💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Shulchan%20Arukh%2C%20Even… captured on 2024-06-16 at 13:40:44. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
85 [1] Her fruits: How so?
They enacted that he should eat the fruits of his wife's property in return for redeeming her, for they obligated him to redeem her.
And if he says: I don't want the fruits and I won't redeem her, they don't listen to him.
And the same is true if she says: I don't want this enactment, they don't listen to her. [2] Iron sheep property: This is the dowry that she brought in to the marriage, clothes, or animals or slaves and he took responsibility for them (Tur).
If they die, they die for him. And if they increase, they increase for him. And similarly if they decrease or are stolen, or lost, everything is to him.
And pluckable property: This is the property for which he has no responsibility (Tur).
If they die or increase or decrease or are stolen, or lost, everything is to her, for the husband has rights only to the fruit.
And if the husband is negligent with the pluckable property, and they were lost, he is exempt, for she is working with him and this is considered "negligence in the presence of the owners."
Hagah: See above siman 17, p. 3, where I wrote the law of the woman's clothes, whether they are considered iron sheep property or pluckable property.
The field that the husband appointed for her ketubah, its rule is as iron sheep property (Responsa of the Rosh). And see below, siman 90, p. 16. [3] There are those that say: that [regarding] the assets of a flock in iron, there is no requirement of a guarantee. Rather if thusly there was an appraisal of them in blood measures, or that a guarantee is received clearly. And there are those that say: that the since it is written in the ketuba (marriage contract), one is obligated in [the making of a] guarantee even though there is no appraisal on them and one is not obligated in their guarantee. And the first principle is: [4] A master that comes to discuss with [some]one about the property of his wife, needs authorization. And if there are fruits on the floor, because he has permission regarding the fruits that they are his, he discusses about the main parts, and he does not need the authorization of his wife, but if she does not know they are [on] the floor they are not his fruits.
Hagah: Actually to discuss, but to make a compromise, he needs permission (source: Rivash siman 496). He comes to speak about money from the hand of his wife. he does not need permission, alais that what fruits there are on the floor (source: Trumas hadeshen siman 312, and Ayin Hoshen Mishpat Siman 122) [5] The lending of a woman after a cow of her possession from a "log", and the lending of her husband, it is not that these are the husbands', that the acquisition of fruits are not a material acquisition to him actually. (From Ayin B'Hoshen Ha'mishpat siman 346) [6] If a woman borrowed a cow, and then she got married and [then] died, the husband, even though he used it the whole time it was borrowed, is exempt, even if he was negligent, because he is considered like a buyer. And the woman is obligated to pay when she has money. And if she informed her husband that it was borrowed, then he takes her place. [7] If she acquired property after she was married, whether she acquired it through inheritance or it was given to her as a gift, or if they harmed her and gave her her portion for her shame and damage, it is called pluckable property, and behold it is like [property] that she brought in to him and he did not accept responsibility for them. But if she sold her ketubah or dowry, the husband does not have rights to the fruit of the money. And so if she gave a gift to another person before she was married, in order to withhold it from her husband, even though the gift is not [truly] a gift, the husband does not have rights to the fruits. And so if the husband gave a gift to his wife, whether land or moveable property, she acquired it, and the husband does not have rights to the fruits. However, she cannot sell what he gave her, nor give it to another, but it must remain in her possession, and if she dies he inherits it, and the fruits that issue to her from it their law is as for other pluckable property, and they may be sold and he may buy land with them and he has rights to the fruits. [8] What type of things do they refer to when is said, we do not eat the fruit of [benefit] from the present, like he [a husband] gives her [his wife] after the wedding?
But if her fiancee gives her something in addition, because they are getting married, she will remember this gift like the rest of her property in her log, and will benefit.
And if she is widowed or becomes foreign, not because of rebellion, she takes this present, regardless of the *ketubah*. [9] One who sells land to his wife, if the maot with which she acquired the land from her husband were revealed and known to her husband, she acquired it, and the husband has rights to the fruits of that land. But if the maot were hidden, she did not acquire it, for the husband may say: I only sold it in order to show the maot she had hidden, and with those maot that were seen land may be bought and the husband has rights to the fruits. Hagah: And there is an opinion that if there is a viable argument that the maot are his, behold they are entirely his. (And this is implied by the Tur's language.) [10] If he says: They were hidden, and she says: They were not, the [burden] is on her to bring proof. [11] If one gives her a present on the condition that her husband does not have permission [to use it], the husband acquires it, and it [the present] becomes like the rest of *nikhsei millog* [property which the husband keeps upon the termination of the marriage], unless the giver stipulated about the present that it would be for so and so. For example, if he says to her: This money is given to you on condition that you use them to dress [yourself] or on condition that you do with it as you please without your husband's permission. Rem"a: If her father gave her a present and stipulated in one of these ways, and afterwards her father dies and she inherits him, the present is nullified and her husband keeps it like the rest of *nikhsei millog* (Responsa Ramban Siman 150) [12] If money or movable goods are found in the hands of a woman and she says they are a present given to me, and he says, they are her wages, so they are mine, she is believed, and she can buy the land with the money [she earned] but he [her husband] can eat the fruit.
He can accuse someone who claims it's a lie.
And if she says: I was given this present on the condition that my husband cannot touch it, rather I should do what I want with it, the burden of proof is upon her.
Rem"a: there are those who say that she is not believed, specifically with hidden money, but with non-hidden money, she is believed when she says: they are mine (Rashi and Rosh siman 86). Specifically, when it was not lifted or given inside of the house (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba), (siman 86).
There are those who say that if they did not see the money in her hand, and she has a *migo* [hypothetical argument] saying that it is not hers or it was returned her, she is believed in any case (responsa Muharam siman 268), (CM siman 62).
And if she says: you gave it to me as a present, she makes a *shevuat heset* [oath that is placed upon] that her husband gave it to her, so he cannot benefit from it.
[13] Nichsei Milog [i.e. property the wife received during marriage that is hers, or property of hers that isn't listed on the ketubah], the husband can eat its fruit [i.e. benefit from its produce], and if it is a thing that can't produce, he can sell it and buy something that can produce. If he says to her, "Such-and-such [parcel of land] can be bought through [the nichsei milog]," and she says, "I will only take such-and-such [parcel of the land] for it," they should take a parcel where there is much produce and little maintenance, whether or not it is as she wanted it. They should not buy a parcel that cannot regenerate. If [the nichsei milog that] falls to her is a parcel that cannot regenerate, even if none of the principle is left over, he does not need to sell it. For example, a goat for milk, a sheep for sheering [its wool], a date palm tree for its fruit, even though she only has [rights to] the produce [and not the object itself], he can have the produce until he consumes the principle itself [and ruins it that it can no longer produce]. And similarly if she brings to him a utensil [such as bed sheets] through the framework of nichsei milog, he can use it and wear it, cover [a bed], cover [a table], even to the point of using its principle [ruining it], and when he divorces her he is not obligated to pay back for the wearing out of the nichsei milog. [14] If slaves fell to her, even if they are old, he cannot sell them, because they show honor to her father's house. If olives and grapes fall to her, but not the actual land where the trees are at all, if they produce enough to [pay for] their care, he should not sell them, for they show honor to her father's house. If they do not [produce enough], they should be sold as wood, and they should buy land where he can benefit from the produce. [15] If produce that is still connected to the ground falls to her [in inheritance, but not the land itself], it belongs to the husband. Even if it reached the time to cut it, if he detaches it from the land, it is hers, and he sells it, and buys land and he can eat its produce. * Rem"a: This is not true, for all the produce collected by him is completely his! It's possible a mistake crept up in the books, and it was supposed to be "If they were detached from the ground [already], they are hers," and it's a different clause, and so the Rambam Ishut 22:24. * [16] Slaves from nichsei milog [property she received in inheritance while married or not on the ketubah] and animals of nichsei milog, the husband is obligated in their sustenance and all their needs, and they produce for him, and he can benefit from them. The offspring of a maidservant from the milog belongs to the husband [slave-owner]. The offspring of the animals of the milog belong to the husband. If she is divorced, and the woman wants to give money to take back the offspring of the maidservant, we listen to her for it shows honor to her father's house. [17] If the husband desired to sell melog properties to another, who would purchase the fruits of the land for many years, and [the other] advances the monies, we do not listen to him (the husband). On the other hand, he can sell the fruit every year after he gathers them. Similarly, if he sells the fruits [in advance] for many years, and does business with the monies [from the sale], this is acceptable.
Rama: If a creditor makes a claim against the wife's dowry or her melog properties, see Choshen Mishpat chapter 97. [18] There is an authority who says that if the lands [of the melog properties] are distant, and he (the husband) sold the usufruct rights for many years, the sale is valid. [19] The husband may force some of the wife's manservants and maidservants to serve him the house of another wife, whether they melog servants or "iron flock" servants. But he may not take them to another city without his wife's permission.
Rama: He may not force them to serve the other wife in another house (Beit Yosef, and it is likewise implied in the language of the Rambam). Some authorities that if she had ornaments which are inappropriate for her, the husband may give them to the other [wife], for she did not bring them to him so that they would waste away and be lost and no one would use them (Beit Yosef in the name of Rashbatz).
Version: Sefaria Community Translation
Source: https://www.sefaria.org
License: CC0