Today in Jewish History:
• Oath on Torah Permitted (1674)
In the 1660's, the Jewish community of Barbados became established and of considerable importance. The Jewish community, however, had a decided disadvantage in that their testimony was not admissible in court cases due to their refusal to take an oath on a Christian Bible. In October 1669, the Jewish community presented the king a petition requesting permission to take be able to take oaths on the Five Books of Moses, the Jewish Bible.
Several years later, on Wednesday, February 14, 1674, Barbados passed a law granting the Jewish community the permission they requested.
• Jews Enabled to Serve in Public Office in Maryland (1825)
In 1715, the Crown Colony of Maryland enacted a law requiring any citizen who wished to hold public office to take an oath of abjuration, which contained the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian." In 1776, the new constitution of the State of Maryland reaffirmed this law, requiring any oath of office to contain a declaration of belief in the Christian religion.
In the decades that followed, the struggle to repeal this law attracted national attention.
On February 26, 1825 an act "for the relief of the Jews in Maryland," was passed by Maryland's House of Delegates. The bill allowed every Jewish citizen to take an oath which professes his belief in a "future State of Rewards and Punishments, in the stead of the declaration now required by the Constitution and form of Government of this State."
Daily Quote:
A person should always learn Torah even if it is for ulterior motives, because from learning for ulterior motives, one comes to learn it for its own sake...[Talmud, Pesachim 50b]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Tetzaveh, 6th Portion Exodus 29:38-29:46 with Rashi
• Chapter 29
38And this is what you shall offer upon the altar: lambs in their first year, two a day, continually. לחוְזֶה אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה שְׁנַיִם לַיּוֹם תָּמִיד:
39The one lamb you shall offer up in the morning and the other lamb you shall offer up in the afternoon. לטאֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד תַּעֲשֶׂה בַבֹּקֶר וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם:
40And one tenth of fine flour, thoroughly mixed with a quarter of a hin of crushed [olive] oil, and a libation of one quarter of a hin of wine, for the one lamb. מוְעִשָּׂרֹן סֹלֶת בָּלוּל בְּשֶׁמֶן כָּתִית רֶבַע הַהִין וְנֵסֶךְ רְבִיעִת הַהִין יָיִן לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד:
And one-tenth of fine flour: A tenth of an ephah, [the volume of] forty-three and one-fifth eggs. ועשרון סולת: עשירית האיפה, ארבעים ושלש ביצים וחומש ביצה:
of crushed [olive] oil: Crushed is not stated as being obligatory, but [simply] to make it acceptable. Since it says: “crushed for lighting” (Exod. 27:20), implying “for [use as] lighting” but not [to be used] for meal offerings, I would possibly think [that the verse means] to disqualify it for meal offerings. Therefore, the Torah states here, “crushed.” Consequently, “crushed for lighting” was stated only to exclude meal offerings, that they do not require crushed [oil], for even oil ground in a mill is acceptable for them. -[from Men. 86b] בשמן כתית: לא לחובה נאמר כתית אלא להכשיר, לפי שנאמר (לעיל כז כ) כתית למאור, ומשמע למאור ולא למנחות, יכול לפסלו למנחות, תלמוד לומר כאן כתית, ולא נאמר (שמות כז כ) כתית למאור אלא למעט מנחות שאין צריך כתית, שאף הטחון בריחים כשר בהן:
a quarter of a hin: Three logs. רבע ההין: שלשה לוגין:
and a libation: for the basins, as we learned in tractate Succah (48a): Two silver basins were at the top of the altar, and they were perforated like two fine nostrils. He [the kohen] would pour the wine into it [these basins], and it would flow and exit through the “nostril” and fall on the roof of the altar, from where it would descend [through holes in the altar] to the foundations, in the altar of the Temple, and in the copper altar it would descend from the altar to the ground. ונסך: לספלים, כמו ששנינו במסכת סוכה (מח א) שני ספלים של כסף היו בראש המזבח, ומנוקבים כמין שני חוטמין דקים, נותן היין לתוכו והוא מקלח ויוצא דרך החוטם ונופל על גג המזבח, ומשם יורד לשיתין במזבח בית עולמים, ובמזבח הנחשת יורד מן המזבח לארץ:
41And the other lamb you shall offer up in the afternoon; you shall offer [it] up like the meal offering of the morning and its libation, as a spirit of satisfaction, a fire offering to the Lord. מאוְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם כְּמִנְחַת הַבֹּקֶר וּכְנִסְכָּהּ תַּעֲשֶׂה לָּהּ לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ אִשֶּׁה לַיהֹוָה:
as a spirit of satisfaction: This is stated regarding the meal offering, for the meal offering of libations is entirely burned, and the order of their sacrifice is: first the limbs [of the burnt offering] and afterwards the meal offering, as it is said: “burnt offering and meal offering” (Lev. 23:37). לריח ניחח: על המנחה נאמר, שמנחת נסכים כולה כליל, וסדר הקרבתן האיברים בתחלה ואחר כך המנחה, שנאמר (ויקרא כג לז) עולה ומנחה:
42It shall be a continual burnt offering for your generations, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting before the Lord, where I will arrange meetings with you, to speak to you there. מבעֹלַת תָּמִיד לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אֲשֶׁר אִוָּעֵד לָכֶם שָׁמָּה לְדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ שָׁם:
continual: Daily, without a day intervening. תמיד: מיום אל יום, ולא יפסיק יום בינתים:
where I will arrange meetings with you: When I arrange a time to speak to you, I will arrange it to come there. Some of our Rabbis derive from here that since the time the Mishkan was erected, the Holy One, blessed is He, spoke to Moses from above the copper altar. Others, however, say that [He spoke to Moses] from above the ark cover, as it is said: “and I will speak with you from atop the ark cover” (Exod. 25:22), and “where I will arrange meetings with you,” stated here, is not stated about the altar but about the Tent of Meeting mentioned in the verse. -[from Baraitha Melecheth HaMishkan, ch. 14] אשר אועד לכם: כשאקבע מועד לדבר אליך שם אקבענו לבא. ויש מרבותינו למדים מכאן, שמעל מזבח הנחשת היה הקב"ה מדבר עם משה משהוקם המשכן, ויש אומרים מעל הכפרת, כמו שנאמר (שמות כה כב) ודברתי אתך מעל הכפורת, ואשר אועד לכם האמור כאן אינו אמור על המזבח, אלא על אהל מועד הנזכר במקרא:
43There I will arrange meetings with the children of Israel, and it will be sanctified by My glory. מגוְנֹעַדְתִּי שָׁמָּה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִקְדַּשׁ בִּכְבֹדִי:
There I will arrange meetings: I will arrange to speak with them [the children of Israel], as a king who arranges a place to speak there with his servants. ונועדתי שמה: אתועד עמם בדבור, כמלך הקובע מקום מועד לדבר עם עבדיו שם:
and it will be sanctified: [I.e.,] the Mishkan [will be sanctified]. ונקדש: המשכן:
by My glory: Heb. בִּכְבֹדִי. That My Shechinah will dwell in it. The aggadic midrash, however, says: Do not read בִּכְבֹדִי, but בִּמְכֻבָּדַי, with My honored ones. Here He hinted to him [Moses] about the death of Aaron’s sons on the day it [the Mishkan] was erected. This is what Moses [meant when he] said, “This is what the Lord spoke, saying, ‘With those close to Me I will be sanctified’” (Lev. 10:3). Now where did He speak? “And it will be sanctified by My glory.” -[from Sifra, Lev. 10:3; Zev. 115b] בכבודי: שתשרה שכינתי בו. ומדרש אגדה אל תקרי בכבודי, אלא [בכבודי], במכובדים שלי, כאן רמז לו מיתת בני אהרן ביום הקמתו, וזהו שאמר משה (ויקרא י ג) הוא אשר דבר ה' לאמר בקרובי אקדש, והיכן דבר, ונקדש בכבודי:
44I will sanctify the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and I will sanctify Aaron and his sons to serve Me [as kohanim]. מדוְקִדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו אֲקַדֵּשׁ לְכַהֵן לִי:
45I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel and I will be their God. מהוְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים:
46They will know that I, the Lord, am their God, Who brought them out of the land of Egypt in order that I may dwell in their midst; I am the Lord, their God. מווְיָדְעוּ כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְשָׁכְנִי בְתוֹכָם אֲנִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם:
in order that I may dwell in their midst: With the intention that I dwell in their midst. לשכני בתוכם: על מנת לשכון אני בתוכם:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 44 - 48
• Chapter 44
The psalmist cries and laments painfully over this bitter exile, where we and our Torah are shamed daily, when the nations say that God has exchanged us for another nation, and where we are considered as sheep for the slaughter, as a byword and taunt. It is therefore fitting that God redeem us, for the sake of His great Name that abides with us in exile.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, a maskil.1
2. God, with our ears we have heard, our fathers have told us, of the deeds You wrought in their days, in the days of old.
3. You drove out nations with Your hand, and planted [Israel in their place]; You afflicted peoples and banished them.
4. For not by their sword did they inherit the land, and their own arm did not save them, but by Your right hand, Your arm and the light of Your countenance-for You favored them.
5. You are my king, O God; decree the salvation of Jacob.
6. Through You will we gore our adversaries; with Your Name we will trample our opponents.
7. For I do not trust in my bow, and my sword cannot save me.
8. For You have delivered us from our foes, and You shamed those who hate us.
9. In God we glory all day, and forever thank Your Name, Selah.
10. Though You abandon and disgrace us, and do not go forth with our armies;
11. You cause us to retreat from the oppressor, and those who hate us plunder for themselves;
12. You deliver us like sheep to be devoured, and scatter us among the nations;
13. You sell Your nation without gain, and do not set a high price upon them;
14. You make us a disgrace to our neighbors, the scorn and derision of those around us;
15. You make us a byword among the nations, [a cause for] nodding the head among the peoples;
16. all day long my humiliation is before me, and the shame of my face covers me
17. at the voice of the reviler and blasphemer, because of the foe and avenger-
18. all this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten You, nor have we been false to Your covenant.
19. Our hearts have not retracted, nor have our steps strayed from Your path.
20. Even when You crushed us in the place of serpents, and shrouded us in the shadow of death-
21. did we forget the Name of our God, and extend our hands to a foreign god?
22. Is it not so that God can examine this, for He knows the secrets of the heart.
23. For it is for Your sake that we are killed all the time; we are regarded as sheep for the slaughter.
24. Arise! Why do You sleep, my Lord? Wake up! Do not abandon [us] forever!
25. Why do You conceal Your countenance and forget our affliction and distress?
26. For our souls are bowed to the dust, our bellies cleave to the earth.
27. Arise! Be our help, and redeem us for the sake of Your kindness.
Chapter 45
The psalmist composed this psalm referring to Moshiach. He describes his greatness, his attributes, his glory, his wealth, and his reign; and states that Israel anticipates him, remembering and saying in every generation, "When will King Moshiach come?"
1. For the Conductor, upon the shoshanim,1 By the sons of Korach; a maskil,2 a song of love.
2. My heart is astir with a noble theme; I say, "My composition is for the king;3 my tongue is the pen of a skillful scribe.”
3. You are the most handsome of men, charm is poured upon your lips; therefore has God blessed you forever.
4. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one-it is your majesty and splendor.
5. And with your splendor, succeed and ride on for the sake of truth and righteous humility; and your right hand will guide you to awesome deeds.
6. Your arrows are sharpened-nations fall beneath you-[the arrows fall] into the hearts of the king's enemies.
7. Your throne, O ruler, is forever and ever, [for] the scepter of justice is the scepter of your kingdom.
8. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore has God, your God, anointed you with oil of joy above your peers.
9. Myrrh, aloes and cassia are [the fragrance] of all your garments, which are from ivory palaces that bring you joy.
10. Daughters of kings visit you, and the queen stands erect at your right hand, adorned in the fine gold of Ophir.
11. Hear, O daughter, and observe, incline your ear; forget your people and your father's house.
12. Then the king will desire your beauty. He is your master-bow to him.
13. The daughter of Tyre, the wealthiest of nations, will seek your favor with a gift.
14. All the glory of the princess is within; her clothing surpasses settings of gold.
15. In embroidered garments she will be brought to the king; the maidens in her train, her companions, will be led to you.
16. They will be brought with gladness and joy, they will enter the palace of the king.
17. Your sons will succeed your fathers; you will appoint them ministers throughout the land.
18. I will cause Your Name to be remembered throughout the generations; therefore will the nations praise You forever and ever.
Chapter 46
This psalm tells of the Gog and Magog era (the Messianic age), when man will cast aside his weapons, and warfare will be no more.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, on the alamot,1 a song.
2. God is our refuge and strength, a help in distress, He is most accessible.
3. Therefore, we will not be afraid when the earth is transformed, when mountains collapse in the heart of the seas;
4. when its waters roar and are muddied, and mountains quake before His grandeur, Selah.
5. The river2-its streams will bring joy to the city of God, the sacred dwelling of the Most High.
6. God is in her midst, she will not falter; God will help her at the approach of morning.
7. Nations clamor, kingdoms stumble; He raises His voice and the earth dissolves.
8. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
9. Go and see the works of the Lord, Who has wrought devastation in the land.
10. To the end of the earth He causes wars to cease; He breaks the bow, snaps the spear, and burns the wagons in fire.
11. Stop [waging war]! And know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, exalted upon the earth.
12. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
Chapter 47
Following the battle of Gog and Magog (in the Messianic era), war will be no more. God will grant us salvation, and we will merit to go up to the Holy Temple for the festivals, Amen.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. All you nations, clap hands; sound [the shofar] to God with a sound of jubilation.
3. For the Lord is most high, awesome; a great King over all the earth.
4. He subdues peoples under us, nations beneath our feet.
5. He chooses our heritage for us, the glory of Jacob whom He loves eternally.
6. God ascends through teruah, the Lord-through the sound of the shofar.
7. Sing, O sing to God; sing, O sing to our King.
8. For God is King over all the earth; sing, O man of understanding.
9. God reigns over the nations; God is seated on His holy throne.
10. The most noble of the nations are gathered, the nation of the God of Abraham; for the protectors of the earth belong to God; He is greatly exalted.
Chapter 48
The psalmist prophesies about the Messianic era, singing the praises of a rebuilt Jerusalem and the sacrifices brought there. At that time Israel will say, "As we heard from the mouths of the prophets, so have we merited to see!"
1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. The Lord is great and exceedingly acclaimed in the city of God, His holy mountain.
3. Beautiful in landscape, the joy of the whole earth is Mount Zion, on the northern slopes, the city of the great King.
4. In her citadels, God became known as a tower of strength.
5. For behold, the kings assembled, they advanced in concert [to invade her].
6. They saw [the wonders of the Almighty] and were astounded; they were terror-stricken, they hastened to flee.
7. Trembling seized them there, pangs as of a woman in the throes of labor;
8. [they were crushed as] by an east wind that shatters the ships of Tarshish.
9. As we have heard, so have we seen, in the city of the Lord of Hosts, in the city of our God; may God establish it for all eternity.
10. God, we have been hoping for Your kindness [to be revealed] within Your Sanctuary.
11. As Your Name, O God, [is great,] so is Your praise to the ends of the earth; Your right hand is filled with righteousness.
12. Let Mount Zion rejoice, let the towns of Judah exult, because of Your judgments.
13. Walk around Zion, encircle her, count her towers.
14. Consider well her ramparts, behold her lofty citadels, that you may recount it to a later generation.
15. For this God is our God forever and ever; He will lead us eternally.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 31• Lessons in Tanya
• Friday, Adar 8, 5775 · February 27, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 31
ולהיות בחינת תשובה זו ביתר שאת ויתר עז מעומקא דלבא, וגם שמחת הנפש תהיה בתוספת אורה ושמחה
One may lend this teshuvah — the restoration of his soul to its source — additional strength from the depths of his heart, and likewise add a greater measure of light and joy to the joy of his soul brought on by the teshuvah,
כאשר ישיב אל לבו דעת ותבונה לנחמו מעצבונו ויגונו, לאמר כנ״ל
by comforting his heart from its distress and sorrow, through reflecting (lit., “speaking to his heart”) with knowledge and understanding, as follows:
הן אמת כו׳, אך אני לא עשיתי את עצמי
“Certainly it is true, as said above, that I am utterly remote from G‑d, etc.; but it was not I who created myself in a manner that permits the divine soul to be exiled within the impurity of the body and animal soul. It was G‑d Who created me thus.
ולמה עשה ה׳ כזאת, להוריד חלק מאורו יתברך, הממלא וסובב כל עלמין, וכולא קמיה כלא חשיב, והלבישו במשכא דחויא וטפה סרוחה
“Why then has G‑d done such a thing — to cause [the divine soul,] a part of His light which fills and encompasses all worlds and before which all is as naught, to descend into [the body], and be clothed in a ’serpent’s skin‘ and a ’fetid drop‘
אין זה כי אם ירידה זו היא צורך עליה
“Surely this descent must be for the sake of a subsequent ascent.
להעלות לה׳ כל נפש החיונית הבהמית שמקליפת נוגה, וכל לבושיה, הן בחינות מחשבה דבור ומעשה שלהל
“That is, to elevate to G‑d the entire animating, animal soul, which derives fromkelipat nogah, and also its ’garments‘ of thought, speech and action,
על ידי התלבשותן במעשה דבור ומחשבת התורה
by means of clothing them in the action, speech and thought of the Torah.
For by performing the mitzvot, and by speaking and thinking words of Torah, the animal soul and its ’garments‘ are elevated toward G‑dliness.
וכמו שכתוב לקמן ענין העלאה זו באריכות, איך שהיא תכלית בריאת העולם
(1The subject of this ascent will be discussed further on at length; 2 it will be shown how this is the purpose for which the world was created.)
ואם כן איפוא זאת אעשה, וזאת תהיה כל מגמתי כל ימי חלדי
“If this be so, there is one thing for me to do, and this shall be my sole aim throughout my life:
לכל בהן חיי רוחי ונפשי, וכמו שכתוב: אליך ה׳ נפשי אשא
To immerse therein — in the thought, speech and action of the Torah and the mitzvot —the life of my spirit and soul, as it is written, 3 “To You, G‑d, I raise my soul.
דהיינו, לקשר מחשבתי ודבורי במחשבתו ודבורו יתברך, והן הן גופי הלכות הערוכות לפנינו, וכן מעשה במעשה המצותי
“In practical terms, this means: To bind my thought and speech with G‑d’s thought and speech — which are, in fact, the very laws which have been set out before us. For the laws of the Torah are G‑d’s “thought” and “speech”, and by studying them one binds his own faculties of thought and speech with their Divine counterparts. Similarly with action: I will bind my faculty of action with G‑d’s faculty of action, through performing the commandments.”
שלכן נקראת התורה משיבת נפש, פירוש, למקורה ושרשה
For this reason, the Torah is described as4 “that which restores the soul,” i.e.,it restores the soul to its source and root.
ועל זה נאמר: פקודי ה׳ ישרים משמחי לב
Moreover, concerning this occupation in the Torah and the mitzvot which brings joy to the soul by restoring it to its source, and which banishes the sadness of its exile in the body and animal soul, it is written: 5 “G‑d’s commandments are just; they gladden the heart.”
When one considers that one’s study of the Torah and observance of the mitzvot elevate not only his divine soul, but also his animal soul, his teshuvah will gain in depth, and the joy of his soul will gain in intensity.
For although the soul’s “escape” from exile within the body and animal soul (spoken of earlier) would in itself be sufficient cause for great joy, yet this is a joy tempered by sadness over the lowly state in which one’s body and animal soul remain. When one realizes, however, that Torah and the mitzvot elevate the body and animal soul as well, his joy will be untarnished.
FOOTNOTES
1. Parentheses are in the original text.
2. Chapters 35, 36, and 37.
3. Tehillim 25:1.
4. Ibid., 19:8.
5. Ibid., 19:9.Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Friday, Adar 8, 5775 · February 27, 2015
Today's MitzvahA daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Negative Commandment 262
A Husband's Obligations towards His Wife
"He shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or conjugal rights"—Exodus 21:10.
The Torah tells us that if a man marries a Jewish slave-girl, he may not torment her by denying her appropriate food, clothing, or conjugal rights. Rather, he must accord her the rights due to all "the daughters [of Israel]." Thus it is clear that this precept applies to all wives.
A Husband's Obligations towards His Wife
Negative Commandment 262
Translated by Berel Bell
The 262nd prohibition is that one who purchases a Jewish maidservant and then marries her is forbidden from afflicting her. When I say "from afflicting her," I mean that he may not diminish her food, clothing, or conjugal rights (sh'eirah, k'susah, onasah) with the intention of afflicting her and causing her anguish.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "He may not diminish her food, clothing, or conjugal rights."
This same prohibition also applies to one who has married any Jewish woman; he also is prohibited from afflicting her in any of these three areas, with the intention of causing her anguish and distress.
The source for this is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He) regarding the Jewish maidservant [whose master marries her and] whose food, clothing, and conjugal rights may not be withheld, "She must be treated exactly as other [married] women." From here we learn that the [proper] treatment of all married women is that one may not diminish their food, clothing, and conjugal rights.
Our Sages explained this in the Mechilta: "What does the verse, '[She must be treated] exactly as other [married] women' teach us [about the treatment of the maidservant]? It appears to come here to teach us something; but rather it ends up being taught about."3
There it is also explained that sh'eirah refers to food; k'susah is meant literally [i.e. clothing], and onasah refers to conjugal rights.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 21:10.
2.Ex. 21:9.
3.By saying that a maidservant must be treated like a regular married woman, it would seem that we know something about the regular woman that we don't know about the maidservant. In reality, however, the opposite is true: we learn from verse 10 that a maidservant's food, clothing, and conjugal relations may not be diminished. By saying in verse 9 that the maidservant is treated like a regular woman, we learn that the same applies to a regular woman.
Tefilah and Birkat Kohanim - Chapter Thirteen
Halacha 1
The common custom throughout all Israel is to complete the [reading of] the Torah in one year. [The cycle] is begun on the Sabbath after the Sukkot festival, reading the sidrah, Bereshit. On the following Sabbath, [the sidrah,] Eleh toldot[is read]; on the third, [the sidrah,] Vayomer Ado-nai el Avram. We continue reading according to this order until the Torah is completed, during the Sukkot festival.
There are those who finish the Torah reading in a three-year cycle. However, this is not a widely accepted custom.
Halacha 2
Ezra instituted the practice of having the Jews read the "curses" found in the Book of Leviticus before Shavuot, and those found in the Book of Deuteronomy before Rosh HaShanah.
It is common custom to read [the sidrah,] Bemidbar Sinai before Shavuot, [thesidrah,] Va'etchanan after Tish'ah B'Av, [the sidrah,] Attem nitzavim before Rosh HaShanah, and [the sidrah,] Tzav et Aharon before Pesach in an ordinary year.
Therefore, there are Sabbaths on which two sedarim are read: for example, [the sidrah,] Ishah ki tazria and [the sidrah,] Vezot tih'yeh torat hametzora [are often combined. Similarly, the sidrah,] Im bechukotai [is often combined] with [the sidrah,] Behar Sinai, so that [the reading of the Torah] will be completed in a year, and the sedarim will be read at the appropriate times.
Halacha 3
At the point [in the Torah] where the Sabbath morning [reading] was completed, the reading [is begun] on the Sabbath afternoon, on Monday, on Thursday, and on the following Sabbath.
What is implied? On the first Sabbath, we read [the sidrah,] Bereshit in the morning. In the afternoon, ten or more verses from [the sidrah,] Eleh toldot Noach are read. The same practice [is followed] on Monday and Thursday. On the coming Sabbath, we begin from Eleh toldot Noach, and read until the conclusion of the sidrah. This pattern is followed throughout the year.
On each Sabbath, a haftarah is recited that reflects the Torah reading.
Halacha 4
On Rosh Chodesh, the first reader reads three verses from the passage (Numbers 28:1-15) Tzav. The second reader reads the third verse which was read by the first reader, and the following two verses, so that three verses will remain in the passage. The third reader reads the three verses that were left [unread] by the second reader, and the passage "And on the Sabbath day...." The fourth reader reads [the passage] "And on your new months...."
If Rosh Chodesh falls on the Sabbath, two Torah scrolls are taken out in the morning. The sidrah of that particular Sabbath is read from one, and the person who concludes the reading reads [the passage] "And on your new months...."
The person who reads the haftarah reads the passage concerning Rosh Chodesh, and then reads [the passage (Isaiah 66:1-24) that concludes:] "And it will be from month to month..." as the haftarah.
If Rosh Chodesh Av falls on the Sabbath [the passage, Isaiah 1:14-31, beginning:] "My soul hates your new moons and your festivals" is read as thehaftarah.
If Rosh Chodesh falls on Sunday, on the preceding Sabbath [the passage (I Samuel 20:18-42), beginning:] "And Jonathan told him: 'Tomorrow is the new month...'” is read as the haftarah.
Halacha 5
Whoever is called to read from the Torah should begin [his reading] with a positive matter and conclude with a positive matter.
However, in Parashat Ha'azinu, the first [person called to the Torah] reads untilZ'chor y'mot olam (Deuteronomy 32:7). The second begins from Z'chor y'mot olam [and continues] until Yarkivehu (ibid.:13). The third [reads] from Yarkivehuuntil Vayar Ado-nai vayin'atz (ibid.:19). The fourth [reads] from Vayar Ado-nai vayin'atz until Lu chachmu (ibid.:29). The fifth [reads] from Lu chachmu until Ki essa el shamayim yadi (ibid.:40). The sixth [reads] from Ki essa el shamayim yadi until the conclusion of the song (ibid.:43).
Why is the Torah reading ceased at these points? Because these are [verses of] rebuke, [and the intent is that] that they motivate the people to repent.
Halacha 6
The eight verses at the conclusion of the Torah may be read in a synagogue when fewer than ten people are present. They are indeed all Torah and were related by Moses from the Almighty. However, since, on the surface, they appear to have been recited after Moses' death, the [rules governing them] are different. Therefore, it is permissible for an individual to read them.
Halacha 7
The "curses" in Leviticus should not be interrupted. Rather, a single person should read them [in their entirety]. He should begin with the verse preceding them and conclude with the verse following them.
The "curses" in Deuteronomy may be interrupted if one desires. However, the people have already adopted the custom of not interrupting [this reading]. Rather, a single person reads them [in their entirety].
Halacha 8
[The cycle of Torah readings] is interrupted for the festivals and Yom Kippur. [On these occasions,] we read [a passage that] concerns the festival and not the sidrah of [that] Sabbath.
Moses instituted [the practice that], on each festival, the Jews should read [a passage] appropriate to it. Also, it [is proper] on each festival to ask about and explain the subjects [pertinent] to that festival.
Which [passages] are read? On Pesach, [we read] the passage concerning the festivals in Leviticus (23:4-44). [However,] the people have already adopted the custom of reading Mishchu uk'chu lachem (Exodus 12:21-51) on the first day. The haftarah is [the description] of the Pesach celebrated in Gilgal (Joshua 5:2-15).
On the second day, we read Shor o kesev (Leviticus 22:26-23:44). Thehaftarah is [the description] of the Pesach celebrated by Josaiah (II Kings 1-9, 21-25). On the third day, we read Kadesh li kol b'chor (Exodus 13:1-16); on the fourth day, Im kessef talveh (Exodus 22:24-23:19); on the fifth day, P'sol lecha(Exodus 34:1-26); on the sixth day, Vaya'asu Bnei Yisrael et hapesach b'mo'ado (Numbers 9:1-14).
On the final festival, [we read] from Vay'hi beshalach until the conclusion of the song [sung at Red Sea] until [the verse,] Ani Ado-nai rof'echa (Exodus 13:17-15:26). The haftarah is Vayedaber David (II Samuel 22:1-51).
On the eighth day, [we read], Kol hab'chor (Deuteronomy 15:19-16:17). Thehaftarah is Od hayom (Isaiah 10:32-4, 11:1-16, 12:1-6).
Halacha 9
On Shavuot, we read [the passage, containing the reading] Shiv'ah shavuot(Deuteronomy 16:9). However, it is common custom to read [the passage,]Bachodesh hash'lishi (Exodus 19:1-20:23) on the first day of the festival. [The vision of God's] chariot (Ezekiel 1:1-28) is read as the haftarah.
On the second day, the passage describing the festivals, Kol hab'chor(Deuteronomy 15:19-16:17) is read, and [a passage from] Chabbakuk (3:1-19) is read as the haftarah.
Halacha 10
On Rosh HaShanah, we read [the passage including the verse]: Uvachodesh hash'vi'i b'echad lachodesh (Numbers 29:1). However, it is common custom to read [the passage,] VAdo-nai pakad et Sarah (Genesis 21:1-33). [The passage,] Vay'hi ish echad min haramatayim (I Samuel 1:1-2:10) is read as thehaftarah.
On the second day, [the passage,] V'HaElo-him nisah et Avraham (Genesis 22:1-24) is read, and [the passage including the verse] Haven yakir li Efrayim(Jeremiah 31:1-19) is read as the haftarah.
Halacha 11
On Yom Kippur, in the morning, we read [the passage,] Acharei mot (Leviticus 16:1-34) and read [the passage,] Ki koh amar ram v'nisa (Isaiah 57:14-58:14) as the haftarah.
In the afternoon, [we read the passage] in Acharei mot that is concerned with forbidden sexual relations, in order that anyone who has violated one of these sins will remember, become embarrassed, and repent. The third person [who] reads from the Torah recites [the Book of] Yonah as the haftarah.
Halacha 12
On Sukkot, on the first two days, we read the passage that concerns the festivals: Shor o kesev o eyz (Leviticus 22:26-23:44). The haftarah read on the first day is [the passage,] Hiney yom ba l'Ado-nai (Zechariah 14). On the second day, [the haftarah is the passage,] Vayikahalu el hamelech Shlomo (I Kings 8:2-21).
On the final day of the festival, we read [the passage,] Kol hab'chor(Deuteronomy 15:19-16:17). For the haftarah, we read [the passage,] Vay'hi k'chalot Shlomo (I Kings 8:54-66).
On the following day, we read [the sidrah,] Vezot haberachah (Deuteronomy 33-34). For the haftarah, we read [the passage,] Vaya'amod Shlomo (I Kings 8:22-53). There are those who read [the passage,] Vay'hi acharei mot Moshe(Joshua 1) as the haftarah.
On the other days of Sukkot, we read [the passages that describe] the sacrifices [offered] on the festival.
Halacha 13
What is implied? On each of the days of Chol Hamo'ed, we read two passages. [For example,] on the third day [of the festival], which is [the first day of] Chol Hamo'ed, the priest reads [the passage,] Uvayom hasheni. The Levite reads [the passage,] Uvayom hash'lishi. The Israelite repeats [the passage,] Uvayom hash'lishi, and the person called for the fourthaliyah repeats [both passages:]Uvayom hasheni and Uvayom hash'lishi.
Similarly, on the fourth day [of the festival], which is the second day of Chol Hamo'ed, we read the passages Uvayom hash'lishi and Uvayom harevi'i. The same pattern is followed on all the [other] days.
Halacha 14
In the morning [service] on each and every one of the festivals, on Yom Kippur, and during the seven days of Pesach, two [Torah] scrolls are taken out. We read the passages mentioned above from the first scroll, and from the second scroll we read the description of the sacrifices [offered on] that day, in the Book of Numbers. The person who reads the description of the sacrifices recites thehaftarah from the prophets.
Halacha 15
On any day when two or three [Torah] scrolls are taken out: if they are taken out one after the other, when the first scroll is returned, Kaddish is recited and the second scroll is taken out. When the second scroll is returned, Kaddish is also recited.
We have mentioned above that the common custom is to recite Kaddish after the reader concludes the reading at all times, and then to recite the haftarahfrom the prophets.
Halacha 16
When the Sabbath falls during Chol Hamo'ed - whether during Pesach or during Sukkot - [the passage,] R'ey Attah omer elai (Exodus 33:12-34:26) is read on that Sabbath. On Pesach, [the passage describing Ezekiel's vision of] the dry bones (Chapter 37) is read as the haftarah. When [the Sabbath] falls in the midst of Sukkot, [the passage,] B'yom bo Gog (Ezekiel 38:18-39:16) is read as the haftarah.
Halacha 17
On Chanukah, [the following passages are read:] On the first day, we read from the Priestly Blessing (Numbers 6:38-42) until the conclusion of the sacrifice offered on the first day (Numbers 7:17). On the second day, we read [the passage describing] the sacrifices of the Nasi who brought the offering on the second day. This practice is continued until the eighth day. On the eighth day, we read [the descriptions of] all the [remaining] sacrifices until the end of the portion.
On the Sabbath of Chanukah, the haftarah is Zechariah's [vision of the Menorah (2:14-4:7)]. If two Sabbaths are celebrated during Chanukah, on the first Sabbath, Zechariah's [vision of the Menorah] is read as the haftarah; on the second, [the description of] Solomon's [Menorah is read as the haftarah (I Kings 7:40-50)]. The one who reads the [passage designated for] Chanukah is the one who recites the haftarah from the prophets.
On Purim, [the passage,] Vayavo Amalek (Exodus 17:8-16) [is read].
Halacha 18
On Tish'ah B'Av, in the morning, [the passage,] Ki tolid banim (Deuteronomy 4:25-40) is read, and [the passage,] Asof asifem, n'um Ado-nai (Jeremiah 8:13-9:23) is read as the haftarah. During the Minchah service, we read [the passage,] Vay'chal Moshe (Exodus 32:11-14, 34:1-10), as on other fast days.
On the other days when we fast [to commemorate the bitter events] that occurred to our ancestors, we read the [above-mentioned passage,] in the morning and Minchah services [in the following manner]: The first person called to the Torah reads four verses, [beginning] Vay'chal Moshe. The second and the third read from P'sol lecha until asher ani oseh imach.
On the fasts that are declared by the community because of difficulties like famine or plague, we read blessings and curses, so that the people will repent and humble their hearts when they hear them.
Halacha 19
It is customary on the three Sabbaths before Tish'ah B'Av to read haftarot of rebuke. On the first Sabbath, we read [the passage,] Divrei Yirmiyahu(Jeremiah 1:1-2:3) as the haftarah. On the second [Sabbath], we read [the passage,] Chazon Yishayahu (Isaiah 1:1-27). On the third [Sabbath], we read [the passage,] Eichah hay'ta l'zonah (Isaiah 1:21).
Similarly, on the Sabbath after Tish'ah B'Av we read [the passage Nachamu, nachamu, ami (Isaiah 40:1-26) as the haftarah. It is the common custom in our cities to read the comforting prophecies of Isaiah as the haftarot from Tish'ah B'Av until Rosh HaShanah.
On the Sabbath between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, we read [the passage,] Shuvah Yisrael as the haftarah.
Halacha 20
When Rosh Chodesh Adar falls on the Sabbath, we read Parashat Shekalim(Exodus 30:11-16), and read as the haftarah [the passage concerning] Yehoyada, the priest (II Kings 11:17-20, 12:1-17). If Rosh Chodesh Adar falls in the middle of the week - even if it falls on Friday - Parashat Shekalim is read on the previous Sabbath.
On the "second Sabbath," we read Parashat Zachor (Deuteronomy 25:17-19), and read as the haftarah, [the passage,] Pakad'ti et asher asah Amalek (I Samuel 15:1-34). What is meant by the "second Sabbath"? The Sabbath before the week in which Purim falls - even if Purim falls on Friday.
On the "third Sabbath," we read [the passage describing] "the red heifer" (Numbers 19:1-22), and read as the haftarah [the passage,] V'zarakti aleichem(Ezekiel 36:16-38). Which is the "third Sabbath"? The one preceding the fourth.
On the fourth Sabbath, we read [the passage,] Hachodesh hazeh lachem(Exodus 12:1-20), and read as the haftarah [the passage,] Barishon b'echad lachodesh (Ezekiel 45:16-25, 46:1-18). Which is the "fourth Sabbath"? The Sabbath of the week when Rosh Chodesh Nisan falls - even if it falls on Friday.
Halacha 21
Thus, there will be times when there is an interruption between the first [of these] Sabbaths and the second, or between the second and the third. At times, there will be two interruptions - between the first and the second and between the second and third. However, an interruption is never made between the third and fourth [Sabbaths].
Halacha 22
Each one of these four passages should be read from another Torah scroll, after reading the sidrah of that Sabbath from the scroll that was taken out first.
If Rosh Chodesh Adar fell on the Sabbath and the sidrah to be read that week was V'attah tetzaveh, six people read from V'attah tetzaveh until V'asita kiyor nechoshet.The seventh person reads from the second scroll and repeats the reading of Ki tissa until V'asita kiyor nechoshet.
If the sidrah to be read that week was Ki tissa itself, six people read from Ki tissa until Vayakhel. The seventh person reads from the second scroll and repeats the reading of Ki tissa until V'asita kiyor nechoshet.
Halacha 23
[When] Rosh Chodesh Adar falls on the Sabbath, three Torah scrolls are taken out. The sidrah of the day is read from the first scroll. The passage concerning Rosh Chodesh is read from the second scroll, and Ki tissa is read from the third scroll. Similarly, [when] Rosh Chodesh Nisan falls on the Sabbath, three Torah scrolls are taken out. The sidrah of the day is read from the first scroll, the passage concerning Rosh Chodesh is read from the second scroll, andHachodesh hazeh is read from the third scroll.
Halacha 24
[Similarly, when] Rosh Chodesh Tevet falls on the Sabbath, three Torah scrolls are taken out. The sidrah of the day is read from the first scroll. The passage concerning Rosh Chodesh is read from the second scroll, and the passage for Chanukah is read from the third scroll.
[When Rosh Chodesh Tevet] falls during the middle of the week, three people read from the passage concerning Rosh Chodesh, and the fourth person reads the passage for Chanukah.
Halacha 25
Although a person hears the entire Torah [portion] each Sabbath [when it is read] communally, he is obligated to study on his own each week the sidrah of that week, reading it twice in the original and once in the Aramaic translation. [When] there is no Aramaic translation for a verse, one should read the verse three times in the original, so that one completes [the study of] one's [Torah] portions with the community.
Ishut - Chapter Seventeen
Halacha 1
[The following laws apply when] a person dies after having been married to several wives. Whichever of his wives was married first has the right to collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah [before the others]. None may collect [her due] without taking an oath.1
The [wives who married] last are entitled to [collect their due] only from what remains after [those who married previously collect theirs].2 Even the last wife [to collect] must take an oath [before] she collects what remains.3
Similarly, when there is [also] a promissory note [owed by the husband's estate], if the promissory note was dated before [the ketubot], the promissory note should be collected first. If the ketubot were each dated before [the promissory note], the woman should collect [her due] first, and the person owed the promissory note [should collect from] the remainder.
Halacha 2
When does the above apply? When the land from which [the wives and the creditor] desire to collect was owned by [the deceased] at the time he married the women and took the loan. For [in such a situation], the law is that whoever's document is dated first takes precedence.
If, however, a man married several women in succession, and borrowed money - whether before marrying the women or afterwards - and [then - i.e.,] after marrying and borrowing he purchased land - it should be divided among all of them equally, for all their liens took effect at the same time. At the time he purchased the land, each one established a lien on it. None has precedence over the others.4
Halacha 3
Similarly, if all the ketubot and promissory notes were dated on one day - or at a specific time, in a place where it is customary to [include] the time [of a legal document] - it should be divided among all of them equally; none has precedence over the others.
Under all circumstances, [if one of the creditors or one of the wives] took possession of movable property [belonging to the estate as payment for] the loan or ketubah, the property that they took should not be expropriated from him or her. For no creditor has precedence over another with regard to movable property.5
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply when] a person divorces his wife at the time he has an outstanding promissory note, and his creditor and his divorcee come to collect [their due]. If the husband owns [enough] money and land to settle the debt and the obligations stemming from the ketubah, the creditor should be awarded the money,6 and his divorcee should collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah from the landed property.7
If all [the husband] possesses is land that is not of sufficient value to settle both debts, and neither [his divorcee nor his creditor] has a prior claim to this land, it should be given [toward the payment of the debt owed to] the creditor. If any [land] remains [after the settlement of the debt], it should be given to the divorcee. If nothing remains, the divorcee must yield to the creditor. [The rationale is that] the creditor suffered a loss; he [lent] money [to the husband]. The woman, by contrast,did not lose anything. For more than a man desires to marry, a woman desires to be married.
Halacha 5
Similarly, if a man dies leaving a widow and a creditor, and land to which neither of them has a prior claim, the widow must yield to the creditor, and he collects the debt owed him first.
Halacha 6
Since the geonim ordained8 that a woman and a creditor may collect their due from movable property, and as is well known, no creditors are given precedence with regard to movable property9 [the following rules apply]. If the husband did not leave enough movable property to settle both accounts, the creditor is allowed to collect the entire debt [owed him] first. If anything remains [after the settlement of the debt] for the wife to receive [by virtue of] herketubah, it should be given to her. If nothing remains, the wife must yield.
Halacha 7
[The following rule applies when] nichsei tzon barzel were recorded in a woman's ketubah and she claims that they were lost or taken by her husband. With regard to nichsei tzon barzel, a woman is regarded like any other creditor.10
Therefore, she is required to take an oath that she did not take possession of them, give them away or forego the obligation [to her husband]. Afterwards, she receives a share in the estate together with the other creditors.
Halacha 8
When a person who has many wives and who dies or divorces them when none of them has a claim of higher priority to his property than the others, and his holdings are not of sufficient value to pay them each the money due them by virtue of their ketubot, how are his holdings divided? If his holdings are sufficiently valuable to provide only the wife with the ketubah of the least value, or if they are less valuable than that, all of his wives divide [his holdings] equally.
If his holdings are more valuable than that, they should be divided equally to provide the wife with [the money due her by virtue of] the ketubah of the least value. Afterwards, the remainder is divided among the remaining wives according to the same pattern.
What is implied? [To explain by example:] A man was married to four wives. The ketubah of the first was for 400 [zuz], that of the second for 300, that of the third for 200, and that of the first for 100. The total sum is thus 1000 [zuz]. [The following rules apply] if he divorces all of them or dies. If his holdings are worth 400 [zuz] or less, they divide his holdings equally, and each receives 100 or less. If his holdings are worth 800 [it would be improper to divide them equally]. For if they were divided equally, the fourth wife would receive 200 [zuz], and [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah is only 100.
What is done instead? 400 [zuz] are set aside and divided equally, each receiving 100. Thus, the fourth wife has received [the full amount due her by virtue of] her ketubah and she withdraws [from the suit]. Thus, 400 [zuz] are left for three wives, each of whom has already received 100 zuz]. If the 400 were divided equally among the three of them [it would be unfair]. For the third wife would receive 233 and [the amount due her by virtue of] her ketubah was only 200. Therefore, 300 [zuz] are separated from the 400, and these are divided equally among the three. Thus, the third wife receives her 200 and withdraws [from the suit]. There remain two wives and 100 [zuz]. This sum is divided equally between the first and second wife. Thus, the first and second wife each received 250 zuz; the third wife received 200; and the fourth wife, 100. This pattern of allocation is followed even when there are 100 [wives].11
Halacha 9
A person who guarantees the value of a woman's ketubah is not obligated to pay [her the money due her in the event that her husband's holdings are not sufficient if he dies or divorces her]. [This applies] even when he affirmed his commitment with a contractual act.12 [The rationale is that] his [intent is to] perform a mitzvah,13 and he did not cause the woman to lose anything.14
If, however, a person guarantees the ketubah of his son and affirms his commitment with a contractual act,15 he is obligated to pay. For a father will make a binding commitment on behalf of his son and decide to obligate himself.
A person who underwrites a ketubah, by contrast, is obligated to pay, even though he did not affirm his commitment with a contractual act. What is meant by a person who underwrites a ketubah? One who tells a woman: "Marry this man. I will give [the money for] this ketubah." If, however, he says: "I will guarantee this ketubah," "I will pay this ketubah," "I am obligated for it" or the like, he is not liable unless he is the father [of the groom].
When a person divorces a wife [whose ketubah has been underwritten in the above fashion], he must first take a vow16 that she is forbidden to derive benefit from him. Only then may she collect her ketubah from the underwriter or the [husband's] father, if he guaranteed it. [This precaution was instituted,] lest the husband remarry her,17 and thus the two will [have acquired] the property of [the underwriter] through subterfuge.
Halacha 10
Similarly, a person who consecrates his property and then divorces his wife must take a vow that she is forbidden to derive benefit from him. Only then may she collect [the money due her by virtue of her ketubah] from the person who redeems the property from the Temple treasury.18 [This precaution was instituted,] lest the two attempt to deceive the Temple treasury.19
When, however, a person divorces his wife, and she comes to collect [the money due her by virtue of her ketubah] from the [property that was sold to] purchasers, he is not required to take a vow that she is forbidden to derive benefit from him. Instead, she must take the oath required of her, and then she [is entitled to] collect [her due]. If afterwards she desires, she may return to her husband. For the purchasers know that the property was under lien to theketubah of a woman, and they caused themselves the loss by taking property that was under such a lien.
Halacha 11
When a husband sold his property, and afterwards the woman agreed to [her husband's] act and wrote the purchaser: "I have no claim against you," she may, nevertheless, collect [the money due her by virtue of her ketubah by expropriating this property].20 [This applies] even when she affirmed [her commitment] with a contractual act.21 [The rationale is] that she wrote this [statement to the purchaser] only so that there will not be strife between her and her husband. She can [therefore excuse herself,] saying: "I was [merely intending] to please my husband."22
[A different rule applies, however, when the purchaser] enters into an agreement with the woman that she foregoes her lien on this property [before purchasing it from her husband]. If this agreement is affirmed with a contractual act, and afterwards the husband sells the property [to him], [the woman is not entitled to] expropriate this property.23
Similarly, [a woman is not entitled to expropriate property sold by her husband in the following circumstance]. Her husband sold a property [on a previous occasion, and at that time] asked his wife to write the purchaser, "I have no claim to this property," and the woman refused, causing the sale to be nullified.24 [If,] afterwards, the husband sells [property] - whether the same field he had sold previously or another field - to another person, and after the husband's sale the woman agreed, [made a commitment] that she has no claim to this field and affirmed it with a contractual act, she may not expropriate it. For she cannot say, "I did this [merely] to please my husband," since on the previous occasion, when she did not want [to waive her rights], she did not follow her husband's desires.
Halacha 12
[The above ruling is also relevant in the following situation.] A man had two wives. He sold a field, and the purchaser had entered into a contractual act with one of [the husband's] wives, waiving her lien to this field in a manner in which the agreement was effective and the woman no longer had the privilege of claiming, "I did this [merely] to please my husband." Afterwards, the husband died or divorced both his wives.
The second wife may expropriate the property from the purchaser, for she did not enter into any agreement with him. The first wife may then expropriate [the property] from the second wife, for she had a prior claim to it, and she waived her lien only with regard to the purchaser [and not with regard to anyone else]. When the property comes into the possession of the first [wife], the purchaser may expropriate it from her, since she made an agreement with him. [The second wife can then expropriate it from the purchaser,] and the cycle continues until they reach a compromise among themselves.25
Halacha 13
[In the event of her husband's death,] a widow - regardless of whether she was widowed from erusin or nisu'in - may take the oath [required of her], sell land belonging to her husband and collect [the money due her by virtue of] herketubah. [The sale may be carried out] in a court of expert judges, or in a court whose judges are not expert,26 provided it consists of three trustworthy men who are knowledgeable with regard to the evaluation of land. The responsibility for the sale falls on the estate belonging to the heirs.27 A divorcee, by contrast, may sell [her ex-husband's property] only in a court of expert judges.28
Whenever a woman has property sold in court, she must have it sold after a public announcement has been made. In the laws of loans,29 the guidelines for the sale [of property] will be explained. When, by contrast, a woman sells property without the participation of the court,30 a public announcement [of the sale] need not be made. It is, nevertheless, necessary [to consult] with three trustworthy men who are knowledgeable with regard to the evaluation [of property].
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply when] a widow sells [her husband's] landed property privately in order to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah:31 If she sold the property at its proper value, the sale is binding.32 [All that is necessary is for] her to take the oath required of widows after the sale.33
The above applies when she sells the property to another individual. If she takes it as her own after evaluating it, her act is of no significance.34 [This applies even when] she had announced the sale of the property [and received no better offer].
Halacha 15
[In the above situation,] if the woman's ketubah was for 200 [zuz], and she sold [property] that was worth 100 [zuz] for 200,35 or property that was worth 200 for 100,36 she has received the value of her ketubah and is no longer owed anything. She must, however, take the oath required of a widow.
If her ketubah was for 100 [zuz] and she sold [property] worth 101 [zuz] for 100, the sale is nullified.37 [This applies] even if she says, "I will [accept the loss and] return the [outstanding] dinar to the heirs."
Halacha 16
If her ketubah was for 400 zuz and she sold [four pieces of property], three that were each worth 100 [zuz] for 100 [zuz] each, and one that was worth 101 zuzfor 100 [zuz - the final sale is nullified, but the [first three] are all binding.
Halacha 17
A woman has the privilege of selling [the rights to] her ketubah or giving [them] as a present.38 If her husband dies or divorces her, [the purchaser or the recipient] is entitled to come and collect [the money due her by virtue of herketubah].39 If she dies in the lifetime of her husband or [after his death, but] before she takes the oath [required of widows], he is not entitled to anything.
Halacha 18
Although a woman sold [the rights to] a portion of her ketubah, used them as security [for a loan] or gave them as a present, she may sell landed property belonging to her husband and collect the remainder of [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. [This sale may be carried out] in a court of three expert judges or through three trustworthy men.
[A woman] may sell [portions of her husband's property] many times. [These sales may be carried out] in a court of three expert judges or through three trustworthy men who are knowledgeable with regard to the evaluation of property.
Halacha 19
When a woman sells [the rights to] her ketubah - whether to another person or to her husband - she does not forfeit the other privileges of her ketubah.40 [As such,] if she has a son, [and she dies before her husband does,] he inherits the worth of her ketubah - [although it] was sold from his father's estate - in addition to his share [in the estate, as will be explained].41
If, by contrast, a woman waives her ketubah in favor of her husband, she forfeits all the privileges associated with her ketubah. [Her husband] is not required to provide her even with her subsistence.42
The waiver of a ketubah [in favor of the woman's husband] need not [be affirmed by] a contractual act nor [be observed by] witnesses,43 just as the forfeiture [of any obligations] does not require affirmation by] a contractual act nor [the observation of] witnesses. Through one's words alone [the forfeiture is binding], provided the statement is made seriously, [in a manner that] can be relied upon, rather than facetiously, as a joke, or rhetorically.44
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ketubot 10:4), the Rambam explains that this oath differs from the oath that all widows take before collecting from an estate, as mentioned in Chapter 16, Halachah 4, and must be taken even when the wives are not obligated to take that oath. The woman must take this oath for the other widows, stating that she did not collect any money from their husband's estate previously. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 96:16), however, states that the first widow takes an oath to the second, the second to the third, the third to the fourth, and the fourth to the heirs.
|
| 2. |
This procedure is followed even if doing so prevents one of the wives from collecting all that is due her. Indeed, even if there is nothing left for her at all, this order should be followed.
|
| 3. |
This ruling follows the opinion of ben Nanas in the above-mentioned mishnah. It involves a reversal of opinion for the Rambam, who, in his Commentary on the Mishnah favored the view of the other Sages.
|
| 4. |
This refers to a situation where the property owned by the estate is sufficient to cover all the obligations. Otherwise, the creditor takes precedence over the widows, as explained in Halachot 4-5 (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 5. |
If one of the wives or creditors did not wait for the formal deposition of the estate's property, but took possession of some of the movable property on his or her own initiative, they are allowed to retain possession. For in contrast to landed property, the ownership of movable property is not a matter of public knowledge. Hence a creditor does not know whether another creditor preceded him, and therefore no creditor is given the right to collect his due from such property.
As reflected in the rulings of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 102:2), this ruling applies only when the movable property was not acquired together with and via the acquisition of landed property (kinyan agav). In the latter situation, the ownership of the movable property also becomes public knowledge, and therefore the order in which the liens were established is significant.
The Ramah quotes the opinion of the Mordechai, who states that, in the latter instance, if one of the widows seizes possession of the property, it should be expropriated from her.
|
| 6. |
For it was money that he gave him.
|
| 7. |
For a woman relies on the fact that she will ultimately be able to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from the landed property in her husband's estate (Ketubot 86a).
|
| 8. |
See Chapter 16, Halachah 7.
|
| 9. |
See the notes on Halachah 3 with regard to a kinyan agav.
|
| 10. |
The term nichsei tzon barzel refers to property that the woman brought to the household, for which the husband obligated himself to pay a fixed value. In this instance, since the woman, like a creditor, gave up something of value, she is considered on a higher level of precedence than usual.
|
| 11. |
This pattern is also followed in the allocation of a person's holdings when they are not sufficient to pay the debts he owes, as explained in Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh, Chapter 20. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's approach and follows the minority view that the Rambam cites in that source, which maintains that the money should be divided proportionately. The Rambam's view is followed by most other Rishonim (Rashi, Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, the Rashba and Rabbenu Asher) and is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 96:18).
|
| 12. |
Bava Batra 174b explains that the guarantor is not serious about his commitment. He feels that the couple needs only a small push to get married, and that is his intent, rather than making a serious financial commitment. Even a contractual act, which in other contexts serves as an indication of seriousness of purpose, is not sufficient in this instance.
The Ra'avad and the Tur (Even HaEzer 102) differ, and maintain that if a guarantor affirms his commitment with a contractual act, he is liable. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 102:6) quotes the Rambam's view, while the Ramah cites that of the Ra'avad.
|
| 13. |
I.e., he brought about the marriage between the couple.
|
| 14. |
As can be deduced from the Rambam's wording, the Maggid Mishneh states that if a person guarantees a woman's nedunyah (the goods she brought to the household), his commitment is binding. For in this instance, the woman did give up something of value.
|
| 15. |
In this instance as well, the Ra'avad and the Tur differ and hold the father liable, even when he did not affirm his commitment with a contractual act. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 102:6) follows the Rambam's view, while the Ramah cites that of the Ra'avad.
|
| 16. |
Moreover, this vow must be taken al da'at rabbim, based on the judgement of the public, and it thus cannot be nullified (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 102:7).
|
| 17. |
I.e., after the woman collected the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from him.
|
| 18. |
The woman may not collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from the property while it is the possession of the Temple treasury. After it is redeemed, however, she may collect her due from the property. The person who redeems the property must, however, be advised that the property is on lien to a woman's ketubah. (See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 18:7; Hilchot Arachin VaCharamin 7:14-15.)
|
| 19. |
I.e., the woman will collect her husband's property because it is on lien on her ketubah. Afterwards, she will remarry her husband, and he will be able to use his property, because of his rights as the woman's husband.
|
| 20. |
The sale is valid, however, until the woman seeks to claim the property. If, by contrast, the husband sells property that belonged to the woman, or property from which she was designated to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, the sale is nullified immediately (Maggid Mishneh). (See Hilchot Mechirah 30:3.)
|
| 21. |
Note the Ramah (Even HaEzer 90:17), who states that if the woman received money from the purchaser, her commitment is binding.
|
| 22. |
I.e., the woman is saying that her commitment was not sincere and was made only to satisfy her husband.
|
| 23. |
Since she entered into the agreement with the purchaser before her husband made the sale, she cannot excuse herself by saying that she made her statements only to please her husband.
|
| 24. |
The Maggid Mishneh questions the reason for this phrase. When this law is cited in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 90:17), this phrase is omitted. Nevertheless, based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Ketubot 10:5), the Ma'aseh Rokeach maintains that, according to the Rambam, a sale must have been nullified in order for the woman's commitment to be binding later on.
|
| 25. |
A three-way compromise would obviously be most desirable. Nevertheless, any compromise between two of the three parties that causes one to renounce his right to expropriate the property is sufficient to stop the cycle (Chelkat Mechokek 100:26).
|
| 26. |
Our Sages understood that the necessity to pursue judicial proceedings is a cause of hardship and embarrassment for women. They felt that rather than subject his wife to such distress, any husband would willingly grant her the right to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah by selling his property without appearing in court (Ketubot 97b).
Therefore, rather than require her to take the matter to a formal court, they enabled her to resolve the issue by having the property evaluated by three acquaintances who possess the qualities mentioned above. Although these men would not be considered capable of participating in an ordinary court, an exception was made in this case. If, however, the widow has already remarried, she is required to undergo the ordinary judicial procedure.
|
| 27. |
I.e., should the property be expropriated by a creditor of the deceased, his heirs must reimburse the purchaser.
|
| 28. |
With regard to a divorcee, by contrast, our Sages (op. cit.) felt that her ex-husband would not be disturbed by her being subjected to hardship when this is necessary to protect his own interests.
Although there are Rishonim who maintain that the provision made for a widow also applies to a divorcee, the Rambam's ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 103:3).
|
| 29. |
See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 12:8,10, which explains that public announcements that a property will be sold are made daily for thirty days (or on Mondays and Thursdays, for a period of sixty days).
|
| 30. |
I.e., without the participation of a formal court.
|
| 31. |
I.e., without even the participation of the three acquaintances mentioned in the previous halachah.
|
| 32. |
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 103:1) appears to favor the Rambam's view, it does mention other opinions that differ.
|
| 33. |
It would appear that the Rambam requires her merely to take the oath required of all widows before collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch(Even HaEzer 103:4) requires the woman to take an additional oath, stating that she did not sell the property for less than its worth.
|
| 34. |
The Maggid Mishneh and Chelkat Mechokek 103:11 state that, according to the Rambam, if the woman has the property evaluated by three trustworthy men who are knowledgeable with regard to the value of property, she is allowed to take the property as her own. Other opinions differ and maintain that this is possible only when the property is evaluated by a proper Rabbinical court.
|
| 35. |
When selling the property, the woman is considered to be the agent of the heirs, and the profit belongs to them and not to her (Ketubot 98b).
|
| 36. |
In this instance, the woman must accept the loss herself, because she took property that was worth the full value of her ketubah.
|
| 37. |
For she has no right to sell any property that is worth more than her ketubah.
|
| 38. |
The requirement of a ketubah was instituted so that the husband will not consider divorce a light matter, because of the severity of the financial obligation that will result. This remains true even if the woman does not receive the money herself.
|
| 39. |
As reflected in the continuation of the Rambam's words, the woman must first take the oaths required of her as if she herself were to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.
|
| 40. |
I.e., her rights to support, medical attention and the like.
|
| 41. |
Chapter 19, Halachah 2.
|
| 42. |
From the Rambam's wording, it appears that the woman is not entitled to her subsistence even during her husband's lifetime, while they remain married. (Note Chapter 10, Halachah 10, which states that if a woman waives her ketubah in favor of her husband, he must write her a newketubah.) The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 93:9) quotes the opinion that even during the husband's lifetime, he is not required to support his wife, but appears to favor the view of otherRishonim (Rashi, the Ramban and the Rashba), who grant a woman the right to support during her husband's lifetime in such a situation.
See also Chapter 19, Halachah 12, which discusses another consequence of a woman's waiver of her ketubah in favor of her husband.
|
| 43. |
In contrast to their role with regard to marriage and divorce, in financial matters witnesses are necessary only to confirm what happened. Their presence does not make a transaction or a commitment binding, nor hinder it from becoming so. (See Hilchot Mechirah 5:9.)
|
| 44. |
See Hilchot Mechirah 5:11-13.
|
Ishut - Chapter Eighteen
Halacha 1
A widow is entitled to receive support from the estate [inherited by her husband's] heirs as long as she remains a widow, unless she collects [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.1 From the time she demands payment for her ketubah in court, however, she is no longer entitled to receive her subsistence.2
Similarly, if she sold [the rights to] her entire ketubah, gave them as security [for a loan] or made her ketubah an ipotiki for another person - i.e., she told him "Collect your debt from here" - she is not entitled to receive her subsistence from the heirs.3 [The above applies] whether these exchanges were made in a court of expert judges or outside a court, or whether they were made in her husband's lifetime or after his death.
Halacha 2
Just as the woman receives her subsistence from her husband's estate after his death, so, too, is she granted a wardrobe, household utensils and [the right to continue] living in the dwelling she lived in during her husband's lifetime.7 She may continue to make use of the pillows, spreads, servants and maidservants that she made use of during her husband's lifetime.
If the dwelling falls, the heirs are not required to rebuild it.8 [Even] if the widow asked, "Allow me to rebuild it at my own expense," she is not granted this option. Similarly, she may not repair it, nor have the walls sealed [and painted].
She must [continue to] dwell in it in the condition it [was in her husband's passing], or she must leave [and find other accommodations]. Should the heirs sell the dwelling in which a widow is living, their deed is of no consequence.
Halacha 3
If the dwelling [in which she was living fell] or her husband had been renting a dwelling, [the estate must] provide her with a dwelling appropriate to her social standing. Similarly, her subsistence and the wardrobe given her are granted according to her social standing.
If her husband's social standing exceeded her own, she is granted the above according to his social standing. For a woman's [social standing] ascends according to [her husband's] social standing, but does not descend [according to his]. [This applies] even after his death.
Halacha 4
[The widow is given her subsistence as a member of] the household at large. What is the intent of [the latter term]? When five people who would each require a kav of food when they eat alone [live] in the same house and eat together [their needs are reduced]. Four kabbim will be sufficient for them. The same applies with regard to other necessary household [supplies].
Therefore, if a widow says: "I will not leave my father's house. Ascertain the amount of support I deserve for my subsistence and give it to me there," the heirs have the right to tell her: "If you desire to dwell with us, you will receive [a full measure of] support. If not, we will give you only your share as a member of the household at large."
If she explains [that she desires not to live with them] because she is young, and they are young [and the situation would be immodest, her claim is accepted]. [The heirs are required] to provide her with support sufficient for her as she lives alone, while she lives in her father's home.
[Any money] remaining from [the funds granted for] the support of a widow or from her wardrobe belongs to the heirs.9
Halacha 5
[The following laws apply when] a widow becomes sick. If she requires medical treatment that is of an undefined nature, it is considered as support for her subsistence, and the heirs must provide her with it.10 If, however, she requires medical treatment of a limited nature, the treatment [should be paid for by deducting it] from [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.
If she is taken captive, the heirs are not required to redeem her. [This applies] even if she is a yevamah [and it is a mitzvah for her late husband's brother to marry her]. [Indeed,] even when she was taken captive during her husband's lifetime [and he was thus obligated to redeem her], if he dies while she is in captivity, there is no obligation to redeem her from his estate. Instead, she must be redeemed from her private funds, or she must collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah and redeem herself.
Halacha 6
When a widow dies, her late husband's heirs are responsible for her burial. If, however, she had already taken the oath required of a widow [before collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah], her heirs inherit her ketubah, and they are required to bury her, and not her late husband's heirs.11
[Her late husband's] heirs are entitled to the income [from the work] of the widow. If the heirs tell the widow, "Take the income you generate in exchange for [receiving] your subsistence," their words are of no substance. If, however, she desires such an arrangement, she is given this prerogative.12
Halacha 7
All the household tasks that a wife performs on behalf of her husband, a widow must perform on behalf of his heirs, with the exception of pouring them drinks, making their beds and washing their face, hands and feet.13
Halacha 8
An ownerless article discovered by a widow and the benefit that accrues from the property that the woman brought to her husband's household belong to the woman herself; the heirs [to her husband's estate] have no right to them at all.14
Halacha 9
The property that [a woman brought to the household as] her nedunyah may be taken by the woman without her having to take an oath.15 The heirs to her husband's estate have no claim with regard to it, except if the nichsei tzon barzel have increased in value during her husband's lifetime. [In this instance,] the increase belongs to the husband16 [and is given to his heirs].
[Even] if a widow dies without taking the oath [required of her], her heirs inherit her nedunyah, even if it is nichsei tzon barzel. If, however, it has increased in value, the increase must go to her husband's heirs.
Halacha 10
When a woman seizes movable property [belonging to her husband's estate, so that she can sell it and use the money] for her subsistence, the property should not be removed from her possession.17 [This applies regardless of] whether she took possession of the movable property during her husband's lifetime or afterwards. Even if she takes possession of a talent of gold18 [it is not removed from her possession].
Instead, the court documents what she has taken into her possession and defines the amount she should be given for her subsistence. Calculations are made, and she is allowed to derive her subsistence from [the property] in her possession until she dies or until she is no longer entitled to support for her subsistence. [At that time,] the heirs are granted the remainder.
Halacha 11
Similarly, if she took possession of movable property during her husband's lifetime [to provide] for [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, she may collect [the money due her] from this [property after he dies]. If, however, she took possession of it after her husband's death [to provide] for [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, she may not collect [her due] from it.19
Halacha 12
20The geonim ordained that a woman may collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah and every obligation due her as a stipulation of her ketubahfrom the movable property [in her husband's estate]. Based on this [provision], a woman may receive her subsistence from [the sale of] movable property [from her husband's estate].
Nevertheless, if her husband left movable property and she did not take possession of it, the heirs take possession of it, and they must provide her with her subsistence. She has no right to prevent them from taking possession, by saying: "Have the movable property held in the court [so that] I can derive my subsistence from it, lest it become depleted,21 and I will have no means of support." Even if an explicit stipulation was made [by her husband at the time her ketubah was composed] that she could derive her subsistence from this movable property, she cannot prevent [the heirs] from taking possession of it.22This is the ruling that is universally followed in all courts.
Halacha 13
If, however, her husband left landed property, she has the right to prevent the heirs from selling it. If they do sell it, however, she does not have the right to expropriate [the property] from the purchasers. A widow and a man's daughters may derive their subsistence only from the property that remains in his estate. [In this regard, they have no claim to property that was sold.]23
Halacha 14
If the deceased left many wives, they all have equal rights to receive their subsistence. [This applies] even when he married them one after the other. For the concept of a prior claim does not exist with regard to a claim for support.24
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply with regard to] a widow who has an obligation to marry a yavam.25 During the first three months,26 she derives her subsistence from her deceased husband's estate.27 If it can be determined that she is pregnant, or if it was known that she was pregnant when her husband died, she continues to derive her support [from his estate] until she gives birth. If she bears a viable child, she may continue to derive her subsistence throughout her widowhood as other women do.
If after three months have passed, it is [either] not evident that she is pregnant or she miscarries, she is not entitled to support from either her husband's estate or from her yavam. Instead, she must file a suit against her yavam either to marry her or [to free her of her obligation through] chalitzah.
Halacha 16
If she filed a suit against her yavam either to marry her or [to free her of her obligation through] chalitzah, he appeared in court and then fled or became ill, or if the yavam lives overseas,28 the woman is entitled to derive her support from the property of the yavam without taking any oath at all.29
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
Should a person designate a portion of land to be used for support of his wife after his death, by saying: "This particular place will be for [my wife's] support,"32 he has granted her additional rights with regard to her support.
If the income [from this land] is less than the support due her, she is entitled [to collect] the remainder from the other portions of his estate. If the income [from those portions of land] is less than the support due her, she is entitled to the entire amount.
If, however, he told her, "Your support will come from this particular place," and she remained silent,33 her sole source of support is the income from that particular place. [Her husband] has specificied [the source for] her support.
Halacha 19
There are those who have ruled that when a widow comes to the court to ask for support she should be allotted support without requiring her to take an oath.34 This ruling should not be followed; they have misunderstood [the situation, erroneously associating it with that of] a woman whose husband left on an overseas journey.35
My teachers36 ruled that she should not be allotted support until she takes an oath in court.37 For she is coming to collect from property in the possession of heirs, and anyone who collects property in the possession of heirs may do so only after an oath has been taken. My own conception [also] follows [this approach], and it is proper to rule accordingly.
Halacha 20
When a woman comes to the court to collect support for her subsistence, an oath is administered to her at the outset. The property is then sold without being publicized, and an allotment is made for her subsistence.38
Similarly, she is entitled to sell property for her subsistence without involving a court of expert judges; three trustworthy individuals are sufficient, and the sale need not be publicized. Similarly, if she sells property by herself for its appropriate value to provide for her subsistence, the sale is binding.39 When the heirs come and require her to take an oath, she must take the oath.
Halacha 21
How much property is sold to provide for her subsistence? Enough to provide for her support for six months,40 but not for longer than that. The sale is made on the condition that the purchaser give the widow an allotment for food every thirty days.41 Afterwards, another parcel of property is sold for another six months.
The property should continue to be sold in this manner until all that remains from the estate is [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. She should collect this sum and complete her dealings with the court.42
Halacha 22
When the court allots a widow support for her subsistence, they do not reckon the money she earns until the heirs come and demand it. [If such a demand is made,] and the woman has earned money, they are entitled to it. If not, they have no further claim against her.
I maintain [however] that if the heirs are below majority, the court should make a reckoning with the widow with regard to [her income].43 Just as she is allotted a subsistence, the court declares that her income [should be given to the orphans].
Halacha 23
When a widow does not manifest possession of her ketubah, she is not granted money for her subsistence. [The rationale is that] perhaps she waived herketubah [in favor of her husband] or sold it or gave it as security [for a loan].44
Even when the heir[s] do not issue such a claim against her, the court makes this claim on their behalf and tells her: "Bring your ketubah, take the required oath and collect [the money for] your subsistence." [This law applies] unless it is not customary [in a particular locale] to compose a document recording theketubah.45
Halacha 24
[The following laws apply when] a woman and her husband traveled overseas, and she returned, claiming [her husband] died. If she desires, she is entitled to receive her subsistence from her husband's estate, as are other widows. If she desires, she may collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.46
If she claims, "My husband divorced me," her word is not accepted.47 She is, however, entitled to derive her subsistence from his estate until she receives a sum equal to [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. [The rationale is] that if she is still his wife, she is entitled to receive her subsistence [from his holdings]. If he divorced her, she is entitled to receive [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, [provided] she manifests possession of her ketubah. Therefore, she may collect the support for her subsistence until she receives [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. [From this point on,] she has completed her dealings with the court.
Halacha 25
[The following laws apply when] there is doubt whether a woman was divorced, and her husband died [afterwards]. She is not entitled to receive her subsistence from his estate, for property cannot be expropriated from an heir on the basis of a doubtful claim.48 During her husband's lifetime, by contrast, she is entitled to her subsistence until she is divorced in a complete and binding manner.49
Halacha 26
If a poor50 widow waits two years before she sues for support - or if a rich widow waits three years - it can be assumed that she has waived her claim to support for the previous years.51Therefore, she is not granted support for that period. From the time she issues a claim onward, however, she is entitled to support.
If, however, she waited even one day less [before presenting her claim], she is not considered to have waived her claim, and she may collect her support for the previous years.
Halacha 27
[The following rules apply when] a widow demands support for her subsistence from the heirs, and they claim to have paid her, while she claims that she did not receive payment. Until she remarries, the burden of proof is on the orphans. [If they do not support their claim], the widow is entitled to take a rabbinical oath and collect the money due her.52 If she has already remarried, the burden of proof is upon her. [If she does not support her claim,] the heirs are entitled to take a rabbinic oath that they paid her [and are freed of obligation].53
Halacha 28
The laws governing the extra sum added by the husband to the ketubah are the same as those governing the fundamental requirement of the ketubah. Therefore, if a widow demands payment of this additional amount - or sells it, waives payment of it [in favor of her husband] or gives it as security - together with the fundamental requirement of the ketubah, she is not entitled to support for her subsistence.
If she demanded payment for a portion and left a portion uncollected,54 it is as if she demanded payment for a portion of the fundamental requirement of theketubah and left a portion uncollected.55
Whenever a woman sells or waives payment of her ketubah without making any further specification, she is considered to have sold or waived this additional amount together with the fundamental requirement of the ketubah. For the termketubah is universally used to refer to both these items.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Rashi (Gittin 35a) states that as long as the widow does not contemplate remarriage, she is showing honor to her deceased husband, and therefore our Sages ordained that she should receive her subsistence from his estate. However, by demanding payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, she indicates that she is seeking to remarry. From that time onward, her deceased husband's estate is no longer obligated to support her.
The option whether to continue receiving her subsistence or to demand payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah is hers. The heirs cannot compel her to receive the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and cease giving her support (Ketubot 95b; Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 2. |
The Beit Shmuel 93:13 explains that if the woman asks for payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, and the heirs refuse to pay her or are unable to do so, she is still entitled to support.
|
| 3. |
In all these instances, it is considered as if she has already collected the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.
|
| 4. |
In this instance, however, the heirs have the right to pay her the remainder of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, and thus prevent her from continuing to collect her subsistence from the estate. If this provision were not granted, every widow would collect all the money due her by virtue of her ketubah except for the final p'rutah, and continue to receive support (Rabbenu Asher, quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 93:10.).
|
| 5. |
In the present age, this law applies even when the woman has merely become engaged to a new husband (Beit Yosef, Even HaEzer 93, as quoted by the Ramah, Even HaEzer 93:7).
|
| 6. |
Even if she has not collected the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.
|
| 7. |
Nevertheless, the dwelling becomes the property of the heirs, and they are also entitled to live there. The widow is, however, granted a place of dignity in the household (Maggid Mishneh; Ramah, Even HaEzer 94:1).
|
| 8. |
Nor are they required to give her a room in it if they rebuild it themselves. Instead, they may rent her a different dwelling, as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 9. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that these funds are granted to the widow, but the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 95:5) follows the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 10. |
The heirs may, however, fix a price with the physician for the widow's treatment, and then she becomes responsible for the financial burden (Ketubot 52b; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 79:2).
|
| 11. |
The rationale is, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 4, that the burial of the woman was granted her in return for the husband's right to inherit her ketubah. If her heirs can collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, they are required to bury her. If not, since the money for her ketubahremains within the husband's estate, his heirs are responsible for her burial.
Although this is the Rambam's view, the Ra'avad and Rabbenu Nissim do not accept it. TheShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 89:4) mentions the Rambam's view and states that it was not accepted by the other authorities.
|
| 12. |
The same laws apply with regard to her husband during his lifetime, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 4.
|
| 13. |
These tasks are acts of endearment, appropriate only for a wife to her husband.
|
| 14. |
Although a husband is granted these rights (Chapter 12, Halachah 3), his heirs are not. The husband is granted the rights to the objects his wife finds so that strife will not arise between them. That rationale is not considered with regard to his heirs (Ketubot 96a).
With regard to the rights to her property: as mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachah 4, our Sages associated the rights to a woman's property with her redemption from captivity. Since the heirs are not obligated to redeem her, they are not entitled to this privilege.
|
| 15. |
The property that a woman brings to her household belongs to her. Her husband has merely the right to derive benefit from it; he is not the owner. With regard to this property, she is treated like any of the other creditors of the estate, and no oath is required of her.
|
| 16. |
Nichsei tzon barzel is property that the husband has had evaluated, and it is the value of the article for which he obligates himself or his estate. Nevertheless, if the property itself exists, it is given to the woman. If the property has increased in value, however, the husband - and therefore his heirs - are entitled to the increase.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 96:1) state that this law refers only in an instance where the property that the woman brought to the household - or an article exchanged for it - is still intact. Otherwise, she is required to take an oath before collecting the money paid in lieu of the property.
|
| 17. |
Although the movable property in her husband's estate is not under lien for her subsistence, it is not taken away from her if she takes possession of it. As the Kessef Mishneh emphasizes, the above applies with regard to the Talmudic era. As stated in the following halachah, it is customary at present to consider movable property as under lien to all a husband's obligations.
There are some Rishonim who differ with the Rambam and equate the provisions for the widow's subsistence with the collection of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. (See the following halachah.) The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 93:20) follows the Rambam's view.
|
| 18. |
I.e., a sum that will last far longer than thirty days - the length of time for which the court sells property to provide her with her subsistence - or perhaps more than the worth of the woman's entire ketubah.
|
| 19. |
Instead, it must be returned to the heirs.
Tosafot (Ketubot 96a) explains the distinction between a woman's taking possession of movable property to collect for her subsistence and the collection of the money due her by virtue of herketubah as follows. Our Sages ordained that a woman may collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from property that had belonged to her husband and was sold. Therefore, it is likely that the woman will ultimately receive her due. As such, she is required to return the movable property. With regard to her subsistence, however, no such provision was made. Hence, she is given an alternative, to take possession of movable property.
As explained in the following note, according to the Kessef Mishneh and others this law describes the practices of the Talmudic age and not those of the present era.
|
| 20. |
K'nesset HaGedolah explains that, contrary to the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah, Halachah 12 begins here. This is not a continuation of the previous halachah, because there is a difference with regard to the laws governing movable property between the practices of the Talmudic age and those of the present era.
|
| 21. |
For if the heirs sell it, the woman has no claim to the proceeds of the sale, nor may she expropriate the property from the purchasers. Similarly, if the heirs destroy the movable property, she has no claim against them. From an ethical perspective, however, the heirs are enjoined not to sell this movable property.
|
| 22. |
The Chelkat Mechokek 93:36 states that if a specific clause was included in the ketubahregarding this matter, although the widow cannot nullify the sale she has a right to receive her subsistence from its proceeds.
|
| 23. |
The Rashba states that if a clause was added to the ketubah specifically stating that the woman has the right to collect her subsistence from movable property after her husband's death, then she is allowed to expropriate the landed property from the purchasers (Maggid Mishneh; Ramah, Even HaEzer 93:21).
|
| 24. |
Our translation is based on manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed texts substitute "movable property" for "claim for support." Apparently, this version reached the Ra'avad who objects, and states - as is the halachah - that the principle applies with regard to landed property as well.
|
| 25. |
I.e., her husband died childless, and he had a brother who is commanded to marry his widow.
|
| 26. |
This time period is granted in order to determine whether the woman was made pregnant by her husband before he died. If three months pass without pregnancy becoming noticeable, we can assume that a child was not conceived.
|
| 27. |
Until she gives birth or miscarries, she is not entitled to remarry, lest she become bound by the obligation of yibbum. Since it is because of her husband that she may not remarry, his estate is required to provide for her (Rashi, Yevamot 41b).
|
| 28. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that the latter two clauses - that the yavam became sick or that he lived overseas - apply also only if the yavam had previously appeared in court. If, however, he has never appeared in court, he is not under any obligation.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 160:1) follows the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, who states that the yavam is obligated to support her in the latter instances only when he consented to marry her. If he desired to perform chalitzah, he is under no obligation to her.
|
| 29. |
There is no need for her to take an oath that the yavam had not given her property. For since they have not established a relationship, such suspicions are unfounded (Ketubot 107b).
|
| 30. |
Who should not perform the mitzvah of yibbum until he attains majority.
|
| 31. |
Since he is forbidden to marry her, he is not required to support her. Nor is she entitled to support from her husband's estate. Yevamot 41b says that it is as if she is penalized from heaven.
|
| 32. |
The Rambam is referring to statements made by a dying man with regard to the allocation of his property. If these statements are observed by witnesses, they are binding. This practice, referred to as a matnat sh'chiv me'ra (the oral will of a dying man) is described in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 8:2).
|
| 33. |
I.e., since it is possible that the woman will suffer a loss, she has the right to protest. If, however, she remained silent, we assume that she accepted her husband's decision.
|
| 34. |
The reference is to Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, who ruled this way in a responsum. His opinion is favored also by the Ra'avad, the Ramban, the Rashba and Rabbenu Asher. Ketubot 105a states that the woman should take an oath "at the end and not at the beginning." They explain that this refers to a woman whose husband has died. The woman should take the oath when she comes to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, and not when she comes asking for support. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 93:19) appears to favor this view, and the Ramah states that it should be followed.
|
| 35. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 16.
|
| 36. |
Rav Yosef Migash.
|
| 37. |
They interpret Ketubot (loc. cit.) to be referring to a woman whose husband traveled overseas. She should not take an oath at the outset - i.e., when she comes to collect her subsistence - but rather at the end, if her husband comes and requires this of her. See Chapter 12, Halachah 21.
The dissenting authorities refute this interpretation, explaining that it is far more reasonable to require an oath of a woman when her husband is alive than after his death, for after his death it is very likely that the woman will soon take an oath to collect her ketubah.
|
| 38. |
In contrast to the sale of property so that the woman can collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah (Chapter 17, Halachah 13), in this instance the sale need not be publicized. The rationale is that the woman needs the money for her subsistence immediately and should not be required to wait.
|
| 39. |
Rabbenu Chanan'el and the Ramban differ with the Rambam on this point. Although their opinion is also mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 93:25), it appears that the Rambam's opinion is favored.
|
| 40. |
In this manner, a large amount of property is sold. If a smaller amount were sold, the parcel of land would be too small to fetch a proper price.
|
| 41. |
I.e., the purchaser gives the widow only enough money to support herself for thirty days at a time. The rationale is that if she remarries or seeks to collect her ketubah, she is no longer entitled to receive support for her subsistence. Since there is the possibility that this will happen at any given time, she is given support for only a limited period of time. In the event that she remarries, the remainder of the money left from the sale is given to the heirs (Rashi, Ketubot 97a).
|
| 42. |
The Maggid Mishneh explains that this is simply proper advice for the woman. For she can sell all the land necessary to provide her with the money due her by virtue of her ketubah at one time, while to collect her subsistence she must sell the land in small parcels. If she chooses, however, she may take the latter alternative.
|
| 43. |
Since the heirs are orphans, the court is obligated to look after their interests. Therefore, it is obligated to ensure that the woman's earnings are given to them.
|
| 44. |
In all these cases, the widow is no longer entitled to receive support from her deceased's husband's estate, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 18.
|
| 45. |
In this instance, since the probability is that the woman would not have been given a document recording her ketubah, the fact that she does not have such a document in her possession is not considered detrimental to her position.
|
| 46. |
See Chapter 16, Halachah 31.
|
| 47. |
See Hilchot Gerushin 12:1.
|
| 48. |
Since her status is questionable, she is not entitled to support. For this is granted only to a man's wife and not to his divorcee.
|
| 49. |
Since divorce is dependent on the husband's initiative, as long as a woman's status is in question - and for that reason she may not marry another person - he is required to continue to support her (Rashi, Ketubot 97b).
|
| 50. |
Ketubot 96a mentions two years and three years, stating that the difference is between a rich widow (who can afford to wait) and a poor one; alternatively, between a brash widow (who is not embarrassed to appear in court) and a modest one (who will hesitate before coming). The Rambam does not mention the second opinion at all (although generally, when the Talmud mentions two opinions, he rules according to the second opinion), nor does the Shulchan Aruch(Even HaEzer 93:14). Rabbenu Asher and the Chelkat Mechokek 93:26, however, do mention the latter opinion.
|
| 51. |
The Rashba maintains that if, however, the woman took property as security, or if she borrowed money to be repaid with the money she will receive for her support, she is still entitled to receive the money retroactively. This opinion is cited by the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (op. cit.).
|
| 52. |
As long as she has not remarried, the property of her husband's estate is considered under lien to her and in her possession. Hence, she is given this privilege.
|
| 53. |
For once she remarries, the property is considered to be in the possession of the heirs. Hence, they are given this privilege.
|
| 54. |
The same law applies if the widow demanded payment of the fundamental requirement of theketubah, but did not demand payment for the additional amount.
|
| 55. |
See Halachah 1.
|
Ishut - Chapter Nineteen
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
What is implied? A man married a woman whose ketubah and nedunyah were together valued at 1000 [zuz]. She bore a son, and then she died within [her husband's] lifetime. Afterwards, the man married another woman whoseketubah and nedunyah were together valued at 200 [zuz]. She bore a son, and then she died within [her husband's] lifetime. Afterwards, the man died, leaving an estate worth 2000 [zuz].
His first wife's son should inherit 1000 [zuz] by virtue of his mother's ketubah, and his second wife's son should inherit 200 [zuz] by virtue of his mother'sketubah, and the remainder they should [both] inherit and [divide] equally. Thus, the first wife's son will receive 1400 [zuz], and the second wife's son will receive 600 [zuz].
Halacha 3
When does the above apply? When [the estate] is worth at least one dinar more than the amount [due the children by virtue of their mothers'] ketubot. If, however, there is not a dinar or more remaining [in the estate],3 the entire estate should be divided equally [without applying the provision mentioned above].
[The rationale is that] if [the children of one of the mothers] will inherit [what is due them by virtue of] their mother's ketubah, [the other mother's children] will inherit [what is due them by virtue of] their mother's ketubah, and at least onedinar will not remain to be divided among the heirs, then this provision [which is of Rabbinic origin] will supersede [entirely] the equal division of the estate among the children that is required by Scriptural law.
Halacha 4
The same law applies to a man who married many wives, whether one after the other or several at one time. If they have all died in his lifetime, and they have all borne male children from this man, if his estate contains at least a dinarmore than the ketubot of all his wives, each of the [sets of] sons inherits the money due their mother by virtue of her ketubah. The remainder [of the estate] is divided equally.
Halacha 5
[Should the estate not be large enough to satisfy the obligations of both ketubotand the additional dinar,] and the heirs say: "We will increase the value of our father's estate so that there will be more than a dinar [in addition to the value of the ketubot]," so that they can collect [the money due their mother by virtue of] her ketubah, their request is not accepted. Instead, the estate should be evaluated in court according to its value at the time of their father's death [and the decision rendered on the basis of this figure].
Even if the value of the estate increases or decreases [in the time between] the death of their father and the actual division of the property, [the decision whether to grant the heirs their mothers' ketubot] depends only on the value of the estate at the time of their father's death.
Halacha 6
If the value of the estate was a dinar or more than the sum of the two ketubot, each of the sons inherits the money due his mother by virtue of her ketubah. Even if there is a promissory note due against the estate for the amount that exceeds the value of the ketubot, it is not considered to have reduced [the value of the estate].
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when a man] was married to two wives. One died within his lifetime and one died afterwards, and he has sons from both wives. Although the value of the estate he left does not exceed the value of the twoketubot, the sons of the [wife who died after her husband's death] have the right to inherit the money due their mother by virtue of her ketubah first, [provided] she took the oath required of a widow before she died.
[The rationale is] that they do not inherit their mother's ketubah by virtue of this provision, but rather through the Torah's laws of inheritance.4 Afterwards, the sons of the wife [who died during her husband's lifetime] inherit [the money due their mother by virtue of her] ketubah on the basis of this provision. If anything remains in the estate afterwards, it should be divided equally.5
If [the woman who died after her husband] died before she was able to take the oath [required of her], only the sons of [the woman who died in her husband's lifetime] are entitled to inherit [the money due their mother by virtue of] herketubah.6 The remainder is divided equally.
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when a man] was married to two wives, fathered sons with both of them and then died. If the wives died after the father did, but after taking the oath [required of widows], each of their sons is entitled to inherit [the money due his mother by virtue of] her ketubah according to the Torah's laws of inheritance, and not by virtue of this provision. Therefore, in this instance it is not significant whether the estate is more valuable than the sum of the twoketubot or not. [The claim of] the heirs of the wife married first takes precedence over the claim of the wife married afterwards.
If neither of the wives took [the required] oath, the sons [of both women] divide the entire estate equally. Neither has the right to inherit [his mother's] ketubah, for a widow is not entitled to her ketubah until she takes the [required] oath.7
Halacha 9
[In the above instance,] if one of the widows took the [required] oath and one did not, the sons of the one who took the oath inherit [the money due their mother by virtue of] her ketubah first, and then the remainder of the estate is divided equally [among all the heirs].8
Whenever [a son] inherits [the money due his mother by virtue of] her ketubahafter she died in his father's lifetime, he does not have the right to expropriate property that was sold to others; [he inherits] only property in the possession of the estate.
Halacha 10
Among the provisions of the ketubah is that after the death of their father, [his wife's] daughters have the right to receive support for their sustenance from their father's estate9 until they become consecrated10 or until they reach the age of bagrut.11
If a daughter reaches the age of bagrut but has not been consecrated, or if she is consecrated before she reaches the age of bagrut,12 she is not entitled to receive her sustenance.
When a daughter receives her sustenance from her father's estate after his death, her earnings and the ownerless objects she discovers belong to her, not to her brothers.13
Halacha 11
An allotment of support, garments and living quarters should be made for a man's daughters from his estate, just as it is made for his widow. His [landed property] may be sold to provide his daughters with their sustenance and garments without a public announcement, just as it is sold to provide for his widow's sustenance and garments.
[There is, however, one difference between the two.] The allotment to the widow is made according to her social standing and that of her husband, while his daughters are given only their necessities. The daughters are not, however, required to take an oath.14
Halacha 12
A man's sons are not entitled to inherit [the money due their mother by virtue of] her ketubah, nor are his daughters entitled to receive their sustenance according to the provisions mentioned above unless they manifest possession of the document [recording their mother's] ketubah.15 If, however, they do not manifest possession of the document, they are not entitled to anything, for it is possible that their mother waived her ketubah [in favor of her husband]. In a locale where it is not customary to record the ketubah in a document, however, the children are entitled to [the benefits stemming from] these provisions.
Halacha 13
When, shortly before his passing, a man orders that one of the provisions of [his wife's] ketubah be ignored - e.g., he said: "My daughters should not derive their sustenance from my estate," "My widow should not derive her sustenance from my estate," or "My sons should not inherit the money due their mother by virtue of her ketubah" - his words are of no consequence.16
[Although] person gives his entire estate to others through an oral will17 [all the provisions of his wife's ketubah must be met]. [The rationale is] that the transfer of property through an oral will does not take effect until after death, as will be explained.18Thus, the mandate of the will and the obligations of the estate due to the provisions [of the ketubah] take effect simultaneously. Therefore, the widow and [the deceased's] daughters receive support for their sustenance from the estate, and [the deceased's] sons inherit the money due their mother by virtue of her ketubah if she dies during her husband's lifetime.19
Halacha 14
A daughter of a girl who nullifies her marriage through mi'un is considered like any other daughter, and she is entitled to support for her sustenance [after her father's death].20 Nevertheless, the daughter of a yevamah,21 the daughter of ash'niyah,22 the daughter of one's arusah,23 and the daughter of a woman who has been raped24 are not entitled to support for their sustenance after their father's death by virtue of this provision. During their father's lifetime, however, he is obligated to support them like any of his other sons and daughters.
Halacha 15
A man who consecrates a girl who is receiving her sustenance from her brothers is obligated to provide her with support from the time of consecration onward. [Although a husband is ordinarily required to support his wife only afternisu'in, an exception is made in this instance, because] the girl is not entitled to support from her brothers after she becomes consecrated. Nor is she past the age of majority, when she is capable of providing for her own sustenance, but rather she is a minor, or a na'arah.25 [Hence, her husband is obligated to support her, because] a manwould not desire that the woman he consecrated be put to shame [by having to] wander and beg [for her support].26
Halacha 16
Should a daughter marry and then leave her husband through the rite of mi'un, or be divorced, or be widowed - even if she is obligated to marry a yavam - since she returns to her father's home and has not reached the age of bagrut, she is entitled to support from her father's estate until she reaches the age ofbagrut or until she becomes consecrated.27
Halacha 17
When a mandies leaving both sons and daughters, the sons inherit his estate,28and it is their responsibility to provide their sisters with support until they reach the age of bagrut, or until they become consecrated.
When does this apply? When the estate is large enough to provide both the sons and the daughters with their sustenance until the daughters reach the age of bagrut. This is called an ample estate.
If, however, the estate contains only a lesser amount, the funds necessary to support the daughters until they reach the age of bagrut are set aside,29 and the remainder is given to the sons. If the estate contains only enough to provide for the support of the daughters, the daughters are entitled to their sustenance until they reach bagrut or until they become consecrated, and the sons should beg for their support.30
Halacha 18
When does the above apply? When the estate contains landed property. If, however, the estate contains movable property, since it is only by virtue of the ordinance of the geonim that the daughters are entitled to derive their support from the movable property, the sons and the daughters should receive their support equally from this meager estate. For with regard to movable property, [the daughters] were given the right to be considered like the sons, but not superior to them. The geonim have ruled in this manner.31
Halacha 19
If [a man] left an ample estate of landed property, and afterwards [the value of the estate decreased until] it became meager, the heirs have already acquired [the property].32
If [the estate was deemed] meager [in value] at the time of the man's death, and [the value increased afterwards]33 to the point that it is considered ample, the heirs are given the right to inherit it. Even if the value did not increase, if the sons sold an estate that was considered meager, the sale is binding.34
Halacha 20
If the estate was ample but a debt was owed, or [the man] had made a provision with his wife, [promising] to support her daughter [from a previous marriage], the debt or [the obligation to] support the widow's daughter35 does not prevent the estate from being considered ample.36 Instead, the sons inherit the entire estate. [It is their responsibility] to pay the creditor his debt, to support the widow's daughter for the time stipulated and to support their sisters until they reach majority, or until they become consecrated and leave their domain.37
Halacha 21
[The following rules apply when a man] left a widow and a daughter, either from her or from another wife, and his estate is not large enough to provide support for both of them. The widow should derive her support from the estate, and the daughter should beg [for alms].38
Similarly, I maintain that support for [a man's] daughter takes precedence over [his] sons' inheritance of their mother's ketubah if she died in her husband's lifetime, although both [rights] are provisions of the ketubah. [This can be derived by making] an inference from a more serious responsibility to a less serious one: If the inheritance [of a man's estate to which the sons are entitled] by virtue of Scriptural law is superseded by [the obligation to provide] the daughter with her support, how much more so should [the sons'] inheritance of [their mother's] ketubah, which is only a Rabbinic ordinance, be superseded by [the obligation to provide] the daughter with her support.
Halacha 22
When a man dies and leaves older daughters and younger daughters, without leaving a son, we do not say that the younger daughters should be granted their sustenance until they reach the age of bagrut, and then the entire estate should be divided equally. Instead, the entire estate should be divided equally [immediately].
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This and the laws that follow are relevant only in situations where a man has children from two different wives and he did not divorce the wives before their death. When a man's wives die before he does, he inherits their nedunyah and is not required to pay them the money due them by virtue of their ketubot. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that a woman's children should benefit from her investment in the household and the commitment made to her. Hence, before the father's estate is divided among all the heirs, the children of each of his wives are entitled to receive the monies mentioned above.
|
| 2. |
Note the statements of the Ramah (Even HaEzer 111:16), who states that this practice is not followed in the present age. The rationale is that the practice was instituted in the Talmudic era to encourage a father to give his daughter a generous nedunyah. (For because of this practice, he can be assured that the money he gives will remain within his family.) In the present age, however, this encouragement is not necessary, for it has become customary for parents to endow their daughters generously before marriage.
|
| 3. |
As the Rambam stated in Chapter 16, Halachah 7, the children's inheritance of the money due their mother by virtue of her ketubah applies only when there is enough landed property remaining in the estate to pay for both ketubot.
From the wording of the Rambam, it would, nevertheless, appear that it is sufficient that the additional dinar be movable property; it need not be landed property. This indeed is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 111:14). If this is the intent, it would reflect a change in the Rambam's decision from his ruling in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ketubot 10:3).
|
| 4. |
I.e., once the woman took the oath required of her, the money due her by virtue of her ketubah is considered to be justly hers. Her children then inherit her property.
|
| 5. |
In this instance, they are entitled to inherit the money due their mother by virtue of her ketubaheven if the estate is not large enough to allow for the division of the inheritance according to Scriptural law afterwards (Ketubot 91a; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 111:8).
|
| 6. |
Since the woman did not take the oath required of a widow, there is room to suspect that her husband already gave her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, or that she took possession of it herself. Therefore, her sons are not entitled to collect her ketubah.
|
| 7. |
Nor are the sons entitled to inherit the money due their mothers by virtue of their ketubot based on the provision mentioned above, because this is applicable only when the woman dies in her husband's lifetime.
|
| 8. |
The sons of the widow who did not take the oath are not entitled to inherit the money due their mother by virtue of her ketubah.
|
| 9. |
See Chapter 21, Halachah 18, which states that the daughters are granted this right even when their father divorced their mother before his death, and they took up residence with their mother.
|
| 10. |
Once the daughter is consecrated by a husband, her support is no longer the responsibility of her father's estate. (See also Halachah 15.)
|
| 11. |
During a man's lifetime, he is required only to provide his daughters with their sustenance until the age of six (Chapter 12, Halachah 14). After his death, however, they are entitled to support until the age of twelve and a half.
|
| 12. |
From the Rambam's wording, it would appear that he maintains that a girl forfeits her right to support if she becomes consecrated while she is a minor. This ruling is not universally accepted by the Rishonim. The Maggid Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Chananel and the Rashba as saying that she does not forfeit this right in such an instance. The Tur (Even HaEzer 112) mentions a third view: that if she consecrates herself, she forfeits her support, but if her brothers are involved in her consecration, she is still entitled to support. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 112:3) quotes the Rambam's view, while the Ramah mentions the other opinions.
|
| 13. |
Although during his lifetime, her father is entitled to her earnings and the objects she discovers, this right is not given to his sons. The rationale is that the father would prefer for his daughter to receive her own earnings than to have them given to his sons.
|
| 14. |
Although a widow is not required to take an oath when collecting her support, this is because she is required to take an oath when she collects the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. Therefore, one might think that a daughter would be required to take such an oath. Indeed, theBeit Shmuel 112:15, based on the statements of Tosafot, requires that such an oath be taken.
|
| 15. |
The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh question the Rambam's ruling with regard to the support the man's daughters receive for their sustenance. They maintain that this support is not dependent on whether the mother receives the money due her by virtue of her ketubah (and therefore, the waiver of that payment has no effect). The Rambam's opinion appears to be based on his statements in Chapter 17, Halachah 19, in which he states that a woman who waives payment of her ketubah forgoes all the provisions of her ketubah. The Shulchan Aruch does not mention this issue, and the Ramah (Even HaEzer 112:1) cites the opinion of the Ra'avad.
|
| 16. |
The rationale is that the obligation took effect at the time of his marriage, and he is incapable of negating it at a later time.
|
| 17. |
An oral will refers to a person's disposition of his property verbally before his death. As explained in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, Chapter 8, our Sages ordain that such a disposition of property is acceptable.
|
| 18. |
Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 8:8. (See also Hilchot Nachalot 8:9.)
|
| 19. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam with regard to the rights of a person's sons and daughters. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 111:17) follows the Rambam's view.
|
| 20. |
This ruling has been contested by other authorities on several grounds. First, the Ra'avad challenges the Rambam, asking: how is it possible for a girl who nullifies her marriage throughmi'un to have a child? By definition, mi'un is possible when a girl is a k'tanah, a minor (see Chapter 4, Halachah 7), and while she is a minor it is impossible for her to conceive a child. He explains that Ketubot 53b is speaking about a girl who leaves her husband through mi'un - she is entitled to return to her deceased father's home and receive support for her sustenance.
Second, the Maggid Mishneh accepts the fact that a girl can conceive a child while a minor, but asks: Since the mother nullifies the marriage through mi'un, it is as if her husband had never had any obligations to her at all. Her ketubah and all of its provisions are nullified entirely. Why then is his estate liable for the support of his daughter after his death? See the Beit Shmuel 112:11 for a possible explanation.
|
| 21. |
When a man dies childless, his brother (the yavam) inherits his entire estate, and that estate is responsible for the ketubah of the yevamah (the widow who is married by the yavam). If ayevamah bears a girl, the deceased brother's estate is not liable for the girl's support after her father's (the yavam's) death, for she is not the daughter of the deceased brother. Nor is theyavam's estate responsible for her support, for he never gave a ketubah to the yevamah.
Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 112:5), which states that if the deceased brother did not leave an estate, the yavam must give the yevamah a ketubah from his own property. Hence, in this instance, his estate becomes liable for the support of his daughters.
|
| 22. |
Since the mother's marriage is forbidden, our Sages did not grant her a ketubah. Ketubot 54a questions whether they also did not grant her the rights stemming from the ketubah's provisions, including her daughter's right to support in this instance. Since the question is left unresolved, her daughter is not granted this privilege.
|
| 23. |
Who was born before the couple entered the phase of nisu'in (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.). Since theketubah takes effect only after nisu'in, this daughter is not entitled to support.
|
| 24. |
The term anusah refers to a virgin who was raped. The rapist is required to marry her and is forbidden to divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:28). Since he is forbidden to divorce her, she is not granted a ketubah. Our Sages (ibid.) question whether or not she was not granted the provisions of a ketubah. This question is also left unresolved, and her daughter is not granted the privilege of deriving her livelihood from her father's estate. Similarly, the daughter of a woman who was raped and never married by the rapist is not entitled to support from her father's estate.
|
| 25. |
The Beit Shmuel 112:6 interprets the Rambam's wording as implying that after the girl reaches the age of bagrut, she is required to support herself.
The Beit Shmuel also mentions that other Rishonim interpret Ketubot 53b, the source for this halachah, differently. According to their interpretation, the husband is not liable for the girl's support. If the husband desires, continues the Beit Shmuel, he may rely on this opinion.
|
| 26. |
It is as if he had made a commitment to support her when he consecrated her.
|
| 27. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 112:4) cites the Rambam's view. The Ramah differs, however, citing the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, who maintains that from the time a girl becomes consecrated after her father's death, and onward, she is not entitled to support from his estate.
|
| 28. |
The estate is given to them, and they may use it as they see fit. They are, however, forbidden to sell the property except in an extreme situation - e.g., to use the proceeds to redeem captives (Ramah, Even HaEzer 112:11). Moreover, if the court sees that the sons are spending lavishly and abusing the resources of the estate, they should set aside the daughters' portion.
|
| 29. |
They are entrusted to a guardian appointed by the court.
|
| 30. |
For it is more common for males to beg for alms than for females to do so (Ketubot 67a). This principle is also followed with regard to the distribution of charity. If there is a needy male and a needy female, and the communal fund cannot provide both of them with their needs, the female is given priority (Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 8:15).
|
| 31. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 112:12) states that according to the custom to include within theketubah a clause stating that the obligations of the estate are binding on movable property as well, the estate is considered to be meager and the support for the daughters is set aside.
|
| 32. |
I.e., the property should remain in the possession of the sons, and they must continue to provide for their sisters' sustenance. It is not expropriated from the sons and given to a guardian.
|
| 33. |
The Maggid Mishneh mentions a difference of opinion with regard to the interpretation of the word "afterwards." Rashi (Ketubot 91a) maintains that this means "after the man's death, but before the matter is brought to the court and a guardian appointed." Others (Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and the Rashba) maintain that even after a guardian is appointed, the property can be given to the heirs if its value increases.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 112:14) quotes the Rambam's wording without relating to this issue. The Ramah mentions the latter view.
|
| 34. |
The opinion of Tosafot, et al. is that even if the property has been entrusted to a guardian, if it is sold by the heirs the sale is binding. The Ramah (loc. cit.), however, appears to follow the view that the sale is binding only before the property has been entrusted to a guardian.
According to Rabbenu Asher, the daughters have no lien on the money received from the sale. Although Rav Hai Gaon differs, it appears that Rabbenu Asher's view is favored (Chelkat Mechokek 112:30).
|
| 35. |
See Chapter 23, Halachah 17.
|
| 36. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 112:15) states that the payment of the money due the widow by virtue of her ketubah is, however, considered in determining whether the estate is ample or not.
|
| 37. |
This ruling entitles the sons to derive their sustenance from the estate together with the daughters until the funds are depleted.
|
| 38. |
According to the Rambam, the property set aside for the widow's support should be given to a third party, and he should follow the guidelines set in Chapter 18, Halachah 21 (Maggid Mishneh).
There are opinions that maintain that property is set aside for the widow's support only when there is a son and a daughter, and the estate is too meager to support both of them. In that instance, since property is being set aside for the daughters' support, and the widow takes precedence over the daughters, property is also set aside for her. When property is not required to be set aside for the daughters, it is not set aside for the widow's support either. Instead, she, the daughters and the sons, all derive their sustenance from the estate together.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 93:4) mentions both opinions, and the Beit Shmuel 93:9 states that the latter view is favored by most authorities. This difference of opinion also leads to another (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 112:15): Does the obligation to support the widow cause the estate to be considered meager or not? According to the Rambam it does, but according to the other authorities it does not.
|
• Friday, Adar 8, 5775 · 02/27/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: T'ruma, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 44-48.
Tanya: Ch. 28. Even if (p. 121)...of the L-rd. (p. 123).
The Alter Rebbe once summoned a young disciple of the Maggid and said to him in his customary chant: I have the mitzva of "teach them to your children."1 You have the mitzva of sustaining and providing for your family. Let us make an exchange. I will give you what you need to fulfill your mitzva and you will teach my son (who was later the Mitteler Rebbe).
Then the Rebbe explained the method of instruction: The first thing is to teach the letters, alef, beit and so on. What is an alef? A dot above, a dot below, and a line between this is an alef. A child must know that the alef of Torah is a yud2 above, a yudbelow, and a line of faith that joins them.
Another version: A yud above - this is the soul; a yid (Jew) below - this is the body; a line of yir'at Shamayim (fear of Heaven) in the center.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayikra, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 44-48.
Tanya: Clearly, the purpose (p. 163)...out of existence. (p. 165).
My father writes in one of his letters: A single act is better than a thousand groans. Our G-d lives, and Torah and mitzvot are eternal; quit the groaning and work hard in actualavoda, and G-d will be gracious to you.
Daily Thought:
Celebrating No Matter What
Some gripe that they cannot reach out for G-d‘s help because they are not worthy.
Others celebrate that they have a G‑d who answers their cries, regardless of how unworthy they may be.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment