had collected her dowry, the son died [without leaving any heirs], and [the two sisters] inherited the entire estate. [In this situation,] the younger sister is not entitled to her tenth of the estate.12 Instead, the entire estate is divided equally, but the older sister is granted the tenth [she had received previously].13


מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ שְׁתֵּי בָּנוֹת וּבֵן וְקָדְמָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְנָטְלָה עִשּׂוּר נְכָסִים וְלֹא הִסְפִּיקָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה לִגְבּוֹת עַד שֶׁמֵּת הַבֵּן וְנָפְלוּ כָּל הַנְּכָסִים לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן אֵין הַשְּׁנִיָּה נוֹטֶלֶת עִשּׂוּר אֶלָּא חוֹלְקוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְזָכְתָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בְּעִשּׂוּר שֶׁלָּהּ:


When a man gives an order at the time of his death: "Do not give my daughters a dowry from my estate," his words are heeded. [The rationale is that a dowry] is not one of the provisions of a ketubah.14


מִי שֶׁצִּוָּה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה אַל תְּפַרְנְסוּ בְּנוֹתַי מִנְּכָסַי שׁוֹמְעִים לוֹ שֶׁאֵין זֶה מִתְּנָאֵי כְּתֻבָּה:


[The following rules apply when] a man dies, leaving a widow and a daughter. It has already been explained15 that the support of a man's widow16 takes precedence over the support of his daughter. Similarly, if the daughter marries, she is not entitled to collect her tenth [of the estate], because of [the obligation to] support the widow.17

Even if the daughter dies after she marries, her husband is not entitled to inherit the dowry that should have been given her.18 For the entire estate is considered to be in the possession of the widow so that she can derive her sustenance.


מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ אַלְמָנָה וּבַת כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁמְּזוֹנוֹת הָאַלְמָנָה קוֹדְמִין לִמְזוֹנוֹת הַבַּת. וְכֵן אִם נִשֵּׂאת הַבַּת אֵינָהּ נוֹטֶלֶת עִשּׂוּר נְכָסִים מִפְּנֵי מְזוֹנוֹת הָאַלְמָנָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵתָה הַבַּת אַחַר שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת אֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ פַּרְנָסָה הָרְאוּיָה לְהִנָּתֵן לָהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי הַנְּכָסִים כֻּלָּן בְּחֶזְקַת הָאַלְמָנָה שֶׁתְּהֵא נִזּוֹנֶת מֵהֶן:


When an orphan girl is married off by her brothers or her mother as a child with her consent, and she is given 50 or 100 zuz as a dowry, she is entitled to collect the dowry that is due her - according to the estimation of her father's desires or one tenth of the landed property19 [of his estate] - from them after she attains the age of majority.

[This applies] even if her brothers did not provide her with sustenance,20 and even if she did not object at the time of the wedding. For a minor is not capable of making an objection [in court].21


קְטַנָּה יְתוֹמָה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָתָהּ אִמָּהּ אוֹ אַחֶיהָ לְדַעְתָּהּ וְנָתְנוּ לָהּ מֵאָה אוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז יְכוֹלָה הִיא מִשֶּׁתַּגְדִּיל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם פַּרְנָסָה הָרְאוּיָה לָהּ. אוֹ בְּאֻמְדַּן דַּעַת הָאָב אוֹ בְּעִשּׂוּר הַקַּרְקָעוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא הָיוּ הָאַחִין זָנִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מָחֲתָה בִּשְׁעַת נִשּׂוּאִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקְּטַנָּה אֵינָהּ בַּת מְחָאָה:


When a daughter marries after she reaches majority - whether as a na'arah or as a bogeret - and does not demand her dowry, she forfeits her dowry. If, however, she protested at the time of her marriage, she may collect her due whenever she desires.

[A further point must be considered when] she reaches the age of bagrut and remains in her father's house - regardless of whether she reaches bagrut after his death, or [he died] when she had already reached the age of bagrut.22 If her brothers have already ceased providing her with her sustenance, which is their prerogative, as we have explained,23 and [the girl] remained silent and did not demand her dowry, she forfeits her dowry. If she protests, she does not forfeit her dowry.

If, however, her brothers had not ceased providing her with her sustenance [although] she reached bagrut, she is not considered to have forfeited her dowry as long as they continue to provide her with her sustenance, even though she did not protest. For she can claim that she did not demand her dowry because [her brothers] are supporting her although they are not obligated to do so,24 and she has not yet married.25


נִשֵּׂאת הַבַּת אַחַר שֶׁגָּדְלָה בֵּין נַעֲרָה בֵּין בּוֹגֶרֶת וְלֹא תָּבְעָה פַּרְנָסָתָהּ אִבְּדָה פַּרְנָסָתָהּ. וְאִם מִחֲתָה בְּעֵת נִשּׂוּאֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ מוֹצִיאָה אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהּ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁתִּרְצֶה. בָּגְרָה וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ בֵּין שֶׁבָּגְרָה אַחַר מוֹתוֹ בֵּין שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ בּוֹגֶרֶת אִם פָּסְקוּ הָאַחִין מִלָּתֵת מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְשָׁתְקָה וְלֹא תָּבְעָה פַּרְנָסָתָהּ אִבְּדָה פַּרְנָסָתָהּ. וְאִם מִחֲתָה לֹא אִבְּדָה פַּרְנָסָתָהּ. לֹא פָּסְקוּ הָאַחִים מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ וְזָנוּ אוֹתָהּ בְּבֶגֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מִחֲתָה לֹא אִבְּדָה פַּרְנָסָתָהּ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן זָנִין אוֹתָהּ. שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ לִטְעֹן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן זָנִין אוֹתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן חַיָּבִין וְהִיא עֲדַיִן לֹא נִשֵּׂאת מִפְּנֵי זֶה לֹא תָּבְעָה פַּרְנָסָתָהּ:


[The following rules apply when a man] stated - whether while making an oral will before death or while healthy - that his daughter should be given a specific sum of money as a dowry, and that this sum should be used to purchase landed property, and [then] died [afterwards].

When the money is in the possession of a third party and the daughter states: "Give the money to my husband and let him do with it as he desires," [the third party should do as follows]. If [the daughter] has reached the age of majority and has married, she is granted this prerogative.26If she is [past majority, but merely] consecrated, the third party should follow the instructions he was given.27 And if she is a minor, even if she is already married, her request is not heeded.28Instead, the third party should carry out her father's instructions.29


מִי שֶׁצִּוָּה לָתֵת לְבִתּוֹ כָּךְ וְכָךְ מָעוֹת לְפַרְנָסָתָהּ לִקַּח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה שְׁכִיב מֵרַע בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בָּרִיא וּמֵת וַהֲרֵי הַמָּעוֹת בְּיַד הַשָּׁלִישׁ וְאָמְרָה הַבַּת תְּנוּ אוֹתָם לְבַעְלִי כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהֶן. אִם הָיְתָה גְּדוֹלָה וְנִשֵּׂאת הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדָהּ. וְאִם עֲדַיִן מְאֹרֶסֶת הִיא יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלִישׁ מַה שֶּׁהֻשְׁלַשׁ בְּיָדוֹ. וְאִם עֲדַיִן קְטַנָּה הִיא אֲפִלּוּ נִשֵּׂאת אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ אֶלָּא יַעֲשֶׂה הַשָּׁלִישׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁצִּוָּה הָאָב:


Ketubot 52b states that an allusion to this concept can be found in Jeremiah 29:6: "Give your daughters to men." "Is it possible for a father to initiate marriage proceedings?" our Sages ask. 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 Ramah (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; Ramah, 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. Note, however, the opinion of Tosafot (Ketubot 51a), who differ and maintain that this allotment may also be collected from movable property.


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 Ramah (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 Ramah quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, who maintains that the second daughter is given her dowry and then the estate is divided.


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's 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 Ramah (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 Karo 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 on 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 Ramah 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.

Ishut - Chapter Twenty One


A husband is entitled to [any ownerless objects] discovered by [his] wife,1 and the proceeds of her labor.2 What [type of work] must she perform on his behalf? Everything follows the custom of the country. In a place where it is customary for women to weave, she should weave. [In a place where they] embroider, she should embroider. [In a place where they] spin wool or flax, she should spin.

If it is not customary for women in that place to perform these labors, he may compel her only to spin wool; [wool, but not flax,] because flax damages [a woman's] mouth and lips. [This occupation is chosen because] spinning is a task designated for women, as [implied by Exodus 35:25]: "And all the skilled women put their hands to spinning...."


מְצִיאַת הָאִשָּׁה וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְבַעְלָהּ. וּמַה הִיא עוֹשָׂה לוֹ. הַכּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. מָקוֹם שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לֶאֱרֹג אוֹרֶגֶת. לִרְקֹם רוֹקֶמֶת. לִטְווֹת צֶמֶר אוֹ פִּשְׁתִּים טוֹוָה. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה דֶּרֶךְ נְשֵׁי הָעִיר לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּל הַמְּלָאכוֹת הָאֵלּוּ אֵינוֹ כּוֹפָהּ אֶלָּא לִטְווֹת הַצֶּמֶר בִּלְבַד. שֶׁהַפִּשְׁתָּן מַזִּיק אֶת הַפֶּה וְאֶת הַשְּׂפָתַיִם וְהַטְּוִיָּה הִיא הַמְּלָאכָה הַמְיֻחֶדֶת לְנָשִׁים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות לה כה) "וְכָל אִשָּׁה חַכְמַת לֵב בְּיָדֶיהָ טָווּ":


If a woman exerts herself and produces more than would be expected of her,3 her husband is entitled to the extra amount.4

Even when her husband5 is very wealthy and even when the woman has several maids, she may not sit idle, without work. For idleness leads to lewdness. [Her husband] may not, however, compel her to work for the entire day. Instead, according to the extent of his wealth, her obligation to work is minimized.


דָּחֲקָה עַצְמָהּ וְעָשְׂתָה יוֹתֵר מִן הָרָאוּי לָהּ הַמּוֹתָר לַבַּעַל. הָיָה לוֹ מָמוֹן הַרְבֵּה אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה לָהּ כַּמָּה שְׁפָחוֹת אֵינָהּ יוֹשֶׁבֶת לְבַטָּלָה בְּלֹא מְלָאכָה שֶׁהַבַּטָּלָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי זִמָּה. אֲבָל אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ אֶלָּא לְפִי רֹב הַמָּמוֹן מְמַעֶטֶת בִּמְלָאכָה:


When a mantakes a vow that prevents his wife from doing any work at all, he is obligated to divorce her and pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah. [The rationale is that] idleness leads to lewdness.6

Every wife is obligated [to perform the following household tasks] on behalf of her husband: to wash his face, feet and hands, to pour him beverages, to make his bed,7 and to do his bidding - e.g., to bring him water or a utensil, to remove an article from his presence, or to perform similar tasks. She is not, however, required to do the bidding of his father or his son.


הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תַּעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה כְּלָל יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה שֶׁהַבַּטָּלָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי זִמָּה. וְכֵן כָּל אִשָּׁה רוֹחֶצֶת לְבַעְלָהּ פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּמוֹזֶגֶת לוֹ אֶת הַכּוֹס וּמַצַּעַת לוֹ אֶת הַמִּטָּה וְעוֹמֶדֶת וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בִּפְנֵי בַּעְלָהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁתִּתֵּן לוֹ מַיִם אוֹ כְּלִי אוֹ תִּטּל מִלְּפָנָיו וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ. אֲבָל אֵינָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בִּפְנֵי אָבִיו אוֹ בִּפְנֵי בְּנוֹ:


These tasks should be performed only by a man's wife alone.8 Even if she possesses several maids, these tasks are performed for a man only by his wife.


וּמְלָאכוֹת אֵלּוּ עוֹשָׂה אוֹתָן הִיא בְּעַצְמָהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ לָהּ כַּמָּה שְׁפָחוֹת אֵין עוֹשִׂין מְלָאכוֹת אֵלּוּ לַבַּעַל אֶלָּא אִשְׁתּוֹ:


There are other tasks that a woman performs for her husband when they are poor; they are: to bake bread in an oven9 - Ezra ordained that a woman get up early and bake bread so that there will be bread available to give the poor.

She should cook food, wash clothes, nurse her child, place straw before her husband's beast10 - but not before his cattle - and grind [flour].

What does grinding [flour] involve? [Not that the woman actually operates the mill herself,] but that she stays at the mill, sifts11the flour and prods the animal [who turns the mill], so that [the operation of] the mill will not be hampered. If it is the [local] custom, for women to grind [flour] using a hand mill, [a woman] should grind [flour in this manner].


יֵשׁ מְלָאכוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן עֲנִיִּים וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אוֹפָה הַפַּת בַּתַּנּוּר, וְעֶזְרָא תִּקֵּן שֶׁתִּהְיֶה אִשָּׁה מַשְׁכֶּמֶת וְאוֹפָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַפַּת מְצוּיָה לָעֲנִיִּים. וּמְבַשֶּׁלֶת אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁילִין. וּמְכַבֶּסֶת אֶת הַבְּגָדִים. וּמֵינִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ. וְנוֹתֶנֶת תֶּבֶן לִפְנֵי בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אֲבָל לֹא לִפְנֵי בְּקָרוֹ. וּמְטַחֶנֶת. כֵּיצַד מְטַחֶנֶת. יוֹשֶׁבֶת בָּרֵחַיִם וּמְשַׁמֶּרֶת הַקֶּמַח וְאֵינָהּ טוֹחֶנֶת. אוֹ מְחַמֶּרֶת אַחַר הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִבָּטְלוּ הָרֵחַיִם. וְאִם הָיָה דַּרְכָּן לִטְחֹן בְּרֵחַיִם שֶׁל יָד טוֹחֶנֶת:


When does the above apply? With regard to a poor [couple]. If, however, a woman brings a maid to [the household] or property with which a maid could be purchased, or if the man possesses a maid or funds with which a maid could be purchased, the wife is not required to grind [flour], to bake, to do laundry or to place straw before her husband's beast.

If the wife brings two maids to [the household] or property with which two maids could be purchased, or if the man possesses two maids or is [wealthy] enough to purchase two maids, the wife is not required to cook or to nurse her child. Instead, she gives him to a maid to nurse.12


בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בַּעֲנִיִּים אֲבָל אִם הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שִׁפְחָה אַחַת אוֹ נְכָסִים שֶׁרָאוּי לִקְנוֹת מֵהֶן שִׁפְחָה אַחַת אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שִׁפְחָה אַחַת אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מָמוֹן כְּדֵי לִקְנוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁפְחָה אַחַת אֵינָהּ מְטַחֶנֶת וְלֹא אוֹפָה וְלֹא מְכַבֶּסֶת וְלֹא נוֹתֶנֶת תֶּבֶן לִפְנֵי בְּהֶמְתּוֹ. הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שְׁתֵּי שְׁפָחוֹת אוֹ נְכָסִים הָרְאוּיִין לִקְנוֹת מֵהֶן שְׁתֵּי שְׁפָחוֹת אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי שְׁפָחוֹת אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה רָאוּי לִקְנוֹת שְׁתֵּי שְׁפָחוֹת אֵינָהּ מְבַשֶּׁלֶת וְאֵינָהּ מֵינִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ אֶלָּא נוֹתֶנֶת אוֹתוֹ לַשִּׁפְחָה לְהֵינִיק:


Thus, there are five tasks that every woman must perform on behalf of her husband: to spin [thread], to wash his face, hands and feet, to pour beverages for him, to make his bed and to do his bidding. And there are six tasks that some women perform and some women do not perform. They are: to grind [flour], to cook, to bake, to do laundry, to nurse, and to place straw before her husband's beast.


נִמְצְאוּ כָּל הַמְּלָאכוֹת שֶׁכָּל אִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה אוֹתָן לְבַעְלָהּ חָמֵשׁ מְלָאכוֹת. טוֹוָה וְרוֹחֶצֶת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּמוֹזֶגֶת אֶת הַכּוֹס וּמַצַּעַת אֶת הַמִּטָּה וְעוֹמֶדֶת וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּפָנָיו. וְהַמְּלָאכוֹת שֶׁמִּקְצָת הַנָּשִׁים עוֹשׂוֹת אוֹתָן וּמִקְצָתָן אֵינָן עוֹשׂוֹת שֵׁשׁ מְלָאכוֹת. מְטַחֶנֶת וּמְבַשֶּׁלֶת וְאוֹפָה וּמְכַבֶּסֶת וּמֵינִיקָה וְנוֹתֶנֶת תֶּבֶן לִפְנֵי בְּהֶמְתּוֹ:


All the tasks that a woman must perform on behalf of her husband must also be performed by a woman while she is in the niddah state, with the exception of pouring beverages, making his bed and washing his face, hands and feet. [The rationale for the exceptions is that] this is a decree, [enacted] lest [sexual] thoughts arise, and the husband be prompted to engage in relations.

Therefore, when she is in the niddah state, she should make his bed when he is not present. When pouring a beverage for him, she should not place it in his hand as is her usual practice, but rather leave it on the ground, on a utensil or on a table, and he will take it.13


כָּל מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ נִדָּה עוֹשֶׂה לְבַעְלָהּ חוּץ מִמְּזִיגַת הַכּוֹס וְהַצָּעַת הַמִּטָּה וְהַרְחָצַת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם הִרְהוּר שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִבְעל. לְפִיכָךְ מַצַּעַת מִטָּתוֹ כְּשֶׁהִיא נִדָּה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו וּמוֹזֶגֶת אֶת הַכּוֹס וְאֵינָהּ נוֹתֶנֶת אוֹתוֹ בְּיָדוֹ כְּדַרְכָּהּ תָּמִיד אֶלָּא מַנַּחַת אוֹתוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ אוֹ עַל הַכְּלִי אוֹ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְהוּא נוֹטְלוֹ:


When a woman breaks utensils while performing household tasks,14 she is not held liable. This ruling does not reflect the dictates of the law, but is instead an enactment [of our Sages]. For if this were not the case, there would never be peace in a household. For a woman would be overly cautious and would refrain from performing many tasks, and there would thus be strife between [the couple].15


הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁבְרָה כֵּלִים בְּעֵת שֶׁעָשְׂתָה מַלְאֲכוֹתֶיהָ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ פְּטוּרָה וְאֵין זֶה מִן הַדִּין אֶלָּא תַּקָּנָה שֶׁאִם אֵין אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן אֵין שָׁלוֹם בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא נִמְצֵאת נִזְהֶרֶת וְנִמְנַעַת מֵרֹב הַמְּלָאכוֹת וְנִמְצֵאת קְטָטָה בֵּינֵיהֶם:


Whenever a woman refrains from performing any of the tasks that she is obligated to perform, she may be compelled to do so, even with a rod.16 When a husband complains that [his wife] does not perform [her required tasks], and [the wife] claims that she does, [the dispute should be clarified by having] a [neutral] woman dwell with them or [by asking] the neighbors.17 The judges should clarify the matter in the best way they see fit.


כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁתִּמָּנַע מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה מִן הַמְּלָאכוֹת שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת לַעֲשׂוֹתָן כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ וְעוֹשָׂה אֲפִלּוּ בְּשׁוֹט. טָעַן הוּא שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִמְנַעַת מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מוֹשִׁיבִין אִשָּׁה בֵּינֵיהֶן אוֹ שְׁכֵנִים. וְדָבָר זֶה כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּרְאֶה הַדַּיָּן שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר בַּדָּבָר:


During the time a woman nurses her child, she is not compelled to perform as many tasks [as usual], and wine and foods that are beneficial to nursing are added to her support.

If, despite the fact that she was allotted the foods appropriate for her, she desires to eat more or desires to eat other foods, because of the craving in her stomach, she is entitled to eat everything she desires [provided she pays for the additional food] from her own funds. The husband cannot prevent her, saying: "Perhaps she will overeat or eat harmful foods18 and the child will die." [The rationale is] that the physical pain the woman feels takes priority.


הָאִשָּׁה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא מֵינִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ פּוֹחֲתִין לָהּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּמוֹסִיפִין לָהּ עַל מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ יַיִן וּדְבָרִים שֶׁיָּפִין לְחָלָב. פָּסְקוּ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לָהּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא מִתְאַוָּה לֶאֱכל יוֹתֵר אוֹ לֶאֱכל מַאֲכָלוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת מִפְּנֵי חֳלִי הַתַּאֲוָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ בְּבִטְנָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת מִשֶּׁלָּהּ כָּל מַה שֶּׁתִּרְצֶה וְאֵין הַבַּעַל יָכוֹל לְעַכֵּב וְלוֹמַר שֶׁאִם תֹּאכַל יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי אוֹ תֹּאכַל מַאֲכָלִים רָעִים יָמוּת הַוָּלָד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצַּעַר גּוּפָהּ קוֹדֵם:


When a woman bears twins, she cannot be compelled to nurse both of them. Instead, she is required to nurse one, while the husband is required to hire a nursemaid for the second child.19

If a woman desires to nurse another woman's child together with her own, her husband may object and restrict her to nursing only her own child.20


יָלְדָה תְּאוֹמִים אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ לְהֵינִיק שְׁנֵיהֶם אֶלָּא מֵינִיקָה אֶחָד וְשׂוֹכֵר הַבַּעַל מֵינִיקָה לַשֵּׁנִי. הֲרֵי שֶׁרָצְתָה הָאִשָּׁה לְהֵינִיק בֶּן חֲבֵרְתָהּ עִם בְּנָהּ הַבַּעַל מְעַכֵּב וְאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחָה אֶלָּא לְהֵינִיק בְּנוֹ בִּלְבַד:


Although a woman takes a vow not to nurse her child, she may be compelled to do so until the child - whether a boy or a girl - is 24 months old.21

If a woman desires to nurse her child, but her husband objects, claiming that this will mar her beauty, she is given this prerogative, for it is painful for her to part from her child.22 [This law applies] even if she owns several maids.


נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא לְהֵינִיק אֶת בְּנָהּ כּוֹפֶה אוֹתָהּ וּמֵינִיקָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֶּן כ''ד חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד הַזָּכָר וְאֶחָד הַנְּקֵבָה. הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת אֲנִי אֵינִיק אֶת בְּנִי וְהוּא אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה שֶׁתֵּינִיק אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְנַוֵּל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ כַּמָּה שְׁפָחוֹת שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ שֶׁצַּעַר הוּא לָהּ לִפְרשׁ מִבְּנָהּ:


If she is poor and would thus be obligated to nurse her child, but her husband is rich, and it is appropriate that his wife not be obligated to nurse his child - if his wife does not desire to nurse, he must hire a nursemaid or buy a maid, even if he did not possess any maidservants beforehand. [The rationale is] that the woman's social standing rises together with that of her husband and does not descend with his.


הָיְתָה עֲנִיָּה שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת לְהֵינִיק אֶת בְּנָהּ וַהֲרֵי הוּא עָשִׁיר שֶׁרָאוּי לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵּינִיק אִשְׁתּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שְׁפָחוֹת אִם לֹא רָצְתָה לְהֵינִיק שׂוֹכֵר מֵינִיקָה אוֹ קוֹנֶה שִׁפְחָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עוֹלָה עִם בַּעְלָהּ וְאֵינָהּ יוֹרֶדֶת:


If a woman claims that [her husband] is of [a social standing that] requires him to hire or purchase a maid, and he claims that he is not, the burden of proof is on the woman. [The husband] is not [required] to take an oath.


הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת רָאוּי הוּא לִשְׂכֹּר אוֹ לִקְנוֹת שִׁפְחָה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ רָאוּי. עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וְאֵין כָּאן מָקוֹם לִשְׁבוּעָה:


When a woman is divorced, she cannot be compelled to nurse [her child]. If she desires to nurse the child, [her ex-husband] must pay her a wage.23 If she does not desire [to nurse], she should give the son to his father, and he should care for him.24

When does the above apply? When she did not nurse the child long enough for him to recognize her. If, however, [the child is able] to recognize his mother, even if [the child] is blind,25 he should not be separated from his mother because of the [possible] danger [the separation will cause] the child.26 Instead, the woman is compelled to nurse the child for a wage until he reaches the age of 24 months.


הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ לְהֵינִיק. אֶלָּא אִם רָצְתָה נוֹתֵן לָהּ שְׂכָרָהּ וּמֵינִיקָתוֹ. וְאִם לֹא רָצְתָה נוֹתֶנֶת לוֹ אֶת בְּנוֹ וְהוּא מְטַפֵּל בּוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלֹּא הֵינִיקָה אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁהִכִּירָהּ. אֲבָל אִם הִכִּירָהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא סוּמָא אֵין מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ מִפְּנֵי סַכָּנַת הַוָּלָד. אֶלָּא כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ וּמֵינִיקָה אוֹתוֹ בְּשָׂכָר עַד כ''ד חֹדֶשׁ:


[A husband] is not [obligated to] support his divorcee, even when she is nursing his child. In addition to the wage she receives [as a nursemaid], he must, however, provide her with those things that the child needs for clothing, food, drink, salves and the like. A woman who is pregnant is not entitled to any [payment] at all [from her ex-husband].

[The following rules apply after the 24] months have been completed, and the child has been weaned. If the divorcee desires that her son remain in her custody, he is not separated from her until he completes his sixth year [of life].27 Instead, his father is compelled to provide him with his sustenance while he lives with his mother.

After the child completes his sixth year, the father has the right to say: "If [my son] is in my custody, I will support him. If, however, he continues to live with his mother,28 I will not give him anything."29

A mother, by contrast, is given custody of her daughter forever, even after [she passes] the age of six.30


הַגְּרוּשָׁה אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֵינִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לָהּ יוֹתֵר עַל שְׂכָרָהּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהַקָּטָן צָרִיךְ לָהֶן מִכְּסוּת וּמַאֲכָל וּמַשְׁקֶה וְסִיכָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֲבָל הַמְעֵבֶּרֶת אֵין לָהּ כְּלוּם. שָׁלְמוּ חֳדָשָׁיו וּגְמָלַתּוּ אִם רָצְתָה הַמְגֹרֶשֶׁת שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בְּנָהּ אֶצְלָהּ אֵין מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֶּן שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים גְּמוּרוֹת. אֶלָּא כּוֹפִין אֶת אָבִיו וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ מְזוֹנוֹת וְהוּא אֵצֶל אִמּוֹ. וְאַחַר שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יֵשׁ לָאָב לוֹמַר אִם הוּא אֶצְלִי אֶתֵּן לוֹ מְזוֹנוֹת וְאִם הוּא אֵצֶל אִמּוֹ לֹא אֶתֵּן לוֹ מְזוֹנוֹת. וְהַבַּת אֵצֶל אִמָּהּ לְעוֹלָם וַאֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר שֵׁשׁ:


What is implied? If the father is [wealthy enough] to be obligated to give charity, the money necessary for his daughter's support should be expropriated from him and used to support the daughter, while she is in her mother's custody.

Even if the mother marries another [man], her daughter remains in her custody, and the father is obligated to provide for her sustenance until his death, as an act of charity. [Moreover, even if the girl's] father dies, she is entitled to receive her sustenance from his estate, as a provision of [her mother's] ketubah, although she remains in her mother's custody.

If a mother does not want her children - either males or females - to remain in her custody after she weans them, she has this prerogative, and she can give their father their custody, or make them wards of the community if there is no father, and [the community] must care for them.31


כֵּיצַד. הָיָה הָאָב רָאוּי לִצְדָקָה מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ הָרָאוּי לוֹ בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ וְזָנִין אוֹתָהּ וְהִיא אֵצֶל אִמָּהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ נִשֵּׂאת הָאֵם לְאַחֵר בִּתָּהּ אֶצְלָהּ וְאָבִיהָ זָן אוֹתָהּ מִשּׁוּם צְדָקָה עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הָאָב וְתִזּוֹן מִנְּכָסָיו אַחַר מוֹתוֹ בִּתְנָאֵי כְּתֻבָּה וְהִיא אֵצֶל אִמָּהּ. וְאִם לֹא רָצְתָה הָאֵם שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בָּנֶיהָ אֶצְלָהּ אַחַר שֶׁגְּמָלָתָן אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדָהּ וְנוֹתֶנֶת אוֹתָן לַאֲבִיהֶן אוֹ מַשְׁלֶכֶת אוֹתָן לַקָּהָל אִם אֵין לָהֶן אָב וְהֵן מְטַפְּלִין בָּהֶן:


Ketubot 47a states that since a woman's husband supports her, he might object if she were granted ownership over the items that she discovers. The Jerusalem Talmud (Ketubot 6:1) offers a slightly different explanation: that if women were entitled to the objects that they discover, a woman might conceal her earnings and later claim that the funds came to her for ownerless objects that she discovered.


As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachah 4, in exchange for the obligation incumbent on the man to support his wife, our Sages granted him the right to the income she generates.


There are two interpretations of "more than would be expected of her": a) that she worked overtime, more hours than common custom requires, b) that she performed several tasks at one time.


There are authorities who differ with the Rambam and maintain that a woman is entitled to keep the additional amount she earns. The Bayit Chadash (Even HaEzer 80) states that it is not Ashkenazic custom to require a woman to give her husband any of her additional earnings.


Literally, "he is." Many manuscript copies and early printings of the Mishneh Torah state "he and she are," instead of "he is."


Hence, rather than compel a woman to follow a course of conduct that will lead to wanton behavior, Ketubot 59b requires the husband to divorce his wife.


The commentaries discuss whether the intent is to make her husband's bed or to make all the beds in the house. The difference is with regard to a rich woman, who could have maids perform household services. She is, nevertheless, obligated to make her husband's bed as a reflection of their personal closeness. The question is whether this applies to making the other beds in the house. Ketubot 61a uses the expression "makes the bed for him," indicating that the emphasis is on the husband's bed.


I.e., they are a reflection of their personal closeness.


In contrast to bread baked in a pan or over coals - i.e., the woman must bake in an ordinary manner (Ma'aseh Rokeach).


I.e., the animal on which he rides. This reflects the version of Ketubot 61b possessed by the Sephardic authorities. The Shitah Mekubetzet explains that this is included in a woman's household duties, because those duties involve tasks that affect her husband's person. The standard printed text of that Talmudic passage reverses the decisions regarding his beast and cattle. (See the rationale offered by Rashi.)


Alternatively, guards the flour (Tur, Even HaEzer 80).


The commentaries mention the importance of selecting a Jewish nursemaid. For milk that comes from non-kosher food will breed undesirable tendencies in the son's character.


The Rambam does not mention washing her husband, because his wife is forbidden to touch him while in the niddah state. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 11:18-19.)


The Chelkat Mechokek 80:29 states that based on the Jerusalem Talmud, this law applies even when she breaks household articles while she is not in the midst of her household chores.


While he accepts the Rambam's ruling, the Ra'avad offers a different rationale. The commentaries, however, justify the Rambam's view.


Rav Kapach emphasizes that the Rambam's intent is not that the husband should beat his wife himself, but that he should bring her to the court, which should administer corporal punishment if they see fit.

The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, explaining that it is unheard of to compel a woman by corporal punishment. Instead, her support should be cut back until she accepts her household duties. The Rashba offers other options - to place her under a ban of ostracism or to sell her ketubah and use the proceeds to hire a maid.

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 80:15) mentions that the woman is compelled to perform her tasks, but omits reference to the means of compulsion employed. The Ramah quotes the opinion of the Rambam together with that of the Ra'avad and the Rashba, but appears to favor the latter views.


The woman is not required to support her claim with an oath, because a pattern of the husband's complaining and the woman's being compelled to take an oath would arise, and peace would not reign within the household (Chelkat Mechokek 80:28).


Although a woman is enjoined not to eat foods that would harm her milk supply, she is allowed to do so if she feels physical pain, because her needs take priority over those of the child. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo objects to the Rambam's ruling; in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 80:11), he quotes dissenting views together with that of the Rambam, without favoring either view.

Note the Chelkat Mechokek 80:22, who emphasizes that when there is a real danger to the child's life, and no danger to the mother, the woman must adjust her diet to help the child.


Rabbenu Asher states that she is required to nurse both children, but this view is not accepted by the later authorities.


The Ramah (Even HaEzer 80:14) quotes the Tur, which states that a husband may even prevent a woman from nursing her own child who was born to her from a previous husband.


Implied in the marital contract is that the woman will nurse her children. Hence, she may not object.


Rashi (Ketubot 61a) mentions another rationale: having milk without nursing causes pain.


For a father is obligated to pay for his child's sustenance until the age of six, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 14.


The husband cannot, however, be compelled to pay for a nursemaid if the mother is given custody.


For even a blind child can recognize his mother from her smell and the flavor of her milk.


The pain of separation from his mother could cause the child to undergo travail that might lead to weakness. Rashi (Ketubot 59b) states that it is possible that the infant might reject another nursemaid and hence starve to death.


The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, explaining that a father is obligated to begin educating his child at an early age, and this is impossible when the child is in the mother's custody. The Maggid Mishneh refutes that argument, explaining that the amount of teaching that the father is obligated to give the child can be communicated at visits.

It must be emphasized, however, that the Rambam is referring to a situation in which the mother shares the same standards of observance as the father. If that is not the case, and the mother's observance is lacking, the father should be given the right to custody.


From the Rambam's wording, it appears that if a son desires to stay in his mother's custody, and the mother is willing to support him, he is entitled to do so. (See Chelkat Mechokek 82:9.)


At present, there are many courts that require the father to continue supporting his son, even if he desires to remain with his mother.


For her mother is more prepared to train her to grow up as a woman.

The Ramah (Even HaEzer 82:7) states that this law applies only when the court feels that it is in the daughter's best interests to remain in her mother's custody. If, however, it appears that the daughter's interests will be served better when she is in her father's custody, he is awarded that privilege.


The Maggid Mishneh states that this implies that a woman does not have any responsibility to raise her children. The Ma'aseh Rokeach maintains that if the mother has means, she is required to provide for her children's support and cannot cast the burden on the community. She need not, however, raise them in her home, lest this deter other men from desiring to marry her. This latter opinion is not, however, mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 82:8) or its commentaries when dealing with this situation.

Ishut - Chapter Twenty Two


The husband takes precedence over any other person with regard to the inheritance of his wife's estate.1

When does the husband acquire this right? When his wife leaves her father's domain, even though she has not entered the chuppah.2 Since the woman has entered her husband's domain, he [has the right] to inherit [her estate].


הַבַּעַל קוֹדֵם לְכָל אָדָם בִּירֻשַּׁת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וּמֵאֵימָתַי יִזְכֶּה בִּירֻשָּׁתָהּ מִשֶּׁתֵּצֵא מֵרְשׁוּת הָאָב. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִכְנְסָה לַחֻפָּה הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשֵׂית בִּרְשׁוּת בַּעְלָהּ יִירָשֶׁנָּה:


What is implied? When a woman has been consecrated and her father hands her over to her husband or to his agents, or the agents of the woman's father hand her over to her husband or to his agents, and the woman dies on the way, before she enters the chuppah, her husband inherits her estate, even though her dowry is still in her father's home.3

Similarly, if the father or his agents went together with the husband, and the husband entered into privacy in a courtyard together with [his bride] with the intent of marriage,4 and afterwards she dies, her husband inherits [her estate].

If, however, [the woman and] her husband or his agents are still accompanied by her father or his agents on their journey to the husband's house, her father inherits [her estate] if she dies, even if her dowry is already in her husband's home. [This law applies even if the woman] and her husband entered a courtyard together to spend the night, as travelers lodge together in one inn.5 [The rationale is that] she is accompanied by her father or his agents, and [her husband] has not entered into privacy with her for the sake of marriage.


כֵּיצַד. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וּמְסָרָהּ אָבִיהָ לְבַעְלָהּ אוֹ לִשְׁלוּחֵי בַּעְלָהּ. אוֹ מְסָרוּהָ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב לְבַעְלָהּ אוֹ לִשְׁלוּחָיו וּמֵתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לַחֻפָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּתֻבָּתָהּ עֲדַיִן בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ בַּעְלָהּ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. וְכֵן אִם הָלַךְ הָאָב אוֹ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב עִם הַבַּעַל וְנִכְנַס עִמָּהּ בַּעְלָהּ בַּדֶּרֶךְ לֶחָצֵר וְנִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ שָׁם לְשֵׁם נִשּׂוּאִין וּמֵתָה הֲרֵי זֶה יִירָשֶׁנָּה בַּעְלָהּ. אֲבָל אִם עֲדַיִן הָאָב עִם הַבַּעַל לְהוֹלִיכָהּ לְבֵית בַּעְלָהּ אוֹ שֶׁהָלְכוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב עִם שְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל אוֹ עִם הַבַּעַל אֲפִלּוּ נִכְנַס הַבַּעַל עִמָּהּ לֶחָצֵר לָלוּן כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁלָּנִין עוֹבְרֵי דְּרָכִים בְּפֻנְדָּק אֶחָד הוֹאִיל וְהָאָב אוֹ שְׁלוּחָיו עִמָּהּ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ לְשֵׁם נִשּׂוּאִין אִם מֵתָה יִירָשֶׁנָּה אָבִיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּתֻבָּתָהּ בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ:


Similarly, when a bogeret, an orphan, or a widow6goes from her father's house to her husband's home on her own initiative without being accompanied by her husband or his agents, and dies on the way, her husband does not inherit [her estate].7


וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה בּוֹגֶרֶת אוֹ יְתוֹמָה אוֹ אַלְמָנָה וְהָלְכָה הִיא בְּעַצְמָהּ מִבֵּית אָבִיהָ לְבֵית בַּעְלָהּ וְאֵין עִמָּהּ לֹא בַּעְלָהּ וְלֹא שְׁלוּחָיו וּמֵתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָהּ:


Although a man marries a woman with whom he is forbidden [to have relations], if she dies [during his lifetime], he inherits her estate when his consecration of her is binding.8 Similarly, a man who marries a k'tanah [after her father's death]9 inherits her estate if she dies in his lifetime, even though his consecration of her is not binding entirely.

When, by contrast, a mentally capable man marries a deaf mute, he is not entitled to inherit her estate when she dies.10 When, however, a deaf mute marries a mentally capable woman and dies, he should inherit her estate. For she is capable of understanding and married him voluntarily. [In doing so,] she gave him a right to her property.11


הַנּוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין אִם מֵתָה תַּחְתָּיו יִירָשֶׁנָּה. וְכֵן הַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשֶׁיהָ קִדּוּשִׁין גְּמוּרִים אִם מֵתָה תַּחְתָּיו יִירָשֶׁנָּה. אֲבָל הַפִּקֵּחַ שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֵרֶשֶׁת אִם מֵתָה לֹא יִירָשֶׁנָּה. וְהַחֵרֵשׁ שֶׁנָּשָׂא פִּקַּחַת וּמֵתָה יִירָשֶׁנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא בַּת דַּעַת וּלְדַעְתָּהּ נִשֵּׂאת וְזִכְּתָה לוֹ מָמוֹנָהּ:


When a k'tanah was consecrated with her father's consent, but married without his consent - whether in his presence or outside his presence - her father has a right to object, as we have explained.12 [In such a situation,] if the girl dies, her husband should not inherit her estate, even if the father remains silent, unless he expressed his consent to her marriage.


קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה לְדַעַת אָבִיהָ וְנִשֵּׂאת שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת אָבִיהָ בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו יָכוֹל הָאָב לִמְחוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ שָׁתַק הָאָב אִם מֵתָה אֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרְשָׁהּ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רָצָה הָאָב בְּנִשּׂוּאֶיהָ:


The geonim ruled that when a woman falls sick and asks her husband to divorce her so that he will not inherit her estate, her words are of no consequence, [even if] she [agrees to] forfeit her ketubah. Even if she says: "I hate him and no longer desire to live with him," her words are not heeded, and she is not judged as a woman who rebels against her husband.13 This is a desirable ruling.


הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה שֶׁחָלְתָה וּבִקְּשָׁה מִבַּעְלָהּ שֶׁיְּגָרְשֶׁנָּה וְתֵצֵא בְּלֹא כְּתֻבָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִירָשֶׁנָּה אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמְרָה אֲנִי שׂוֹנְאָה אוֹתוֹ וְאֵינִי רוֹצָה לַעֲמֹד עִמּוֹ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ. וְאֵין דָּנִין אוֹתָהּ כְּדִין מוֹרֶדֶת. וְדִין יָפֶה הוּא זֶה:


During a woman's lifetime, her husband enjoys the benefits of all the property she owns, regardless of whether it is classified as nichsei tzon barzel or nichsei m'log. If she dies in her husband's lifetime, her husband inherits everything.

Therefore, if the woman sold property classified as nichsei m'log after she married, even if she became the owner of that property before she became consecrated, her husband may expropriate the income from that property from the purchasers throughout his wife's lifetime. He may not, however, expropriate the land itself, for he has no right to the land itself, if it is classified as nichsei m'log, until his wife dies.14

If she dies in his lifetime, he may expropriate the land from the purchasers15 without paying them for it.16 If the actual money that [the woman] took from the purchasers still exists, however, it must be returned to the purchasers. The husband cannot say: "Perhaps this money was found [by my wife]" [and on that basis take it as his own].17


כָּל נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָאִשָּׁה בֵּין נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל בֵּין נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג הַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל כָּל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן בְּחַיֶּיהָ וְאִם מֵתָה בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ יוֹרֵשׁ בַּעְלָהּ הַכּל. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מָכְרָה הָאִשָּׁה נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג אַחַר שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאוֹתָן הַנְּכָסִים נָפְלוּ לָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּתְאָרֵס הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא הַפֵּרוֹת מִיָּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת כָּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיהָ. אֲבָל לֹא גּוּף הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם בְּגוּף נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת. מֵתָה בְּחַיָּיו מוֹצִיא הַגּוּף מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת בְּלֹא דָּמִים. וְאִם הַדָּמִים שֶׁלָּקְחָה מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת קַיָּמִין בְּעַצְמָן מַחֲזִירָן לַלָּקוֹחוֹת. וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא מְצִיאָה הֵן:


When does the above apply? With regard to property about which the husband knew.18 When, however, a woman inherits property in another country without her husband's knowledge and sells it, the sale is binding.19

Similarly, if a woman sells [property]20 between her consecration and the consummation of the marriage bond, the sale is binding. For the husband has no right to his wife's property until their marriage is consummated.


בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּנְכָסִים הַיְדוּעִין לַבַּעַל אֲבָל אִם נָפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וְלֹא יָדַע בָּהֶן הַבַּעַל וּמָכְרָה אוֹתָן מִכְרָהּ קַיָּם. וְכֵן אֲרוּסָה שֶׁמָּכְרָה קֹדֶם הַנִּשּׂוּאִין מִכְרָהּ קַיָּם שֶׁאֵין לַבַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי אֲרוּסָתוֹ כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּכְנֹס:


When a woman signs over all21 of her property to another person - regardless of whether or not that person is a relative - before she marries, even when there is a provision that if she is divorced or if she becomes a widow, this present is nullified - as will be explained in Hilchot Matanah22 - her husband is not entitled to benefit from the income of this property. And if she dies in his lifetime, he does not inherit it.

[The rationale is] that she gave this property away before she married. When she dies during her husband's lifetime, the recipient of the present acquires full title to it.

Moreover, [the same laws apply] even if she gave away a portion of her property - or all her holdings - before she married and wrote [in the deed of transfer] to the recipient: "Acquire the property from this time onward, [dependent] on my consent."23 [Although] the recipient does not acquire complete ownership until the woman expresses her consent,24 her husband is not entitled to benefit from the income of this property. And if she dies in his lifetime, he does not inherit it.25


הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתְבָה כָּל נְכָסֶיהָ לְאַחֵר בֵּין קָרוֹב בֵּין רָחוֹק קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּנָּשֵׂא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם נִתְגָּרְשָׁה אוֹ נִתְאַלְמְנָה תְּבֻטַּל הַמַּתָּנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת מַתָּנָה אֵין הַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן. וְאִם מֵתָה בְּחַיָּיו אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁן. שֶׁהֲרֵי נָתְנָה אוֹתָן קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּנָּשֵׂא. וּכְשֶׁתָּמוּת בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ יִקְנֶה מְקַבֵּל הַמַּתָּנָה מַתְּנָתוֹ קִנְיָן גָּמוּר. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ נָתְנָה מִקְצָת נְכָסֶיהָ אוֹ כֻּלָּם קֹדֶם נִשּׂוּאֶיהָ וְכָתְבָה לַמְקַבֵּל קְנֵה מֵהַיּוֹם וְלִכְשֶׁאֶרְצֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא קָנָה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר עַד שֶׁתִּרְצֶה אֵין הַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת אוֹתָהּ הַמַּתָּנָה וְאִם מֵתָה אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ:


While a woman is waiting for her yavam [to marry her according to the rite of yibbum], she may sell or give as a present property that she acquires during the time she is in this status.26 Until he marries the yevamah, the yavam has no right to benefit from the property, even the nichsei tzon barzel,27 that she brought to his [deceased] brother's household.

If the yevamah dies in this status, her heirs from her father's household inherit her nichsei m'log28 and half of her nichsei tzon barzel.29 Her husband's heirs inherit [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah30 and the remaining half of her nichsei tzon barzel, and they are responsible for her burial.31


שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם יֵשׁ לָהּ לִמְכֹּר וְלִתֵּן בְּמַתָּנָה נְכָסִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. וְאֵין לַיָּבָם פֵּרוֹת אֲפִלּוּ בְּנִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה לְאָחִיו עַד שֶׁיִּכְנֹס. מֵתָה כְּשֶׁהִיא שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ מֵאָבִיהָ יוֹרְשִׁין בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג שֶׁלָּהּ וַחֲצִי נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל יוֹרְשִׁים כְּתֻבָּתָהּ וַחֲצִי נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל חַיָּבִין בִּקְבוּרָתָהּ:


The money due a yevamah by virtue of her ketubah is considered to be a lien on her [late] husband's estate. Therefore, a yavam is not entitled to sell any of his brother's property32 - neither before yibbum nor after yibbum.

If he sells the deceased's property, gives it away as a present, divides it with his brothers - whether before yibbum or after yibbum - his actions are of no consequence. For it is already obligatory to make this property available to the widow so that she can collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah from it.


שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם כְּתֻבָּתָהּ עַל כָּל נִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין הַיָּבָם יָכוֹל לִמְכֹּר בְּנִכְסֵי אָחִיו בֵּין קֹדֶם יִבּוּם בֵּין אַחַר יִבּוּם. וְאִם מָכַר אוֹ נָתַן מַתָּנָה אוֹ חָלַק עִם אֶחָיו בְּנִכְסֵי הַמֵּת בֵּין קֹדֶם יִבּוּם בֵּין אַחַר יִבּוּם לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיְּבוּ נְכָסִים אֵלּוּ לָאַלְמָנָה לִגְבּוֹת מֵהֶן כְּתֻבָּתָהּ:


When a man marries his yevamah at a time when there is produce growing on the land left by her husband, this produce should be sold,33 and the proceeds used to purchase land from which the yavam will derive the benefit that accrues.


כָּנַס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ וְהִנִּיחַ אָחִיו פֵּרוֹת מְחֻבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע יִמָּכְרוּ וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהַיָּבָם אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן:


When, [by contrast, the deceased] left produce that was already harvested, money or movable property, it becomes the property of the yavam. He may use it as he sees fit, and [the yevamah's] objections are of no consequence.

[The rationale is that the woman's right] to collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah from movable property stems only from an enactment of the geonim, and this enactment does not have the power to prevent [the yavam from taking possession] of his brother's property,34 and cause him to be restrained from dealing with them because of this lien.


הִנִּיחַ פֵּרוֹת תְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע וְכֵן אִם הִנִּיחַ מָעוֹת וּמִטַּלְטְלִין הַכּל שֶׁל יָבָם. וּמִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְעַכֵּב. שֶׁהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֵין הַכְּתֻבָּה נִגְבֵּית מֵהֶן אֶלָּא בְּתַקָּנַת הַגְּאוֹנִים וְאֵין כֹּחַ בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ לְמָנְעוֹ מִנִּכְסֵי אֶחָיו וּלְאָסְרָן עָלָיו בְּאַחֲרָיוּת זוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׂא וְיִתֵּן בָּהֶם:


[The following rules apply when] a yevamah's [first husband was not obligated to] grant her a ketubah35 or [when] she waived her ketubah in his favor. The yavam acquires his brother's estate and may sell [portions of it] or give them away as he desires. When he marries his yevamah, he is obligated to compose a ketubah for 100 [zuz]. All of his property will be considered as being on lien for the ketubah, [i.e., the same laws apply to her] as apply to other women who have a ketubah.36


יְבָמָה שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ כְּתֻבָּה אוֹ שֶׁמָּחֲלָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ זָכָה בְּנִכְסֵי אָחִיו וּמוֹכֵר וְנוֹתֵן כְּחֶפְצוֹ. וּכְשֶׁיִּכְנֹס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ יִכְתֹּב לָהּ כְּתֻבָּה מֵאָה וְיִהְיוּ כָּל נְכָסָיו אַחְרָאִין לִכְתֻבָּתָהּ כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן כְּתֻבָּה:


When a woman sells nichsei tzon barzel - whether to her husband or to others - after she marries, her act is of no consequence.37

Similarly, if her husband sells landed property belonging to his wife - whether it be nichsei tzon barzel or nichsei m'log - his act is of no consequence.38


הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרָה אוֹ שֶׁנָּתְנָה אַחַר שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת בְּנִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל בֵּין לְבַעְלָהּ בֵּין לַאֲחֵרִים לֹא עָשְׂתָה כְּלוּם. וְכֵן בַּעַל שֶׁמָּכַר קַרְקַע בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ בֵּין נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל בֵּין נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם:


[Should the husband] sell movable property that is classified as nichsei tzon barzel39 - although he is not allowed to make such a sale - the sale is binding.40

If both [the husband and the wife] sell nichsei m'log, the sale is binding,41 regardless of whether the purchaser purchased the property from the husband first and then from the wife, or if he first purchased it from the wife and then from the husband.


מָכַר מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי אִם מָכַר מִמִכָּרוֹ מִמְכָּר. מָכְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג בֵּין שֶׁלָּקַח מִן הָאִישׁ תְּחִלָּה וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה בֵּין שֶׁלָּקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ מִכְרָן קַיָּם:


Similarly, when a woman sells her nichsei m'log to her husband or gives them to him as a present, the sale or the gift is binding. She cannot rationalize her actions by saying, "[This was not my true intent.] I did it [only] to appease my husband."42 With regard to other property, however, she may offer such a rationalization.


וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרָה אוֹ נָתְנָה נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג לְבַעְלָהּ מִמְכָּרָהּ וּמַתְּנָתָהּ קַיָּמִין וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לוֹמַר בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי. אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יֵשׁ לָהּ לוֹמַר:


What is implied? When a woman sells her nichsei tzon barzel to her husband or gives them to him as a present, her husband does not acquire this property. [This applies to] landed property and movable property [in this category], to a field that was designated for her from which [she could collect the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, a field belonging to her that was specifically mentioned in her ketubah or a field that [her husband mentioned in her ketubah] as his present to her [to be included in her dowry].43

[In all the above instances,] even though [the husband] formalized the transaction with his wife through an act of contract that she voluntarily agreed to, she has the prerogative of recanting whenever she desires.44 [We assume that] she gave the present or made the sale only for the sake of maintaining peace in her home.45

Accordingly, a husband has no way of substantiating his claim to his wife's property46 except with regard to nichsei m'log, as explained [in the previous halachah].47


כֵּיצַד. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרָה אוֹ נָתְנָה לְבַעְלָהּ מִנִּכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל בֵּין קַרְקַע בֵּין מִטַּלְטְלִין אוֹ שָׂדֶה שֶׁיִּחֵד לָהּ בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ אוֹ שָׂדֶה שֶׁכָּתַב לָהּ בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ אוֹ שָׂדֶה שֶׁהִכְנִיס לָהּ שׁוּם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ לֹא קָנָה בַּעְלָהּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה בִּרְצוֹנָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁתִּרְצֶה. שֶׁלֹּא נָתְנָה וְלֹא מָכְרָה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם בֵּיתָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לַבַּעַל רְאָיָה בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּלָל חוּץ מִנִּכְסֵי מְלוֹג כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:


It appears to me that a woman is not entitled [to nullify her statements, based on the rationale]: "I did it [only] to appease my husband," when her nichsei tzon barzel were lost or stolen, and she waived the debt in favor of her husband. [This applies even when the commitment] is formalized in the presence of witnesses.48

To what can this be compared? To a man and a woman who formalized an agreement in which she forgoes the responsibility [he had taken for property that had been classified as nichsei tzon barzel] and considers it instead nichsei m'log.49 For the husband is not bringing a proof for the sake of taking possession or maintaining possession of property, merely to free himself of the obligation to pay a claim [his wife will issue].50

If, by contrast, she gives him movable property that exists and was considered to be nichsei tzon barzel, the husband does not acquire it. For the wife may rationalize her conduct saying: "I did this to appease my husband."


נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל שֶׁאָבְדוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּגְנְבוּ וּמָחֲלָה הָאִשָּׁה אוֹתָם לְבַעֲלָהּ וְקָנוּ מִמֶּנָּה בְּעֵדִים יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לוֹמַר נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי. הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְמִי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִדָּה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ אַחֲרָיוּת שֶׁהֶחֱזִירָה נְכָסִים אֵלּוּ נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הַבַּעַל מֵבִיא רְאָיָה לִטּל כְּלוּם וְלֹא לְהַחֲזִיק בַּנְּכָסִים אֶלָּא לְהִפָּטֵר מִתְּבִיעָתָהּ מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל אִם נָתְנָה לוֹ מַתָּנָה מִטַּלְטְלֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל הַקַּיָּמִין לֹא קָנָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ לוֹמַר נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי:


When a husband sells [the right to] the benefits from landed property [that belongs to his wife, to another person, while the legal owner of the property remains his wife, the sale] is of no consequence. [The rationale is that] the reason our Sages granted a man [the right to] the benefit that accrues from his wife's property is [to afford him additional income] so that he will spend more generously on the household expenses.51

[Based on that rationale,] if he sells the benefit to be derived [from the landed property to another person] and takes the money and invests it in a business [which offers profit], he is given that prerogative.


בַּעַל שֶׁמָּכַר קַרְקַע לְפֵרוֹת לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הִתְקִינוּ פֵּרוֹת לָאִישׁ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְהַרְוִיחַ בְּהוֹצָאַת הַבַּיִת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מָכַר לְפֵרוֹת וְלָקַח אוֹתָן הַמָּעוֹת לִסְחוֹרָה שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ:


[The following laws apply if] the woman possesses financial resources [that she brings to the household]. If they are nichsei tzon barzel, her husband may use them for commercial enterprises.52

If they are nichsei m'log - regardless of whether she brought them to the household at the time of marriage or she inherited them or received them as a present53 [- landed property should be purchased with them, from which her husband is entitled to the benefit that accrues].54 [Similarly,] if she inherited or was given movable property, it should be sold, and the proceeds of the sale should be used to purchase landed property, from which her husband is entitled to the benefit that accrues.


הָיוּ לָאִשָּׁה כְּסָפִים. אִם נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל הֵן הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בָּהֶן. וְאִם נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג הֵן בֵּין שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה אוֹתָן לוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ בִּירֻשָּׁה אוֹ נִתְּנוּ לָהּ בְּמַתָּנָה אוֹ נָפְלוּ לָהּ מִטַּלְטְלִין אוֹ נִתְּנוּ לָהּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִמָּכְרוּ וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן:


Similarly, if a woman was injured by others,55 all the money that is ordained to be given to her should be used to purchase land, from which her husband is entitled to the benefit that accrues, as stated in Hilchot Chovel.56


וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁחָבְלוּ בָּהּ אֲחֵרִים כָּל הַמָּעוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לָתֵת לָהּ יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת חוֹבֵל:


[The following law applies when] a woman inherits servants [while she is married]. Even if they are old, they should not be sold, because they bring honor to her family's household.

[The following law applies when] she inherits olive trees or vines, but did not [inherit] the land on which these trees were planted. If they produce enough to pay for their upkeep, they should not be sold, because they bring honor to her family's household. If they do not, they should be sold as firewood, land should be purchased with the proceeds, from which the husband is entitled to the benefit that accrues.


נָפְלוּ לָהּ עֲבָדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן זְקֵנִים לֹא יִמָּכְרוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ. נָפְלוּ לָהּ זֵיתִים וּגְפָנִים וְלֹא הָיָה לָהּ בְּגוּף הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁהָאִילָנוֹת בָּהּ כְּלוּם. אִם עוֹשִׂין כְּדֵי טִפּוּלָן לֹא יִמָּכְרוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִמָּכְרוּ לְעֵצִים וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת:


When [a married woman] inherits produce that is still attached to the land [on which it is growing], it becomes her husband's [property].57 When the produce has been uprooted from the land, it should be sold and used to purchase landed property, from which her husband is entitled to the benefit that accrues.

When, however, a husband divorces his wife, and there was produce that was still attached to the ground, it belongs to the woman. If it has already been reaped, it belongs to the man.58


נָפְלוּ לָהּ פֵּרוֹת מְחֻבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל. תְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁלָּהּ וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. אֲבָל הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָיוּ לָהּ פֵּרוֹת מְחֻבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע בִּשְׁעַת גֵּרוּשִׁין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלָּהּ. וְאִם הָיוּ תְּלוּשִׁין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ:


A husband is obligated to provide for the sustenance and all the needs of the servants59 and livestock that belong to his wife and are classified as nichsei m'log. They must work for him, and he is entitled to the benefit that accrues. Therefore, a baby born to a maid classified as nichsei m'log belongs to the husband. And a calf born to a cow that is classified as nichsei m'log belongs to the husband.

If, however, the husband divorces his wife and she desires to pay the worth of a child born from a maidservant who is classified as nichsei m'log and take the child as her property because this brings honor to her family's household, she is given that prerogative.60


עַבְדֵי נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג וּבֶהֱמַת נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג הַבַּעַל חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן וּבְכָל צָרְכֵיהֶם וְהֵן עוֹשִׂין לוֹ וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶם. לְפִיכָךְ וְלַד שִׁפְחַת מְלוֹג לַבַּעַל. וְלַד בֶּהֱמַת מְלוֹג לַבַּעַל. וְאִם גֵּרְשָׁהּ וְרָצְתָה הָאִשָּׁה לִתֵּן דָּמִים וְלִטּל וְלַד הַשִּׁפְחָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ:


[The following laws apply when] a woman brings two utensils or two maidservants to the household and has them classified as nichsei tzon barzel. They were [originally] evaluated at 1000 zuz; afterwards, their value increased and they were evaluated at 2000 zuz. If the woman's husband divorces her, she is entitled to one [utensil or maidservant] for the 1000 zuz that she is owed. With regard to the other - if she desires to pay its value and take it because of the honor it brings to her father's household, she has that prerogative.


הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים אוֹ שְׁתֵּי שְׁפָחוֹת בְּתוֹרַת נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל וְשָׁמוּ אוֹתָן עָלָיו בְּאֶלֶף זוּז וְהוּקְרוּ וְעָמְדוּ בְּאַלְפַּיִם וְגֵרְשָׁהּ נוֹטֶלֶת אֶחָד בְּאֶלֶף שֶׁלָּהּ. וְהַשֵּׁנִי אִם רָצְתָה שֶׁתִּתֵּן דָּמָיו וְתִטּל מִשּׁוּם שֶׁבַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ:


When a man gives a present to his wife - regardless of whether he gave her landed property, or he gave her money and she bought landed property - her husband is not entitled to the benefits that accrue from the present [that was given].61

Similarly, when a man gives a woman a present on the condition that her husband not be entitled to derive the benefits from it, but rather the benefits that accrue will belong to the wife to be used for whatever she desires,62 [the provision is binding, and] the husband is not entitled to the benefits that accrue from this present.

Similarly, if a woman sells the rights to her ketubah [in the event of her divorce or her husband's death],63 the money she receives belongs to her, and her husband is not entitled to derive the benefit that accrues from it.


הַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ קַרְקַע בֵּין שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ מָעוֹת וְלָקְחָה בָּהֶן קַרְקַע אֵין לַבַּעַל פֵּרוֹת בְּמַתָּנָה זוֹ. וְכֵן הַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה לְאִשָּׁה עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה הַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ אֶלָּא יִהְיוּ פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ לָאִשָּׁה לְמַה שֶּׁתִּרְצֶה אֵין הַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת מַתָּנָה זוֹ. וְכֵן הַמּוֹכֶרֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ בְּטוֹבַת הֲנָאָה אוֹתָן הַדָּמִים לָאִשָּׁה וְאֵין הַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן:


When a calf born from cattle that was classified as nichsei m'log is stolen, and the thief is apprehended and forced to pay twice the amount, the woman receives the extra payment. [The rationale is that] this is not the benefit that our Sages granted [the husband].64

When a man injures his wife, the entire [amount he must pay] - the damages and the restitution for the pain and the embarrassment - belongs to the woman,65 and the husband is not entitled to the benefits that accrue from [property purchased with this money], as explained in Hilchot Chovel.66


וְלַד בֶּהֱמַת מְלוֹג שֶׁנִּגְנַב וְנִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב וְשִׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם הַכֶּפֶל לָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין זֶה פְּרִי שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים. הַחוֹבֵל בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ כָּל הַנֵּזֶק וְהַצַּעַר וְהַבּשֶׁת שֶׁלָּהּ וְאֵין הַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת חוֹבֵל:


[The following rules apply when] a husband sells landed property [that he owns] to his wife. If the husband knew about the funds with which she purchased the land previously, the sale is binding,67 and the husband is entitled to the benefit that accrues from that land.

If, however, [the existence of] these funds was concealed, she does not acquire the land. For the husband may [explain that he did not really intend to complete the sale]. [His intent was] to reveal the existence of funds that his wife had hidden. The funds that were revealed should be used to purchase landed property,68 from which the husband is entitled to the benefits that accrue.69


הַמּוֹכֵר קַרְקַע לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אִם הָיוּ הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁלָּקְחָה בָּהֶן אֶת הַקַּרְקַע מִבַּעַל גְּלוּיִין וִידוּעִין לַבַּעַל קָנְתָה וְהַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת אוֹתָהּ הַקַּרְקַע. וְאִם הָיוּ מָעוֹת טְמוּנִין לֹא קָנְתָה שֶׁהַבַּעַל אוֹמֵר לֹא מָכַרְתִּי אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְהַרְאוֹת הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁטָּמְנָה. וְאוֹתָן הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁנִּרְאוּ יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת:


When funds or movable property are discovered in a woman's possession, and she claims that they were given her as a present, while her husband claims that they stem from the fruits of her labor and hence belong to him, it is the woman's claim that is accepted.70 [The husband] may, however, have a ban of ostracism [conditionally] issued against anyone who makes false statements.71[The funds should be used] to purchase landed property, from which [the husband] is entitled to the benefit that accrues.72

If the woman claims that the funds were given to her with the provision that her husband have no control over them, but rather that they be used for whatever purpose she desires, she must bring proof [that such a provision was made].73 [The rationale is that] the prevailing assumption is that a husband has the right to the benefits from all the funds found in a woman's possession, unless she brings proof otherwise.


הֲרֵי שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ מָעוֹת אוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין בְּיַד הָאִשָּׁה הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת בְּמַתָּנָה נִתְּנוּ לִי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר מִמַּעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ הֵם שֶׁהֵם שֶׁלִּי הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁטּוֹעֶנֶת דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כֵן. וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. וְאִם אָמְרָה עַל מְנָת כֵּן נִתְּנוּ לִי עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה לְבַעְלִי רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן אֶלָּא אֶעֱשֶׂה בָּהֶן כָּל מַה שֶּׁאֶרְצֶה עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. שֶׁכָּל מָמוֹן שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּיַד הָאִשָּׁה בְּחֶזְקַת הַבַּעַל הוּא שֶׁיֹּאכַל פֵּרוֹתָיו עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא רְאָיָה:


If [a wife] tells [her husband]: "You gave me [these funds] as a present," she is required to take a Rabbinic oath that her husband gave her [the funds]. [After she takes that oath,] her husband is not entitled to the benefit [from the property purchased with these funds].74


אָמְרָה לוֹ אַתָּה נָתַתָּ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה נִשְׁבַּעַת שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ הַבַּעַל וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן:


One should not accept an article for safekeeping that was given by a wife, a servant or a minor.75 If one transgressed and accepted [an article given by] a woman, one should return it to the woman.76 If she dies, one should return it to her husband.77

If one accepted [an article given by] a servant, one should return it to the servant. If he dies, one should return it to his master. If one accepted [an article given by] a minor, one should purchase a Torah scroll with the proceeds or an article that will provide [the minor] with benefit.78

[The following rules apply] with regard to all [the abovementioned individuals], if at the time of their death, they say: "The article I gave for safekeeping belongs to so and so." If the person caring for the article operates under the presumption that the person who entrusted it to him is true to his word, he should carry out the command he was given. If not, he should give [the article] to the person's heirs.


אֵין מְקַבְּלִין פִּקְדוֹנוֹת לֹא מִן הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא מִן הָעֲבָדִים וְלֹא מִן הַקְּטַנִּים. וְאִם עָבַר וְקִבֵּל מִן הָאִשָּׁה יַחֲזִיר לְאִשָּׁה. מֵתָה יַחֲזִיר לְבַעְלָהּ. קִבֵּל מִן הָעֶבֶד יַחֲזִיר לָעֶבֶד וְאִם מֵת יַחֲזִיר לְרַבּוֹ. קִבֵּל מִן הַקָּטָן יִקְנֶה לוֹ בּוֹ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶם. וְכֻלָּם שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתָן פִּקָּדוֹן זֶה שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הוּא אִם הָיוּ בְּחֶזְקַת נֶאֱמָנִין אֵצֶל זֶה שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ יַעֲשֶׂה כְּמוֹ שֶׁצִּוּוּ וְאִם לָאו יִתֵּן לְיוֹרְשֵׁיהֶם:


[The following rules apply when] a woman has financial resources sufficient [to purchase property] from which the husband would derive the benefits [but they disagree with regard to the property fit to purchase]; he suggests that this type of property be purchased, and she desires that another type be purchased. A property should be purchased that brings a large revenue and requires little upkeep,79 regardless of whether this is the article desired by [the husband] or by [the wife]. We do not purchase any article that does not renew itself,80 lest the entire property be used and the principal lost.


הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיוּ לָהּ כְּסָפִים הָרְאוּיוֹת לַבַּעַל לֶאֱכל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר כָּךְ וְכָךְ יִלָּקַח בָּהֶם וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת אֵינִי לוֹקַחַת בָּהֶן אֶלָּא כָּךְ וְכָךְ לוֹקְחִים דָּבָר שֶׁפֵּרוֹתָיו מְרֻבִּים וִיצִיאָתוֹ מְעוּטָה. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַדָּבָר כִּרְצוֹנוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה כִּרְצוֹנָהּ. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁגִּזְעוֹ מַחֲלִיף שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל הַכּל וְנִמְצָא הַקֶּרֶן אָבֵד:


[The following rule applies when] a woman brings to her husband's household a goat [that she is entitled] to milk, a sheep [that she is entitled] to shear or a date palm whose fruit [she is entitled to take], although she is entitled only to these benefits [and not to the principal]. [Her husband] is entitled to [these benefits] although the principal is dwindling.81

Similarly, if she brought utensils or articles of clothing to his household that were classified as nichsei m'log, he may use them, wearing them or using them as spreads or as covers until the articles themselves are destroyed. If he divorces [his wife], he is not required to pay for any nichsei m'log that became worn out.


הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה לְבַעְלָהּ עֵז לַחֲלָבָהּ וְרָחֵל לְגִזָּתָהּ וְדֶקֶל לְפֵרוֹתָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא פֵּרוֹת אֵלּוּ בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה הַקֶּרֶן. וְכֵן אִם הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ כְּלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ בְּתוֹרַת נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג הֲרֵי זֶה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן וְלוֹבֵשׁ וּמַצִּיעַ וּמְכַסֶּה עַד שֶׁיִּכְלֶה הַקֶּרֶן. וּכְשֶׁיְּגָרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם הַבְּלָאוֹת שֶׁל נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג:


The geonim [issued the following] ruling. A husband takes responsibility for the diminished value of nichsei tzon barzel. Nevertheless, if [such property] exists [at the time a woman's ketubah is due for payment,] and still serves its initial purpose, the woman must take it regardless of its condition at that time.82

If they are no longer fit to serve their initial purpose, it is as if they were stolen or lost, and the husband is obligated to pay the value appraised originally at the time of the marriage.

This is the common custom. Whenever a man marries, he accepts responsibility for [the woman's] dowry as contingent on this custom.83 On the basis of this custom, just as the husband does not pay for the depreciation of the article, so too, he does not take the appreciation of the property if it increases in value.

A husband has the right to compel some of the servants and maidservants who belong to his wife to serve him84 in the home of another woman he has married.85 [This applies] regardless of whether the servants are classified as nichsei m'log or nichsei tzon barzel. The husband may not, however, take these servants to another city without his wife's consent.


הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁנִּכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפְּחִיתָתָן עַל הַבַּעַל אִם הָיוּ הַבְּלָאוֹת קַיָּמִין וְהָיוּ עוֹשִׂין מֵעֵין מְלַאכְתָּן נוֹטֶלֶת כֵּלֶיהָ כְּמָה שֶׁהֵן. וְאִם לֹא הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין מֵעֵין מְלַאכְתָּן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם בִּדְמֵיהֶם שֶׁשָּׁמוּ אוֹתָן עָלָיו בִּשְׁעַת נִשּׂוּאִין. וּמִנְהָג פָּשׁוּט הוּא זֶה. וְכָל הַנּוֹשֵׂא עַל מִנְהָג זֶה קִבֵּל עָלָיו אַחֲרָיוּת הַנְּדוּנְיָא. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם הַפְּחָת כָּךְ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח אִם הוֹתִירוּ דְּמֵיהֶן לְפִי מִנְהָג זֶה. יֵשׁ לַבַּעַל לָכוֹף מִקְצָת עַבְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאַמְּהוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מְשַׁמְּשִׁין אוֹתוֹ בְּבֵית אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁנָּשָׂא בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹלִיכָן לְעִיר אַחֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת אִשְׁתּוֹ:


As explained in Chapter 12, Halachah 3 and notes, this is one of the four privileges our Sages granted a husband as part of the marriage contract. (See also Hilchot Nachalot 1:8.)


The second phase of marriage, nisu'in, does not start until the woman enters the chuppah, and it is only at that time that the marriage contract takes effect. Nevertheless, an exception is made in this instance, as explained in the following halachot and notes.


The Ramah (Even HaEzer 57:1) cites the opinion of the Tur and other Ashkenazic authorities, which is that the husband does not have a right to inherit his wife's dowry until it enters his possession.


Moreover, if the courtyard belongs to the husband, it is assumed that the couple entered for the sake of marriage, even when they do not explicitly state so. This is the view of all authorities, and the Maggid Mishneh explains that it is also shared by the Rambam.


If the courtyard belonged to her, this intent is understood even when it is not explicitly stated.


This law applies even if the widow is still a minor, as reflected in Chapter 3, Halachah 12.


Once she is met by her husband or his agents, however, he is entitled to inherit her estate.


See Chapter 1, Halachot 6 and 7; Chapter 4, Halachah 14.


Or after she becomes divorced or widowed in her father's lifetime (Chapter 4, Halachot 7 and 8).


The rationale is that she is not entitled to a ketubah (Chapter 11, Halachah 4). Moreover, since she is not responsible for her actions, she has no right to transfer her property.


Although the Ra'avad objects to this ruling, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 90:3) quotes the Rambam's view.


Chapter 3, Halachah 13.


See Chapter 14, Halachah 8.


The advantage in the purchaser's continuing to own the land itself is that if the husband dies before his wife, her sale is binding, and the land becomes the purchaser's property. From this time onward, he is entitled to benefit from the land as well.

Rabbenu Asher differs with the Rambam on this issue and maintains that the husband has the right to take the property from the purchaser, even during his wife's lifetime. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 90:9) follows the Rambam's view, while the Ramah quotes that of Rabbenu Asher.


Even the Ramah and Rabbenu Asher accept this ruling.


There is a difference of opinion with regard to this matter among the geonim, but all the later authorities accept this view. The rationale is that the husband's right to the land supersedes that of the purchaser. The money that the purchaser paid is considered to have become a debt owed him by the woman's estate, and the husband is not required to pay his wife's debts.


A husband is entitled to any ownerless object discovered by his wife. His claim is not accepted, however, if he states that money that appears to have come from the sale of property came from the discovery of a lost object. There is no need for witnesses to testify that this is the money from the sale. It is sufficient that it appears to be so. If, however, the money has been changed into a different coinage or currency, the husband is not required to return it (Maggid Mishneh).


In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ketubot 8:2), the Rambam states that this refers to property located in the bride and groom's city or the surrounding locale, as opposed to property owned by her in more distant locales. It is questionable, however, if the same geographic restrictions apply in today's global village.


The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 90:11) states that preferably, a woman should not sell this property, because her husband is entitled to inherit it.

The commentaries explain that when the husband knows of his wife's financial holdings, it is an implicit part of the marriage contract - and perhaps part of his intent in entering into the marriage relationship - that he will inherit this property. When, however, he is unaware of her ownership of property, this motive cannot be given as the reason for his desire to enter this relationship.

It must be added that as soon as the husband becomes aware of this property, it is considered to be part of the woman's nichsei m'log and is bound by all the laws pertaining to such property (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:12). Moreover, if the woman dies without selling this property, her husband is entitled to inherit it, although he was never aware of his wife's ownership of it during her lifetime.


The Tur (Even HaEzer 90) states that the woman has the full right to sell any property that she owned before she was consecrated. With regard to property that she acquired after she was consecrated, it is preferable that she not sell it - but if she sells it, the husband has no claim to it.


As explained in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, slightly different rules apply if the woman signed over only a portion of her property.


Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 6:12. It is clearly obvious that the woman's intent in giving the present is to protect her holdings from being inherited by her husband.


In his gloss on Ketubot 79a, Rabbenu Nissim explains that the Rambam equates this provision with the one mentioned in the previous clause. The only difference between the two is one of tact. The provision in this clause is more gently worded, so that the intent to free the woman's holdings from her husband is less obvious.


Unlike the Rambam, Rabbenu Asher and other authorities maintain that the woman need not explicitly mention her consent to the present. All that is necessary is that she refrain from nullifying it.


Rabbenu Nissim asks, according to the approach of the Rambam (in contrast to the approach of Rabbenu Asher mentioned in the previous note): If the woman did not explicitly mention her consent to the present before her death, why does her husband have no right to inherit her property? The provision on which the present was based was never fulfilled.

Seemingly, this property can be compared to a woman's property of which her husband was unaware. As mentioned in the notes on the previous halachah, the husband has the right to inherit such property, and thus he should also inherit the property mentioned in this clause.

Rabbenu Nissim explains that since the Rambam maintains that a husband's right to inherit his wife's property is a Rabbinical ordinance, there is room for leniency when, as in the present case, it is obvious that the woman did not desire her husband to inherit her estate. Obviously motivated by the same question, but unwilling to offer such a resolution, Rav David Arameah explains that the Rambam's ruling applies in an instance when the woman in fact expressed her consent to the present before her death.


As mentioned in the notes on Halachah 8, preferably a woman should not sell property she acquires after her consecration. One might think that the same principle applies to a yevamah, for she also shares a bond to her yavam. There is, however, a distinction between the two: a woman who is consecrated will most likely be married, while a yevamah may be freed from her obligation through chalitzah. Hence, there are no restrictions placed upon her with regard to the sale of her holdings.


The difference between nichsei m'log and nichsei tzon barzel is that with regard to nichsei m'log, the object itself belongs to the woman, while the property regarded as nichsei tzon barzel is considered to belong to her late husband. He was, however, obligated to pay his wife for the value designated at the time of marriage (Chapter 16, Halachah 1).

Since the nichsei tzon barzel are considered to belong to the yevamah's late husband's estate, one might think that the yavam would have a right to them. Hence, it is necessary to clarify that he is given this right only after marriage.

As mentioned by the Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh, most authorities differ with the Rambam on this point. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that the yavam is entitled to half of the benefit that accrues from the nichsei tzon barzel. This opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 160:6). (The Rambam's opinion is also quoted, but it appears that the other opinion is favored.) The Ramah mentions the opinion of the Ra'avad which goes even further and gives the yavam rights to half the benefits of nichsei m'log that the yevamah acquired while she was married to her deceased husband.


For this property belongs to her outright.


A division is necessary because this property is considered to belong to the yevamah's late husband, as explained above. Therefore, his heirs have a claim to it. Nevertheless, since he died in his wife's lifetime, and she did not receive payment for this property, her own heirs also have a claim.

This ruling is also disputed by other authorities, who maintain that all the nichsei tzon barzel are considered the property of the husband's heirs, together with the woman's ketubah. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7) quotes the Rambam's view, while the Ramah quotes that of the other authorities.

The Ramah also adds that these laws do not apply in the Ashkenazic community in the present era - or in other communities - where the rite of yibbum is not practiced, and instead, the yevamah is freed from her obligation through the rite of chalitzah. Since the yevamah will not marry the yavam, he has no rights with regard to her property.


I.e., both the essential requirement of the ketubah and any additional amount added by her deceased husband.


For our Sages associated a woman's burial with the inheritance of her ketubah (Chapter 12, Halachah 14).


Even if the value of the property left by the deceased brother is many times the value of the woman's ketubah, none of the property may be sold, lest the remaining property be destroyed and the woman have difficulty collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from the purchasers (Ketubot 81b).


I.e., since the produce requires the land, it is considered as if it were landed property, and the money received from the sale has the same status as the landed property mentioned in the previous halachah.


The Maggid Mishneh, the Rivash (Responsa 365 and 366), and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 168:5) emphasize that the law stated by the Rambam applies only when the husband did not follow the suggestion (Chapter 16, Halachah 8) of stating explicitly in the ketubah that the woman may collect from movable property the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. (There are other authorities who differ with the Rambam and maintain that even if the provision is not stated explicitly in the woman's ketubah, the movable property should be sold and land purchased.)


E.g., he died after he consecrated her, but before he consummated the marriage - in which instance, the woman is obligated to undergo either yibbum or chalitzah, and yet her deceased husband was not obligated to grant her a ketubah.


Since she has no claim to her deceased husband's property, she is not judged by the laws pertaining to a yevamah, but rather by those pertaining to other women.


If she sells the land to her husband, the sale is rescinded because she can claim that she did not sell it willingly; she did so only to appease her husband (Bava Batra 49b). If she sells the land to others, the sale is rescinded because her husband has a right to benefit from her property, and she cannot take away this right from him without his consent. If, however, the husband agrees to her sale, it is binding, as stated in Hilchot Mechirah 30:3).

Note the ruling of the Ramah (Even HaEzer 90:13), who writes that if the husband dies, the sale made by the woman is effective retroactively. (But see also the gloss of the Beit Shmuel 90:46.)


With regard to nichsei m'log, it is obvious that the husband's sale is of no consequence, for the woman owns this type of property. With regard to nichsei tzon barzel, which are considered to be the husband's property, there are authorities (e.g., the Ra'avad) who differ with the Rambam and maintain that the sale is valid until the time comes when the woman desires to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.

The commentaries support the Rambam's opinion, explaining that even though the woman has the potential to expropriate the property afterwards by force of law, the sale should be nullified. For women are not comfortable presenting claims in court. If the sale were allowed to remain binding, the only way the woman could receive her due would be by lodging a legal claim. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 90:13) quotes the Rambam's view.


If the woman is divorced, she is entitled to this property. Hence, the husband does not have the prerogative of selling it.


The husband is allowed to destroy this property through frequent use. Therefore, the woman does not rely on receiving this property, and thus if he sells it the sale is binding (Maggid Mishneh, gloss on Hilchot Mechirah 30:5; Chelkat Mechokek 90:45).

This is the opinion of the Rambam and Rabbenu Tam, and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 90:14). Rabbenu Asher, the Rashba and others differ and maintain that the sale is of no consequence. Their view is quoted by the Ramah.


Although both the husband and his wife have a share in the property, since the purchaser dealt with both of them, the sale is binding.


Since this property itself belongs to her, there is no reason for her husband to become upset if she does not desire to sell it to him.


See Chapter 23, Halachah 11; Hilchot Mechirah 30:3.

There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if similar laws apply when a woman waives her claim to property mentioned in her ketubah in favor of her husband. The Ra'avad and Rabbenu Asher maintain that her deed is of consequence, while the Rashba and the Ramban state that it is not. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that the Rambam subscribes to the latter view.


The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that until the woman recants, the transaction is binding. The Beit Meir, however, objects, explaining that the Rambam's wording in Hilchot Mechirah 30:3 does not indicate such a distinction.


Her husband will pressure her by saying, "You are either planning my death or considering a divorce. Otherwise, you would not hesitate to sell this property to me" (Bava Batra 49b, 50a).


Even if he has a deed or witnesses that testify to the claim, his wife may also negate his claim based on the above rationale.


The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 90:16) states that if the woman explicitly accepts responsibility for the field if expropriated from the husband, then the transaction is binding.


Based on the Rambam's statements in Chapter 17, Halachah 19, it is questionable why witnesses are necessary. See Chelkat Mechokek 90:1, Beit Shmuel 90:6.


A husband is not obligated to pay for nichsei m'log that have been destroyed, lost or stolen, while in such situations, he is obligated to pay the original value for nichsei tzon barzel. Thus, by changing the status of her property, the woman is in effect waiving a financial obligation due her from her husband.

There is reason to say that just as a woman can say that she was forced to give or sell this property to her husband to appease him, she could also say that she was also forced to waive her husband's obligation in the loss or theft of this property. The Rambam, however, does not accept this rationale. Since this obligation is due only after the husband's death or divorce, there is nothing pressuring her husband to pay it. If he demands that his wife waive this obligation, she may refuse, asking him: "Is it because you want to divorce me that you are asking me to waive this obligation?" (Maggid Mishneh).


The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. Nevertheless, it is the Rambam's decision which is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 90:18).


If, at the outset, the husband sold the rights to benefit from the property for a lump sum, it is possible that all that money would be spent in a short period of time and that afterwards, there would be nothing left for household expenses (Chelkat Mechokek 85:41).


For their value is explicitly stated in the woman's ketubah and will be returned to her in the event of divorce or her husband's death.


For money that a woman acquires while married is automatically considered to be nichsei m'log.


In this way, the woman is assured that the principal will remain hers. If the husband desires to use the money for commercial enterprises, he may afterwards sell the right to benefit from the property, as mentioned in the previous halachah.


E.g., people other than her husband. If her husband himself injures her, he is not entitled to benefit from the proceeds of her property, as mentioned in Halachah 28.


Hilchot Chovel UMazik 4:15. As stated in that source, the husband also has a right to receive a certain portion of the damages as his own funds to which his wife has no right.


Although in most instances, produce that is still attached to land is considered equivalent to landed property, an exception is made in this case, because the husband is entitled to the benefit that accrues from his wife's property.


For he is entitled to receive all the benefit from her property throughout the duration of their marriage.


See Hilchot Avadim 9:7, which states that a husband does not have the prerogative of telling a servant: "Work for me, but I will not provide for your sustenance."


The Rambam's wording implies that the concept of maintaining the honor of one's household applies only with regard to the children of one's servants, and not to the offspring of one's livestock. See the Beit Shmuel 85:38, which quotes a difference of opinion among the Rabbis on this issue.


Bava Batra 51b states that a person who gives a present gives with a generous spirit. Therefore, we may assume that the husband gives the gift to his wife without wanting to restrict her in any way.


The specific wording of the provision that the giver must make is discussed in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13.


The person purchasing the rights to the woman's ketubah is taking a risk, because it is possible that she will die in her husband's lifetime and then he will not receive anything.


Our Sages entitled a husband to derive the benefit that would ordinarily accrue from property belonging to his wife - e.g., produce that grows on a field, rent from a home, labor from a servant. They did not grant him rights to benefits that arise from abnormal circumstances.


The Rambam does not mention two other payments that a person who inflicts an injury would ordinarily pay: shevet - reimbursement for the wages that were not earned during the period of convalescence, because the husband is entitled to his wife's wages - and ripui - payment for the medical treatment required, because a husband is always required to pay for his wife's medical care.


Hilchot Chovel UMazik 4:16. This differs from instances in which the injury is inflicted by other parties, in which case the husband also has a right to receive a certain portion of the damages as his own funds, to which his wife has no right.


The husband cannot claim that the funds belonged to him, but since he could not take them from his wife in any other way, he sold the property to her as a ruse. This applies even if he makes a definite claim (ta'anat bari) that the funds belong to him (Chelkat Mechokek 85:22,24).


This ruling depends on the halachah to follow, which states that a woman's claim is accepted with regard to money found in her possession.


The Rambam's ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 85:9). The Ramah mentions the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, who states that if the husband makes a definite claim that the hidden funds belong to him, his claim is accepted.


The Jerusalem Talmud (Ketubot 6:1) states that a present will be spoken about. Therefore, the woman will be afraid to claim that she was given a present unless the claim was true.


He cannot, however, require his wife to take an oath unless he lodges a definite claim against her (Maggid Mishneh).


If, however, a woman was given responsibility to deal freely with the property belonging to her husband's household, and she claims that funds discovered in her possession belong to her privately, her claim is not accepted (Bava Batra 52b; Ramah, Even HaEzer 85:12).


Although the giving of a present will become public knowledge, the details of the present might not. Therefore, the woman is required to substantiate her statements. Otherwise, we assume that this present was given without any extraordinary conditions (Ma'aseh Rokeach).

The Maggid Mishneh mentions the opinion of the Rashba, who differs and maintains that the woman's claim is also accepted in this instance as well. This opinion is mentioned by the later authorities.


The rationale is that a woman will not be brazen enough to make false statements in her husband's presence with regard to a matter that he knows to be true (Maggid Mishneh).


For the likelihood is that the article belongs to the husband, master or father, respectively. It is forbidden to assist a person who takes property that is not his or her own. Moreover, if no one accepts the article for safekeeping, it is likely that it will be returned (Bava Batra 51b).


For there is no proof that the article was stolen.


For even if the article is rightfully hers, he inherits her property.


The entrusted article should not be given to the minor, for it is possible that he will not care for it properly and it will be destroyed (Rashbam, Bava Batra 52a).


In every society, the nature of the type of article purchased depends on the conditions prevalent at that time (Chelkat Mechokek 85:33).


The Hebrew literally means "whose bark is renewed" - i.e., reaping the benefits one year will not prevent them from being reaped in the future.


I.e., in this instance, the goat's milk is not sold and the money used to purchase property that produces benefit, but rather the goat's milk is used for the household.


Even if they are worth substantially less than they were originally.


As the Kessef Mishneh emphasizes, at different times and in different countries, other customs have prevailed. It is the prevalent custom in one's own locale that is binding.


The servants may be compelled to serve the husband; they may not, however, be compelled to serve his second wife (Beit Yosef, Even HaEzer 85).


For having the woman's servants serve her husband in his other wife's home, also elevates the woman's own standard of living (Ketubot 80b).

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The Mishneh Torah was the Rambam's (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) magnum opus, a work spanning hundreds of chapters and describing all of the laws mentioned in the Torah. To this day it is the only work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws which are only applicable when the Holy Temple is in place. Participating in one of the annual study cycles of these laws (3 chapters/day, 1 chapter/day, or Sefer Hamitzvot) is a way we can play a small but essential part in rebuilding the final Temple.
Download Rambam Study Schedules: 3 Chapters | 1 Chapter | Daily Mitzvah