💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Shulchan%20Arukh%2C%20Even… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:43:22. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
93 [1] The Ketuba is like a debt that is time bound, and it can only be collected after the death of the husband, or after divorce. Rem"a: The same is true about the dowry (Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 61:11) If he included gifts, they are collected while he is alive. Still, if the local practice is to inlcude gists as a honorific gesture, and to not collect them while he is alive, we follow the local practice (following the view of the Gaon, against the Rashb"a). The father cannot stipulate anything about his daughter after she is married, but if he is marrying her off he can put conditions on her gifts to change from the convention, if he so desires. See (Shulchan Arukh, Chosen Mishpat 97:24) [2] A woman who had a divorce of a dubious nature, whose husband died, is not sustained from his property, as we do not extract from the inheritor out of uncertainty. But while her husband is living, she is provided with sustenance until he divorces her conclusively. [3] A widow is provided food from the property of the inheritors the entire time of her widowhood, even if it wasn't written in her marriage contract, and even if he commanded at the time of death, "Don't provide food from my property for my widow," we don't listen to him. And the inheritors are NOT able to pay off to her the marriage contract and remove her from the food, but she is provided food against their will as long as she doesn't claim her marriage contract, unless they explicitly stipulated that his widow will not be provided food from his property, or the custom in the place is such. Rama: And the [Jewish] Court is able to decree in their place that the orphans can remove her when they want (Beit Yosef and Riva"sh Siman 107). [4] When someone leave behinds a widow and a daughter, whether the daughter is hers or from a previous wife, and there isn't enough in the estate to provide for them both, the widow is supported and the daughter must beg. But some say that whether the estate is large or small, if there's a widow and a child, whether a son or a daughter, she is supported with the child, son or daughter, until the money runs out; and even if the daughter gets married and shares the estate with her husband, she [the widow] is still supported from them even after the death of the daughter. But if there is a widow and a son and a daughter, and the estate is small enough that they can't be supported until the daughter reaches majority age, then the son and daughter are sent away (?) and the widow alone is supported until she collects the worth of her Ketubah. Gloss: And in the case where the widow comes before the daughters, the widow is brought food until the point at ______ [5] A widow who sues [the estate] for her Ketubah is no longer entitled to support from the estate, even if she was not paid. However, if she merely demanded it outside of Bet Din she does not lose [her right to support.] (Tur) Others say that she does not lose it even if she sues in Bet Din unless she sued by choice, but if she sued under pressure because they [the heirs] were not supporting her or because they tricked her [by saying] so-and-so wants to marry you and therefore she sued for the Ketubah (so that she could support herself or have a dowry for her remarriage) or or for similar reasons, she does not lose her right to support. Rema: A woman who swears before the court as to her ketubah does not lose her right to support because swearing [as to the value] does not constitute a claim or suit. [6] A bedridden person who orders that his widow be supported from his property all the days of her widowhood, beyond the amount in her ketubah, at least one source says, that his widow cannot lose her support through the execution of the ketubah in court, nor by other ways one loses support, and the fruit of her labor does not go to the orphans. [7] .... [8] If she sold her ketubah payment right entirely, or was pauperized, or became a ward of someone else, whether she did these things before an expert court of before three dependable [witnesses], whether she did them during her husband's lifetime or she did them after her husband's death, she is not entitled to to board payments from his heirs. [9] She forgives her *ketubah* to her husband, she loses her [right to] food [he must feed her] after he dies, but while he is alive, she has food. There are those who say that even when he is alive, she loses her right to food. If so, if she forgives to the orphans, she loses [the right] to food (Ron chapter 4, like it says in the Beis Yoseif). [10] What are the circumstances? When she sold, or collateralized or forgave the entire ketuba, both the basic amount and any additional amount. But if she retained a portion [for herself], she still receives sustenance support, even is she retained only the additional amount or a portion thereof. However, the heirs may pay off the amount that she retained, and will thereby be absolved of paying her sustenance. Any woman who sells or forgives her ketuba per se [without mentioning specific details] is considered to have sold or forgiven the additional amount along with the basic ketuba. [11] If she claimed [return of] her dowry and was reimbursed, she does not thereby lose sustenance support, because she still retains the basic ketuba, additional amounts listed in the ketuba, or a portion thereof. [12] If she claimed only the basic and additional amounts listed in the ketuba, even if her dowry was 100 maneh (1 maneh = 100 dinar = 25 mishnaic sela; and the heirs still need to repay the dowry), she loses sustenance support. Rama: Similarly if she claimed her ketuba per se (without additional qualifications), she loses her support, and we do not say that she did not claim the additional amounts (Tur). [13] There is one authority who writes that if the income from the deceased's estate are insufficient for her [the widow's] sustenance, her rights to sustenance support are limited to the amount of her ketuba. But they disagree with him, for she always receives sustenance until the estate has dwindled to the value of her ketuba, and she then receives this [remainder of the estate] as [payment of] her ketuba. [14] A poor widow who stayed two years and did not demand alimony, or a rich [widow] who stayed for three years and did not demand [alimony], relinquished and has no alimony from previous years. And if she stayed less than this, even one day, she did not relinquish. And if she had in her hand a pawn during those years, or if she borrowed, she did not relinquish. [15] A widow who claimed [past] sustenance support from the heirs; they say that they gave her the support, and she says that she did not take the support, as long as she has not remarried, the onus is upon the heirs (lit. orphans) to bring proof [that they paid], or she may take a "heset"oath (a lesser severity, Rabbinic-level oath) and take the support. Once she has remarried, the onus is upon her to bring proof, or the heir may swear a "heset" oath that he paid her. [16] One who designated land for his wife when he was dying, with the purpose that she would be provided for from it. If he said: Such and such piece of land will be your sustenance, behold he has increased her sustenance. And if it earns less than the sustenance due to her, she gets the rest from other funds, and if it earns more than what she deserves, she takes it all. But if he said to her: Such and such piece of land will be for sustenance, and she was silent, she gets only the produce from that land. [17] A woman who went abroad with her husband and she returned and said: My husband died. If she wants, she may receive sustenance, and if she wants she may take her ketubah. But if she said: My husband divorced me, she is not believed. And she is sustained from his property up to the value of her ketubah. [18] A widow who doesn't have her ketubah documentation, she does not receive sustenance, for perhaps she forgave her ketubah or sold it or used it as a pledge. But there are those who disagree. [19] A widow is sustained, even though she didn't swear [that she didn't receive her ketubah]. But there are those who disagree. And the first reasoning, is the prominent one. [20] A widow is not fed only [with money gained] from land that is free but not [from land] that has a lien on it. It is not necessary [to be said, that land with a lien is not used] if the husband sold or gifted the land in his lifetime. Rather even if the inheritors sold, put a lien or gifted the land after their father died, we do not remove [the land] to feed the widow or daughters. Specifically if the father gave [his land] in a regular transaction, but if he gave it via a "matnas schiv mera" they get food from it if there are no free properties. If he sacralized his properties it is like a regular transaction. She is not fed from movable objects. However if she grabed from movable objects, even after his death, we do not take it away from her. And now that the "Gaonim" enacted that she collects her "kesuba" and the extras of the "kesuba" from movable objects, she is fed from movable objects, even if she doesn't grab [them]. However, if the movable objects were given to others even via a "matnas schiv mera", some say she is not fed from them. [21] If he [her husband] had left movable property and she has not taken physical possession of it, the heirs take it and they must fund her board payments. And she may not prevent them, saying, "Let the movable property be deposited with the court and I will be fed from them, lest they be lost and I will not have food [payments]." And even if he had specified explicitly that she should be fed from that movable property, she may not prevent them from selling it, and if they do sell it she may not claim in back from the hands of the third-party buyers, and she [then receives] board payments from the money coming from land that they hold. And there are those who disagree and say that she does not receive her board payment from that money. Note: if he committed to her with kinyan about the board, then she may deduct [what she will be owed] for food from the subordinated [property]. And that is the case if he had explicitly specified board payments for after his death; but it is not so, even if he wrote about board payments in her ketubah, and they had bought [the property] from his own hand - he intended those board payments only during his lifetime (that is understood from the Maggid Mishneh, chapter 18 of 'Marriage,' and the Beit Yosef wrote similarly, quoting a responsum of the Rashba). [22] If he [died and] left many wives, even though he married them one after the other, they [are entitled to] receive board payments equally, as their is no rule of time precedence in board payments. [23] A widow who took possession of movable property in order to fund her board entitlement from them, whether she took possession during [her husband's] life or she took possession after his death, even if she took possession of a block of gold, they do not take it back from her, but rather the court writes about her what she took, and they allocate her board entitlement and they calculate about her, and she is fed from what she is holding until she dies or until has no more food, and then the heir takes the remainder. Note: some say it is not considered taking possession unless she took it from a public area or from an alleyway, but not from the a place owned by the heir (The R'an, chapter 'A Widow Receives Board,' quoting Rashi). And some disagree (that is understood from the words of the R'ivash, paragraph 384) but everyone agrees in the case of clear possession, that is if she took possession in one of the ways that ownership normally passes, but if she only took the keys of the rooms we don't consider that possession and we give it all to the heirs. And it is specifically if she has taken possession herself, but if she did so by the hand of an agent we do not credit her with possession (in the R'ivash, section 384 and section 107). [24] If she took more than is appropriate, she is claimed against in the court all at once, that is for thirty days worth of food, and alfter she finishes what she has in her possession she may come to sue for food, and she is sworn about all these matters. [25] A widow who came to the court to sue for her board payments: they sell [property from the estate] without prior announcement and give her board payments. And similarly she may sell by the order of an expert court, but also by the order of a [lower court of] three reliable [men] without prior announcement. And similarly if she sold it herself for equal value, her sale stands; but there are those who disagree with this. [26] A court of non-experts may only require her to sell, but she is not required to provide security or mortgage. [27] If she takes the land to herself as being worth a particular sum (out of her wedding contract), even if that is the right sum, that is meaningless - even if she declares it. If it becomes more valuable later, she has to return it to the heirs. Even if it doesn't become more valuable, if the heirs want to they can take it back. [28] And if a non-expert court was there, her transaction stands. And some say that even that is [like] nothing, unless an expert court was there. [29] A widow who sold, the obligation falls on the orphans; and nonetheless when she comes to collect her ketubah payment she may not claim back from the third-parties to whom she sold. [30] How much is to be sold for board payments? enough for six months and not more. And the money stays in the possesion of the buyer, that it not all be given to her at once, but rather sufficient for thirty days' board, and so on every thirty days. And then she sells again for six months; and so she continues to sell indefinitely, until the remainder of the assets is equal to her ketubah payment entitlement, [at which point] she claims her ketubah payment from the remainder and goes away. Note: some say that the widow who sells for six months refers specifically to real property, but in our times when board payments are funded out of movable property only one item at a time should be sold. (Tur, quoting the Baal HaAtur). [31] If they seize [property from unwilling heirs] in order to fund six months board, they may sell more, according to the discretion of the judges, so that she may have food. [32] When a court decrees maintenance to a widow that isn't covered by maintenance for the orphans, they give her enough to buy food for no less than thirty days. The same is true for a married woman, so she won't have to endure the shame of having her maintenance decreed in the court every day.
Version: Sefaria Community Translation
Source: https://www.sefaria.org
License: CC0