💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Shulchan%20Arukh%2C%20Even… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:58:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
112 [1] Among the [automatic] conditions of the ketuba is that daughters shall be fed from the estate of the father after his death, until they are engaged (with kiddushin) or until they reach the age of majority. Note: [This rule holds] even if it was not explicitly written in the ketuba, or even if there is no ketuba, as in a place where ketubot are not written (Tur). Some say that even in a place where ketubot are written and they do not have the ketuba document, and even if the mother explicitly relinquished her financial rights in the ketuba, the daughters still receive food (Ra"avad to Hilchot Ishut Chapter 19). Similarly, if the mother was divorced, even so the father is required to feed the daughters. [2] A daughter who is being fed from the estate of her father after his death, the fruit of her labor and found items belong to her. [3] If she was betrothed while still a minor, she loses her food support from her brothers, and the groom is liable for her sustenance. Rama: Some authorities say that she does not lose food support unless betrothed from the time of reaching maidenhood (between 12 and 12.5 years old) (so writes Magid Mishna chapter 19 in the name of Rabbenu Chananel and Rashba). Some authorities qualify the rule (of a minor losing food support) by applying it only when she betrothed herself, but if she was betrothed with the knowledge of her brothers, she does not lose food support (Tur in the name of Ramah). [4] A daughter was married, and either refused, or was divorced, or was widowed, even if she is a *yivama*. Since she returns to her fathers house and has not yet grown up [past the age of 12 1/2], she feeds from her father's possessions until she grows up or until she is engaged. Rem"a: And some say specifically [if she refused/was divorced/was widowed] from the engagement [does she feed from her father's possessions], but if [she refused/was divorced/was widowed] from marriage, she no longer has food [from her father] (Tur). And some say further that specifically in her father's life, since when her father died she was in his authority, but after her father dies, she loses the food immediately since she is engaged (Tur in the name of the Rosh). And this is the main [law]. [5] If a man performed levirate marriage with his sister-in-law and she gave birth to a daughter, if the other brother's have no assets, the daughter is fed from her father's estate. If, however, the brothers do have assets, or if the daughter was produced by a rabbinically forbidden union or as the product of rape, even if she was born after they married, or the daughter of his betrothed who was born while they were still betrothed and they subsequently wed, she is not supported after her father died, but during his lifetime he must sustain them like any other sons and daughters during the father's lifetime. [6] A daughter is supplied with food, clothing and shelter from her father's assets in the same manner that a widow is supplied. [The court] sells [assets] for the daughters' food and clothing without first announcing the sale, in the same manner that assets are sold to feed and clothe a widow. They differ only in that a wife is suppled in a manner that is dignified for her and her husband, and a daughter is given what she needs. Daughters need not swear [in order to collect their sustenance]. [7] Nowadays, when ketuba monies are collected even from movables, daughters also receive sustenance support from them. But they receive support only from free and clear chattels, but not from mortgaged chattels. For instance, if the father sold or gave - as a healthy person (i.e. as opposed to a deathbed grant), or if the sons after the death of their father sold or collateralized, or gave [movables to someone else], [the daughters] do not receive sustenance support from those items. [8] Daughters may not be fed from funds against which there is a lien, even if they bought from him, even at the moment of acquisition, e.g. where she was divorced and she had daughters from that husband and he took her back, and they bought from him. And some say, this is only when they bought from him at the moment of marriage, such that what they bought from him was under a condition in the ketubah, but if they bought from him after the marriage for the feeding of the daughters, they may be fed even from funds against which there is a lien. [9] If he decided [in agreement] with the wife that he would support the daughters even after they matured, they are supported from property subject to a lien. [10] One who commanded at his time of death, "My daughters shall not be fed using my property," we do not listen to him. If at the time of marriage he made the condition that they would not be fed using his property, it falls under the general rules of conditions relating to money, and is upheld. [11] One who dies and leaves behind sons and daughters, the sons inherit all of the property and they feed their sisters until they [the sisters] mature or are married. Rem"a: The sons are not obligated to diminish their payments for food, but if they want, they may give extra. Nonetheless, if the court sees that the sons are destroying the money and are not paying attention to developing the community, the court is obligated to oversee the welfare of the daughters and separate their portion (Tur). When does this apply? When he left behind property that can be used to feed both the sons and the daughters together until the daughters mature, and this is what is called "plentiful property." However, if there is less property than that, they take from it enough to feed the daughters until they mature, and they give the remainder to the sons. If there is exactly enough to feed the daughters, they will be fed from it until they mature or marry, and the sons will beg at the doors. Rem"a: There are those who say that the sons are forbidden from selling even plentiful property, unless it is for the need of redeeming captives and the like. However, regarding scant property, even in such a case it is forbidden [for the sons to sell it] (Mordechai). If they transgressed and did sell, this will be explained below in paragraph fourteen. [12] In what are things said? when he left land. But when he did not leave anything other than chattel, if the chattel is minimal, these and these should be nourished [off it] together until they (the chattel) are depleted, because since they are only nourished because of an institute of the Gaonim, it is sufficient that they should be like sons, and not that the strength of their claim should be greater than sons. If he left chattel and land, and the land is minimal and through the chattel they would be maximal, the sons should inherit: gloss: however, in a place that they write in marriage document chattel on the back of land, it is [possible] to say that chattel is like land (Bet Yosef), and like it was explained earlier, section 111, article 14: [13] If the properties were plentiful at the time of the father's death, and subsequently diminished, the sons have already acquired the properties, and we still treat it as a plentiful estate. [14] If the estate was small at the time of the father's death, and then increased to become plentiful, the sons inherit the estate as in the case of an estate that was plentiful from the start. Rama: Some say that even if the case had already come before court and it ruled to treat the case as a small estate, since the properties have increased, they have changed to a case of plentiful properties, and even if they subsequently decreased in value, they have the law of a plentiful estate which had diminished [in which the sons inherit, as above] (Tur). Mechaber: Even if they did not become plentiful, if the sons acted prior to judgment and sold a small estate, the sale is valid (Tur in the name of Rosh). Some say that this last rule applies only when they sold before the court placed the daughters in possession of the properties (Tur in the name of Rashi and Rosh). [15] If the estate was great and had a lien on it, or an obligation to feed the daughter of his wife or an obligation of enriching the estate for the benefit of his daughter, and when any one of these are paid the remainder is small, it is considered large. But if the ketubah of the widow has shrunk, she has reduced it. And the food for the widow, some say that we reduce it and some say that we do not. [16] If he left a widow and a daughter from her or from another wife, and the estate is insufficient to feed both of them, the widow receives sustenance support, and the daughter needs to beg (lit. ask on doorsteps). Some authorities disagree, as explained in chapter 93. [17] Sustenance support for the daughters takes precedence over the "male sons" clause in the ketuba (whereby male sons inherit their mother's ketuba in advance of splitting the estate with sons of a different wife). [18] If someone died, leaving adult (older than 12.5 years) and minor children, and there was no son, we do not say that the minor daughters receive sustenance from the estate until they reach the age of majority, and then split the remainder of the estate equally, rather they all split equally [from the outset].
Version: Sefaria Community Translation
Source: https://www.sefaria.org
License: CC0