💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Shulchan%20Arukh%2C%20Even… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:58:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
91 ‎[1] A woman who receives a debt document for her husband, and she goes and waives the debt, the waiving does not work, for his hand is like her hand. Rem"a: Therefore she is not believed as well to say "He redeemed [the debt]" (Nimukei Yosef Perek Hakotev). And the same is true for a loan, which she cannot forgive on his behalf (Bet Yosef in the name of the R"Y). ‎[2] A husband's status with respect to his wife's property is that of a purchaser. Therefore, if a man said to woman, "My property is yours and after you it should go to such-and-such" and he then marries her, he is like a purchaser, and the "after you" claimant has no potency in the presence of the husband, for we have concluded that [in a case where a person said] "my property is yours and after you it should go to such-and-such" and the first one then sold the property the second one only has a claim to the portion that remained with the first one. This is true is he had made the statement to a single woman. If however, a man said to a married woman, "My property is yours and after you it should go to such-and-such" and she then dies, the "after you" claimant acquires [the property] and not the husband. Therefore, if a man says to a married woman, "My property is yours and after you it should go to such-and-such" and she then sold it, and then died, the property should stay with the purchaser. ‎[3] If real property was collected on a woman's behalf as payment of a debt owed to her, and married, and then died and her husband inherited from her, even though land acquired through collections may always return to their original inheritors, in this case the land does not return, because the husband is considered a third-party acquirer, and it is if the land had been sold to another person. And comparably, if they had claimed land from her for a debt she owed, and she then married, died, and her husband inherited, the land acquired through debt collection is not returned to him. ‎[4] If she had taken out a loan on a verbal commitment and later married, it may not be collected from her husband, since a verbal loan is not enforceable against third parties.
Note: nonetheless, if there are particular coins that were lent, he is obliged to pay them (R. Y' and the Mordochai). And if the lender came before she was married and wishes to protest against her marriage until she pay him back so that he should not lose what is his, the fair judgment is on his side, even if the due date had not yet come (Beit Yosef, quoting the Nimukei Yosef).
But if she had taken out a loan with a written agreement, one may claim it against any assets she brought to the marriage.
In a community that made rules subject to fines, and the woman violated such a rule, her husband is obliged to pay (Beit Yosef paragraph 70 in the name of ? paragraph 282). ‎[5] If one sent bridal gifts to a woman to whom he had been introduced as a potential spouse, but she went and married a different man, and the first demanded the return of his bridal gifts, their rule is as if he had lent money under a written agreement.
Note: If she took more than the amount she would be entitled to in her ketubah and then married, the husband is obliged to return the excess (from the R'iK, root 18). And similar if she owed taxes and married, it is like the case of the sender of bridal gifts, because these are subject to a leniency because there is no way to produce written agreements about them, and so we treat them as if they were loans that did have written agreements (Maharam of Padua, section 95). But tort damages and negotiated business debts and other things, he is not obliged to pay (Nimukei Yosef, the chapter "Some inherit"). A woman who arranged a marriage for her daughter to a man and committed to a dowry, and later herself married: the daughter's prospective husband may claim what the mother committed to from her husband against the assets she brought to the marriage, just as if it were a loan with a written agreement; even though at the time that she arranged her daughter's marriage she had not yet engaged the vows of her ketubah, still since she eventually engage that vow, we consider her words even out of the order they happened, since what she did originally was justified. (Beit Yoseph quoting a responsum of the Rashba). Some say since it is as if it was a written loan we collect from the husband out of the assets she brought to the marriage, that is, if she brought him real property or movable property and wrote a debt to her husband of the movable property against the value of the real property; but if she did not write about it, and only brought the movable property to the marriage, even one who had loaned her money with a written agreement may not collect it from her husband, as a debt-holder may not seize movables that are already subordinated (responsum of Nachmanides paragraph 56). And it is logically reasonable. And it is apparently a reasonable negogiation, since in propertly she brought to the marriage but that she doesn't hold title to, for example if she took more than her holding in the ketubah, he must in any case return it. And see Hoshen HaMishpat the end of section 96 (explained there).
Version: Sefaria Community Translation
Source: https://www.sefaria.org
License: CC0