💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Shulchan%20Arukh%2C%20Even… captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:05:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
111 [1] Among the stipulations of the writ [of marital obligations] is that his sons inherit [the amount listed in] their mother's writ and such dowry as she brought [into the marriage] as 'iron sheep property' [i.e. property she brought into the marriage which her husband can use and which he must pay her for at its original value on termination of the marriage]. Some say also the extra [amounts listed in the writ] are included [in their inheritance]. Thereafter, they divide the remainder evenly with their [other] brothers. How? [Suppose] he married a woman; [the money listed in] her writ and dowry is 1000; she gave birth to a son; and she died during [her husband's] lifetime. Thereafter he married another woman; [the amount listed in] her writ and dowry is 200; she gave birth to a son; and she [also] died during his lifetime. Then he died and left 2000. His son from the first [wife] inherits the 1000 [listed] in his mother's writ, his son from the second [wife] inherits the 200 listed in his mother's writ, and they evenly inherit the balance. It turns out that in the [wife]'s son possession is 1400 and in the second's son is 600. [2] In what [case] is the [foregoing] said? Where he left, beyond the [money for] the two writs, a dinar or more, so that they should divide the balance evenly. But if he did not leave an additional dinar, they divide the entire [amount] evenly. [This is] because, if these inherit [the amounts in] their mothers' writs and not a single dinar remains to divide among the heirs, then it turns out that this stipulation annuls the even division of inheritance among sons, which is [a rule] from the Torah. [3] If there is not [staked] here on a ketuba more than 2 dinar (units of money), even [if] it was fitting [because of] the lost inheritance from the father of their father, categorically this is not permitted, [since the amount,] it is not important [enough to be] permitted. Even if [the father of] their father died, giving her a [good] portion takes precedence, also it is not permitted here [to give only] a dinar in a time of death. [4] And there is a law to [those] who marry women often, from this one to this one to the daughter after, and everyone [of the wives] died in his lifetime, and and he [does not have] from [any of] them male children, if it was [the case that] there was more on [each] of the ketubas [than] a dinar, all [of the value from] this one [ketuba] and that one [ketuba] he (each son) inherits from the ketuba of his mother, and the remaining portion (for daughters) is identical. [5] If the orphans said, "We will increase the property of our father by a * Dinar *" so that they can get their mother's * Ketubah *, we don't listen to them, rather we evaluate the property in * Beis Din * how much they were worth at the time of the death of their father. Even if [the value of the property] increased or decreased after the death of their father before they come to split it, we only [ever] evaluate them like [their value] at the time of their father's death. And this is specifically when the property goes down in price, but if they find out that [one of the] fields is not his, the matter was revealed retroactively and there wasn't [actually] a more than a * Dinar * [for of the of the widow's children to gain a majority]. [6] If there was a dinar or more over the amount in all of the ketubot, even if there is a debt document equivalent to the rest, he doesn't reduce that amount. Rather each one inherits his mother's ketubah. [7] And there are those who say that even if the debt is greater than the remainder left over after the two ketubot, he should pay the debtor and remainder should be divided according to the two ketubot. [8] One who married two women and one of them died while he was alive and the other after he died. If he had children with both of them, even though he did not leave more than two *ketubot*, if the second wife swore a widow's oath before she died, her children come first in inheriting her *ketubah* because they do not inherit her under this condition, rather they inherit from the Torah. Afterwards, the first [wife's] children inherit their mother's *ketubah* under this condition. If anything is leftover, they split it equally. If she died before swearing [the oath], the first [wife's] children only inherit their mother's *ketubah* and the rest is split equally. Definitely if they both died after his death, each one's children take their mothers' *ketubah* even if there will be nothing leftover since they are coming with a Torah [level] obligation. So too if one [wife] was divorced and one dies while he is alive and the other dies afterwards and he had children from both of them. The children of the dead [wife] take from the *ketubah* which comes from the right of the son's to inherit, even if there won't be a *dinar* [a coin] left over, since the obligation of a divorcee's *ketubah* is made supplemental to the other [*ketubah*]. Therefore, the children of the divorcee take first and afterwards the children of the dead. [9] If one [wife] died in his lifetime and one after his death, and she who died after his death had sworn regarding her marriage contract, and there is only enough property to pay for the first marriage contract, there can be no contract of the male sons [stating that the sons of the wife from a prior husband inherit from her current husband]. However, if there is more [property] than required for the first marriage contract, even by a dinar, they sons of the second mother will receiver their mother's marriage contract, and the extra will be taken by the sons of the first woman [from a prior husband] via the law of the contract of the male sons. [10] If one died during his lifetime and the second is still alive, their law is the same as if one died during his lifetime and one after his death. [11] If he were married to two women, and he had sons from them and died, and afterward the wives died, each [son] inherits the marriage contract of his mother via the Biblical [laws of] inheritance, and not via this condition [outlined above]. Therefore, we do not supervise it to check whether there is extra [property] or not. The inheritors of the first [wife] take precedence over the inheritors of the second. If they did not take an oath, all sons divide equally and there is no inheritance of the marriage contract, for a widow does not receive her marriage contract until she takes an oath. [12] If one [wife] took an oath and one did not take an oath, the sons of the one who took an oath inherit first, and the remaining [property] is divided equally [amongst all the sons]. [13] Anyone who inherits the marriage contract of his mother who died during the lifetime of his father, he may not collect from property on which a lien has been placed, but rather from free property, as with all inheritors. (See below at the end of the section.) [14] There are those who say that specifically regarding real estate, that when there is enough land to pay for two marriage contracts, then we carry out the contract of the male sons. But if there is no property other than movable property, we do not. However, even if there is no extra [on top of the marriage contract] other than movable property, that is good enough. There is someone who says that nowadays when we write in marriage contracts that movable property is given via transfer of real estate, the contract of the male sons can be collected from movable property, as a condition added on to the marriage contract is considered as the marriage contract itself. [15] A woman who sells her ketuba, whether to her husband or others, does not lose the "male sons" rights (an unwritten condition in the ketuba whereby her male sons inherit the value of her ketuba prior to any division of the husband's estate with sons from any other marriage; see Ketubot 53). However, if she relinquished rights in her ketuba to her husband, her sons also lose the "male sons" rights. Therefore, the sons do not inherit "male sons" properties unless their mother's original ketuba document is in their possession, but if they do not have the ketuba document, they have nothing, for perhaps their mother relinquished her rights. But if they are in a locale where the custom is not to write a ketuba, the sons do have "male sons" rights [even without a ketuba document]. [16] One who commanded at his time of death that his sons would not inherit via the contract of the male sons, we do not listen to him. Rem"a: However, if he made such a condition at the time of marriage, the condition is upheld (Tur). There are those who say that the contract of the male sons is not used nowadays, for the essence of that decree was that a man should bequeath to his daughter as he does to his sons, and nowadays we give more and more to the daughter (ibid.), and such is our custom in these countries. [17] If he gave all his property to others as a gift from his deathbed, since the gift of a dying man is not transferred until after death, the gift and the obligation of the conditions take effect together. Therefore, her sons inherit the marriage contract of their mother who died in the lifetime of her husband. If he gave the gift while healthy on condition that it would transferred after death, its laws are those of any gift given while healthy.
Version: Sefaria Community Translation
Source: https://www.sefaria.org
License: CC0