💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Marri… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:13:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
19 [1] One of the provisions of [a woman's] *ketubah* is that her male offspring will inherit the money due their mother by virtue of her *ketubah* and the *nedunyah* she brought to the household as *nichsei tzon barzel*. Afterwards, these children divide the remainder of the estate with their brothers equally. [2] What is implied? A man married a woman whose *ketubah* and *nedunyah* were together valued at 1000 [*zuz*]. She bore a son, and then she died within [her husband's] lifetime. Afterwards, the man married another woman whose *ketubah* and *nedunyah* were together valued at 200 [*zuz*]. She bore a son, and then she died within [her husband's] lifetime. Afterwards, the man died, leaving an estate worth 2000 [*zuz*].
His first wife's son should inherit 1000 [*zuz*] by virtue of his mother's *ketubah*, and his second wife's son should inherit 200 [*zuz*] by virtue of his mother's *ketubah*, and the remainder they should [both] inherit and [divide] equally. Thus, the first wife's son will receive 1400 [*zuz*], and the second wife's son will receive 600 [*zuz*]. [3] When does the above apply? When [the estate] is worth at least one *dinar* more than the amount [due the children by virtue of their mothers'] *ketubot*. If, however, there is not a *dinar* or more remaining [in the estate], the entire estate should be divided equally [without applying the provision mentioned above].
[The rationale is that] if [the children of one of the mothers] will inherit [what is due them by virtue of] their mother's *ketubah*, [the other mother's children] will inherit [what is due them by virtue of] their mother's *ketubah*, and at least one *dinar* will not remain to be divided among the heirs, then this provision [which is of Rabbinic origin] will supersede [entirely] the equal division of the estate among the children that is required by Scriptural law. [4] The same law applies to a man who married many wives, whether one after the other or several at one time. If they have all died in his lifetime, and they have all borne male children from this man, if his estate contains at least a *dinar* more than the *ketubot* of all his wives, each of the [sets of] sons inherits the money due their mother by virtue of her *ketubah*. The remainder [of the estate] is divided equally. [5] [Should the estate not be large enough to satisfy the obligations of both *ketubot* and the additional *dinar*,] and the heirs say: "We will increase the value of our father's estate so that there will be more than a *dinar* [in addition to the value of the *ketubot*]," so that they can collect [the money due their mother by virtue of] her *ketubah*, their request is not accepted. Instead, the estate should be evaluated in court according to its value at the time of their father's death [and the decision rendered on the basis of this figure].
Even if the value of the estate increases or decreases [in the time between] the death of their father and the actual division of the property, [the decision whether to grant the heirs their mothers' *ketubot*] depends only on the value of the estate at the time of their father's death. [6] If the value of the estate was a *dinar* or more than the sum of the two *ketubot*, each of the sons inherits the money due his mother by virtue of her *ketubah*. Even if there is a promissory note due against the estate for the amount that exceeds the value of the *ketubot*, it is not considered to have reduced [the value of the estate]. [7] [The following rules apply when a man] was married to two wives. One died within his lifetime and one died afterwards, and he has sons from both wives. Although the value of the estate he left does not exceed the value of the two *ketubot*, the sons of the [wife who died after her husband's death] have the right to inherit the money due their mother by virtue of her *ketubah* first, [provided] she took the oath required of a widow before she died.
[The rationale is] that they do not inherit their mother's *ketubah* by virtue of this provision, but rather through the Torah's laws of inheritance. Afterwards, the sons of the wife [who died during her husband's lifetime] inherit [the money due their mother by virtue of her] *ketubah* on the basis of this provision. If anything remains in the estate afterwards, it should be divided equally.
If [the woman who died after her husband] died before she was able to take the oath [required of her], only the sons of [the woman who died in her husband's lifetime] are entitled to inherit [the money due their mother by virtue of] her *ketubah*. The remainder is divided equally. [8] [The following rules apply when a man] was married to two wives, fathered sons with both of them and then died. If the wives died after the father did, but after taking the oath [required of widows], each of their sons is entitled to inherit [the money due his mother by virtue of] her *ketubah* according to the Torah's laws of inheritance, and not by virtue of this provision. Therefore, in this instance it is not significant whether the estate is more valuable than the sum of the two *ketubot* or not. [The claim of] the heirs of the wife married first takes precedence over the claim of the wife married afterwards.
If neither of the wives took [the required] oath, the sons [of both women] divide the entire estate equally. Neither has the right to inherit [his mother's] *ketubah*, for a widow is not entitled to her *ketubah* until she takes the [required] oath. [9] [In the above instance,] if one of the widows took the [required] oath and one did not, the sons of the one who took the oath inherit [the money due their mother by virtue of] her *ketubah* first, and then the remainder of the estate is divided equally [among all the heirs].
Whenever [a son] inherits [the money due his mother by virtue of] her *ketubah* after she died in his father's lifetime, he does not have the right to expropriate property that was sold to others; [he inherits] only property in the possession of the estate. [10] Among the provisions of the *ketubah* is that after the death of their father, [his wife's] daughters have the right to receive support for their sustenance from their father's estate until they become consecrated or until they reach the age of *bagrut*.
If a daughter reaches the age of *bagrut* but has not been consecrated, or if she is consecrated before she reaches the age of *bagrut*, she is not entitled to receive her sustenance.
When a daughter receives her sustenance from her father's estate after his death, her earnings and the ownerless objects she discovers belong to her, not to her brothers. [11] An allotment of support, garments and living quarters should be made for a man's daughters from his estate, just as it is made for his widow. His [landed property] may be sold to provide his daughters with their sustenance and garments without a public announcement, just as it is sold to provide for his widow's sustenance and garments.
[There is, however, one difference between the two.] The allotment to the widow is made according to her social standing and that of her husband, while his daughters are given only their necessities. The daughters are not, however, required to take an oath. [12] A man's sons are not entitled to inherit [the money due their mother by virtue of] her *ketubah*, nor are his daughters entitled to receive their sustenance according to the provisions mentioned above unless they manifest possession of the document [recording their mother's] *ketubah*. If, however, they do not manifest possession of the document, they are not entitled to anything, for it is possible that their mother waived her *ketubah* [in favor of her husband]. In a locale where it is not customary to record the *ketubah* in a document, however, the children are entitled to [the benefits stemming from] these provisions. [13] When, shortly before his passing, a man orders that one of the provisions of [his wife's] *ketubah* be ignored - e.g., he said: "My daughters should not derive their sustenance from my estate," "My widow should not derive her sustenance from my estate," or "My sons should not inherit the money due their mother by virtue of her *ketubah*" - his words are of no consequence.
[Although] a person gives his entire estate to others through an oral will [all the provisions of his wife's *ketubah* must be met]. [The rationale is] that the transfer of property through an oral will does not take effect until after death, as will be explained. Thus, the mandate of the will and the obligations of the estate due to the provisions [of the *ketubah*] take effect simultaneously. Therefore, the widow and [the deceased's] daughters receive support for their sustenance from the estate, and [the deceased's] sons inherit the money due their mother by virtue of her *ketubah* if she dies during her husband's lifetime. [14] A daughter of a girl who nullifies her marriage through *mi'un* is considered like any other daughter, and she is entitled to support for her sustenance [after her father's death]. Nevertheless, the daughter of a *yevamah*, the daughter of a *sh'niyah*, the daughter of one's *arusah,* and the daughter of a woman who has been raped are not entitled to support for their sustenance after their father's death by virtue of this provision. During their father's lifetime, however, he is obligated to support them like any of his other sons and daughters. [15] A man who consecrates a girl who is receiving her sustenance from her brothers is obligated to provide her with support from the time of consecration onward. [Although a husband is ordinarily required to support his wife only after *nisu'in*, an exception is made in this instance, because] the girl is not entitled to support from her brothers after she becomes consecrated. Nor is she past the age of majority, when she is capable of providing for her own sustenance, but rather she is a minor, or a *na'arah*. [Hence, her husband is obligated to support her, because] a man would not desire that the woman he consecrated be put to shame [by having to] wander and beg [for her support]. [16] Should a daughter marry and then leave her husband through the rite of *mi'un*, or be divorced, or be widowed - even if she is obligated to marry a *yavam* - since she returns to her father's home and has not reached the age of *bagrut*, she is entitled to support from her father's estate until she reaches the age of *bagrut* or until she becomes consecrated. [17] When a man dies leaving both sons and daughters, the sons inherit his estate, and it is their responsibility to provide their sisters with support until they reach the age of *bagrut*, or until they become consecrated.
When does this apply? When the estate is large enough to provide both the sons and the daughters with their sustenance until the daughters reach the age of *bagrut*. This is called an ample estate.
If, however, the estate contains only a lesser amount, the funds necessary to support the daughters until they reach the age of *bagrut* are set aside, and the remainder is given to the sons. If the estate contains only enough to provide for the support of the daughters, the daughters are entitled to their sustenance until they reach *bagrut* or until they become consecrated, and the sons should beg for their support. [18] When does the above apply? When the estate contains landed property. If, however, the estate contains movable property, since it is only by virtue of the ordinance of the *geonim* that the daughters are entitled to derive their support from the movable property, the sons and the daughters should receive their support equally from this meager estate. For with regard to movable property, [the daughters] were given the right to be considered like the sons, but not superior to them. The *geonim* have ruled in this manner. [19] If [a man] left an ample estate of landed property, and afterwards [the value of the estate decreased until] it became meager, the heirs have already acquired [the property].
If [the estate was deemed] meager [in value] at the time of the man's death, and [the value increased afterwards] to the point that it is considered ample, the heirs are given the right to inherit it. Even if the value did not increase, if the sons sold an estate that was considered meager, the sale is binding. [20] If the estate was ample but a debt was owed, or [the man] had made a provision with his wife, [promising] to support her daughter [from a previous marriage], the debt or [the obligation to] support the widow's daughter does not prevent the estate from being considered ample. Instead, the sons inherit the entire estate. [It is their responsibility] to pay the creditor his debt, to support the widow's daughter for the time stipulated and to support their sisters until they reach majority, or until they become consecrated and leave their domain. [21] [The following rules apply when a man] left a widow and a daughter, either from her or from another wife, and his estate is not large enough to provide support for both of them. The widow should derive her support from the estate, and the daughter should beg [for alms].
Similarly, I maintain that support for [a man's] daughter takes precedence over [his] sons' inheritance of their mother's *ketubah* if she died in her husband's lifetime, although both [rights] are provisions of the *ketubah*. [This can be derived by making] an inference from a more serious responsibility to a less serious one: If the inheritance [of a man's estate to which the sons are entitled] by virtue of Scriptural law is superseded by [the obligation to provide] the daughter with her support, how much more so should [the sons'] inheritance of [their mother's] *ketubah*, which is only a Rabbinic ordinance, be superseded by [the obligation to provide] the daughter with her support. [22] When a man dies and leaves older daughters and younger daughters, without leaving a son, we do not say that the younger daughters should be granted their sustenance until they reach the age of *bagrut*, and then the entire estate should be divided equally. Instead, the entire estate should be divided equally [immediately].
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC