💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Shulchan%20Arukh%2C%20Even… captured on 2024-03-21 at 15:46:34. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
88 [1] A woman who goes out from under the hand of her husband, either by his death or by divorce, she takes all of her possessions without an oath, whether melog properties or "iron flock" properties (see Siman 85:2 for definition of these properties), even though she is not accountable for her * ketubah* because she is a widow (Tur) or by a promise, she does not enter accountability without a promise. If she enters the numbers, even if there is not a lot to do between the original work, she recieves everything she entered, even if it is a little and does not seem to be worth anything. If he said it, he was citing it for her [he gives it to her]. Like it says in (siman 103, rule 1), if she is able to demand it on the life of her husband [she can hold him liable for it]. [2] [With respect to] "iron flock" properties, which are termed dowry, the law is that if declined in value, the husband is required to pay the loss in value, even though they are still usable for their original purpose. But the custom is that as long as they are still usable for their original purpose, even if they are extremely worn, she receives them back as is. If they are no longer usable for their original purpose, he is required to pay their value as assessed at the time of the marriage. If they increased in value, she does not take them except at the original value as assessed at the time of the marriage. In what circumstances? Where the custom is to write into the ketuba, "She brought to him such-and-such utensil at such-and-such price and such-and-such utensil at such-and-such price." But in locales where they do not itemize each utensil [in the dowry] separately, but lump them all together and write, "She brought him clothes and adornments with a total value of such-and-such," that total amount is considered as a debt upon him, and even if the items were new, we reassess them at their current value. If they (the total value of all the items) declined in value, the loss is his, and if they increased in value, the gain is his, and we do not worry about the original assessment at all. [3] If she said, "I will take the actual utensil (from the dowry)," and he says, "I will give its value," we listen to her, as long as it is still utilized along the lines of its original work. We rule likewise with the offspring of [Canaanite] maidservants or animals of melog properties. Furthermore, if she brought in to the marriage two utensils or two maidservants as "iron flock" properties, and they were assessed a [combined] value of 1000 zuz, and increased in value [during the marriage] to 2000 zuz, she takes one of them (maidservant or animal) as repayment of her 1000 [zuz dowry], and the second, if she desires to pay its value and take it to demonstrate the praiseworthiness of her family (i.e. to show that their property rises in value), we listen to her. [4] If the woman does not want her tools, even though the husband has money, she may leave her tools, as long as they still work. [5] If the heirs consecrated (to the Temple) the "iron flock" properties after the death of their father, or they spread them on his body in a manner which would forbid deriving any benefit from them, they (the heirs) must give its (the "iron flock" property) value to her (the widow). [6] If she had brought in [to the marriage] land such that when she leaves the marriage it has produce that is still not harvested, she takes it along with its fruit-even if the produce had already reached its harvesting period. However, if the husband had separated [the produce from the land] prior to the divorce, the produce would belong to him even if the produce had not yet reached its harvesting period. [7] If a man paid expenses for his wife's melog properties and then divorced her, whether he spent a little but "ate" (i.e. took or harvested) much fruit (i.e. profit), or spent a lot but ate little fruit, even if he ate only one dried fig in honorable fashion, in the manner of a man in his house, or received 1 dinar profit even in non-honorable fashion, and even if he took as profit from his expenditures only one bundle of vines, what he spent he spent, and what he ate he ate. If he spent, but received no profit, or ate less than the minimum amount (I believe this means less than a dinar), we assess how much the property increased in value, and ask him how much he spent. If the increase in value is greater than the expenditure, he takes an oath while holding a [sacred] object as to the amount of his expenditure, and takes back the expenses. If the expenditure is greater than the increase in value, he receives only the increase in value, and with an oath. The same law applies to someone whose wife received properties in a distant place and he spent money to bring them [home], and he bought with those properties lands, and ate from the fruit as much as the expenses or less. If he ate only from the equity, he swears how much he spent, and takes up to the value of the increase in value. Rama: That which he is required to take an oath applies only when his wife does not contradict him, but if she contradicts him, he does not take an oath (Mordechai chapter haIsha sheNaflu). [8] They fell to her assets in another place, and followed them and took many expenses, and brought them, and divorced, they even took from them and took out, no food from praise that discussed in what took out and what he ate, since the fund he took, but swore many took out, and took until to praise, that put these coins worth here more than they were at original value. [9] With which circumstances are we dealing? When he divorces of his own desire. But if she rebelled, whether he utilized the usufruct or not, he swears how much he spent, and takes that amount. If the increase in value was greater than the expenses, he takes the expenses, and if the expenses were greater than the increase in value, he takes the increase in value. [10] A man who paid expenses for [the upkeep of] melog properties of his minor wife, and she subsequently annulled the marriage, we see how much he profited from the usufruct and how much he spent, and how much the property increased in value, and we assess like a sharecropper (who gives the owner a percentage of the crop), for he had permission to use the property. If he wants to take the increase in value in return for the expenses, we listen to him. If he spent only a little and "ate" (received) much usufruct, what he ate he ate (i.e. the produce received is his compensation). [11] If one spends money on the non-dowry estates of his wife and then dies, there is an opinion that says that if it can be determined that he spent but did not consume [from those estates] his mourners [heirs] may collect what is determined that he spend. But if the amount he spent cannot be determined, the mourners [heirs] collect nothing. [12] A man who contracted sharecroppers for his wife's properties and then divorced her, if the husband himself is also sharecropping, when the husband exits, the sharecroppers also exit, for they came to the land only through the will of the husband. We assess [their labor, expenses, and profit] and they have the weak hand. If the husband is not sharecropping, they came in order to work the land and we assess for them like a sharecropper. Rama: Some authorities say that this applies specifically when they knew that the land belonged to a woman, but if the sharecroppers did not know that the land belonged to a woman, they complete their sharecropping in all senses. (So implied by the language of Tur and similarly in Asheri).
Version: Sefaria Community Translation
Source: https://www.sefaria.org
License: CC0