Torah Reading
Vayigash: Genesis 44:18 Then Y’hudah approached Yosef and said, “Please, my lord! Let your servant say something to you privately; and don’t be angry with your servant, for you are like Pharaoh himself. 19 My lord asked his servants, ‘Do you have a father? or a brother?’ 20 We answered my lord, ‘We have a father who is an old man, and a child of his old age, a little one whose brother is dead; so that of his mother’s children he alone is left; and his father loves him.’ 21 But you said to your servants, ‘Bring him down to me, so that I can see him.’ 22 We answered my lord, ‘The boy can’t leave his father; if he were to leave his father, his father would die.’ 23 You said to your servants, ‘You will not see my face again unless your brother is with you.’ 24 We went up to your servant my father and told him what my lord had said; 25 but when our father said, ‘Go again, and buy us some food,’ 26 we answered, ‘We can’t go down. Only if our youngest brother is with us will we go down, because we can’t see the man’s face unless our youngest brother is with us.’ 27 Then your servant my father said to us, ‘You know that my wife bore me two sons: 28 the one went out from me, and I said, “Surely he has been torn to pieces,” and I haven’t seen him since. 29 Now if you take this one away from me too, and something happens to him, you will bring my gray hair down to Sh’ol with grief.’ 30 So now if I go to your servant my father, and the boy isn’t with us — seeing how his heart is bound up with the boy’s heart —
Today's Laws and Customs:• Sanctification of the Moon
Once a month, as the moon waxes in the sky, we recite a special blessing called Kiddush Levanah, "the sanctification of the moon," praising the Creator for His wondrous work we call astronomy.
Kiddush Levanah is recited after nightfall, usually on Saturday night. The blessing is concluded with songs and dancing, because our nation is likened to the moon—as it waxes and wanes, so have we throughout history. When we bless the moon, we renew our trust that very soon, the light of G‑d's presence will fill all the earth and our people will be redeemed from exile.
Though Kiddush Levanah can be recited as early as three days after the moon's rebirth, the kabbalah tells us it is best to wait a full week, till the seventh of the month. Once 15 days have passed, the moon begins to wane once more and the season for saying the blessing has passed.
Links:
Brief Guide to Kiddush Levanah: Thank G‑d for the Moon!
More articles on Kiddush Levanah from our knowledgebase.
Daily Quote:
The world thinks that teshuvah is for sinners. But also the perfectly righteous person must do teshuvah -- that is, return to the root-source of his soul[Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi]
Today's Study:
Vayigash: Genesis 44:18 Then Y’hudah approached Yosef and said, “Please, my lord! Let your servant say something to you privately; and don’t be angry with your servant, for you are like Pharaoh himself. 19 My lord asked his servants, ‘Do you have a father? or a brother?’ 20 We answered my lord, ‘We have a father who is an old man, and a child of his old age, a little one whose brother is dead; so that of his mother’s children he alone is left; and his father loves him.’ 21 But you said to your servants, ‘Bring him down to me, so that I can see him.’ 22 We answered my lord, ‘The boy can’t leave his father; if he were to leave his father, his father would die.’ 23 You said to your servants, ‘You will not see my face again unless your brother is with you.’ 24 We went up to your servant my father and told him what my lord had said; 25 but when our father said, ‘Go again, and buy us some food,’ 26 we answered, ‘We can’t go down. Only if our youngest brother is with us will we go down, because we can’t see the man’s face unless our youngest brother is with us.’ 27 Then your servant my father said to us, ‘You know that my wife bore me two sons: 28 the one went out from me, and I said, “Surely he has been torn to pieces,” and I haven’t seen him since. 29 Now if you take this one away from me too, and something happens to him, you will bring my gray hair down to Sh’ol with grief.’ 30 So now if I go to your servant my father, and the boy isn’t with us — seeing how his heart is bound up with the boy’s heart —
Today's Laws and Customs:• Sanctification of the Moon
Once a month, as the moon waxes in the sky, we recite a special blessing called Kiddush Levanah, "the sanctification of the moon," praising the Creator for His wondrous work we call astronomy.
Kiddush Levanah is recited after nightfall, usually on Saturday night. The blessing is concluded with songs and dancing, because our nation is likened to the moon—as it waxes and wanes, so have we throughout history. When we bless the moon, we renew our trust that very soon, the light of G‑d's presence will fill all the earth and our people will be redeemed from exile.
Though Kiddush Levanah can be recited as early as three days after the moon's rebirth, the kabbalah tells us it is best to wait a full week, till the seventh of the month. Once 15 days have passed, the moon begins to wane once more and the season for saying the blessing has passed.
Links:
Brief Guide to Kiddush Levanah: Thank G‑d for the Moon!
More articles on Kiddush Levanah from our knowledgebase.
Daily Quote:
The world thinks that teshuvah is for sinners. But also the perfectly righteous person must do teshuvah -- that is, return to the root-source of his soul[Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi]
Today's Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Parshat Vayigash, 5th Portion (Genesis 46:8-46:27) with Rashi
• Genesis Chapter 46
8And these are the names of the children of Israel who were coming to Egypt: Jacob and his sons Jacob's firstborn was Reuben. חוְאֵ֨לֶּה שְׁמ֧וֹת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הַבָּאִ֥ים מִצְרַ֖יְמָה יַֽעֲקֹ֣ב וּבָנָ֑יו בְּכֹ֥ר יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב רְאוּבֵֽן:
who were coming to Egypt: Heb. הַבָּאִים. Relative to that time [when they were migrating to Egypt, the text] calls them “coming” [in the present tense], and [therefore] there is no reason to wonder why it is not written:“who came” (אֲשֶׁר בָּאוּ) . הבאים מצרימה: על שם השעה קורא להם הכתוב באים. ואין לתמוה על אשר לא כתב אשר באו:
9And the sons of Reuben were Hanoch and Pallu, Hezron and Carmi. טוּבְנֵ֖י רְאוּבֵ֑ן חֲנ֥וֹךְ וּפַלּ֖וּא וְחֶצְרֹ֥ן וְכַרְמִֽי:
10And the sons of Simeon were Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, and Zohar, and Saul the son of the Canaanitess. יוּבְנֵ֣י שִׁמְע֗וֹן יְמוּאֵ֧ל וְיָמִ֛ין וְאֹ֖הַד וְיָכִ֣ין וְצֹ֑חַר וְשָׁא֖וּל בֶּן־הַכְּנַֽעֲנִֽית:
the son of the Canaanitess: The son of Dinah, who had been possessed by a Canaanite. When they killed Shechem, Dinah did not want to leave until Simeon swore to her that he would marry her - [Gen. Rabbah (80:11)]. בן הכנענית: בן דינה שנבעלה לכנעני, כשהרגו את שכם לא היתה דינה רוצה לצאת עד שנשבע לה שמעון שישאנה:
11And the sons of Levi were Gershon, Kehath, and Merari. יאוּבְנֵ֖י לֵוִ֑י גֵּֽרְשׁ֕וֹן קְהָ֖ת וּמְרָרִֽי:
12And the sons of Judah were Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, and Zerah. Now Er and Onan had died in the land of Canaan; and the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul. יבוּבְנֵ֣י יְהוּדָ֗ה עֵ֧ר וְאוֹנָ֛ן וְשֵׁלָ֖ה וָפֶ֣רֶץ וָזָ֑רַח וַיָּ֨מָת עֵ֤ר וְאוֹנָן֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵי־פֶ֖רֶץ חֶצְרֹ֥ן וְחָמֽוּל:
13And the sons of Issachar were Tola, Puvvah, Iob, and Shimron. יגוּבְנֵ֖י יִשָּׂשכָ֑ר תּוֹלָ֥ע וּפֻוָּ֖ה וְי֥וֹב וְשִׁמְרֹֽן:
14And the sons of Zebulun were Sered, Elon, and Jahleel. ידוּבְנֵ֖י זְבֻל֑וּן סֶ֥רֶד וְאֵל֖וֹן וְיַחְלְאֵֽל:
15These are the sons of Leah, that she bore to Jacob in Padan Aram, and Dinah his daughter. All the souls of his sons and daughters were thirty three. טואֵ֣לֶּה | בְּנֵ֣י לֵאָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָֽלְדָ֤ה לְיַֽעֲקֹב֙ בְּפַדַּ֣ן אֲרָ֔ם וְאֵ֖ת דִּינָ֣ה בִתּ֑וֹ כָּל־נֶ֧פֶשׁ בָּנָ֛יו וּבְנוֹתָ֖יו שְׁלשִׁ֥ים וְשָׁלֽשׁ:
These are the sons of Leah …and Dinah his daughter: The males are attributed to Leah and the females to Jacob, to teach you that if the woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male, but if the male emits seed first, she (the woman) gives birth to a female. [From Niddah 31a] אלה בני לאה. ואת דינה בתו: הזכרים תלה בלאה והנקבות תלה ביעקב, ללמדך אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר, איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה:
thirty-three: But if you count them individually, you find only thirty-two. This [missing one] is Jochebed, who was born between the walls when they entered the city, as it is said: “whom she bore to Levi in Egypt” (Num. 26:59). Her birth was in Egypt, but her conception was not in Egypt. [From Num. Rabbah 13:20] שלשים ושלש: ובפרטן אי אתה מוצא אלא שלשים ושנים, אלא זו יוכבד שנולדה בין החומות בכניסתן לעיר, שנאמר (במדבר כו נט) אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים, לידתה במצרים ואין הורתה במצרים:
16And the sons of Gad were Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, and Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, and Areli. טזוּבְנֵ֣י גָ֔ד צִפְי֥וֹן וְחַגִּ֖י שׁוּנִ֣י וְאֶצְבֹּ֑ן עֵרִ֥י וַֽאֲרוֹדִ֖י וְאַרְאֵלִֽי:
17And the sons of Asher were Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, and Briah, and Serah, their sister; and the sons of Briah were Heber and Malkiel. יזוּבְנֵ֣י אָשֵׁ֗ר יִמְנָ֧ה וְיִשְׁוָ֛ה וְיִשְׁוִ֥י וּבְרִיעָ֖ה וְשֶׂ֣רַח אֲחֹתָ֑ם וּבְנֵ֣י בְרִיעָ֔ה חֶ֖בֶר וּמַלְכִּיאֵֽל:
18These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to his daughter Leah, and she bore these to Jacob, sixteen souls. יחאֵ֚לֶּה בְּנֵ֣י זִלְפָּ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־נָתַ֥ן לָבָ֖ן לְלֵאָ֣ה בִתּ֑וֹ וַתֵּ֤לֶד אֶת־אֵ֨לֶּה֙ לְיַֽעֲקֹ֔ב שֵׁ֥שׁ עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה נָֽפֶשׁ:
19The sons of Rachel, Jacob's wife, were Joseph and Benjamin. יטבְּנֵ֤י רָחֵל֙ אֵ֣שֶׁת יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב יוֹסֵ֖ף וּבִנְיָמִֽן:
The sons of Rachel, Jacob’s wife: Concerning none of them does it say [Jacob’s]“wife,” but [the meaning is] that she was the mainstay of the household. [From Gen. Rabbah 73:2] Cf. Gen 31:33. בני רחל אשת יעקב: ובכולן לא נאמר בהן אשת, אלא שהיתה עיקרו של בית:
20And to Joseph were born in the land of Egypt, whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, the governor of On, bore to him: Manasseh and Ephraim. כוַיִּוָּלֵ֣ד לְיוֹסֵף֘ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֒יִם֒ אֲשֶׁ֤ר יָֽלְדָה־לּוֹ֙ אָֽסְנַ֔ת בַּת־פּ֥וֹטִי פֶ֖רַע כֹּהֵ֣ן אֹ֑ן אֶת־מְנַשֶּׁ֖ה וְאֶת־אֶפְרָֽיִם:
21And the sons of Benjamin were Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Na'aman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard. כאוּבְנֵ֣י בִנְיָמִ֗ן בֶּ֤לַע וָבֶ֨כֶר֙ וְאַשְׁבֵּ֔ל גֵּרָ֥א וְנַֽעֲמָ֖ן אֵחִ֣י וָרֹ֑אשׁ מֻפִּ֥ים וְחֻפִּ֖ים וָאָֽרְדְּ:
22These the sons of Rachel, who were born to Jacob: all the souls were fourteen. כבאֵ֚לֶּה בְּנֵ֣י רָחֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יֻלַּ֖ד לְיַֽעֲקֹ֑ב כָּל־נֶ֖פֶשׁ אַרְבָּעָ֥ה עָשָֽׂר:
23And the sons of Dan: Hushim. כגוּבְנֵי־דָ֖ן חֻשִֽׁים:
24And the sons of Naphtali were Jahzeel, Guni, Jezer, and Shillem. כדוּבְנֵ֖י נַפְתָּלִ֑י יַחְצְאֵ֥ל וְגוּנִ֖י וְיֵ֥צֶר וְשִׁלֵּֽם:
25These are the sons of Bilhah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Rachel, and she bore these to Jacob, all the souls were seven. כהאֵ֚לֶּה בְּנֵ֣י בִלְהָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־נָתַ֥ן לָבָ֖ן לְרָחֵ֣ל בִּתּ֑וֹ וַתֵּ֧לֶד אֶת־אֵ֛לֶּה לְיַֽעֲקֹ֖ב כָּל־נֶ֥פֶשׁ שִׁבְעָֽה:
26All the souls coming to Egypt with Jacob, those descended from him, excluding the wives of Jacob's sons, all the souls were sixty six. כוכָּל־הַ֠נֶּ֠פֶשׁ הַבָּאָ֨ה לְיַֽעֲקֹ֤ב מִצְרַ֨יְמָה֙ יֹֽצְאֵ֣י יְרֵכ֔וֹ מִלְּבַ֖ד נְשֵׁ֣י בְנֵי־יַֽעֲקֹ֑ב כָּל־נֶ֖פֶשׁ שִׁשִּׁ֥ים וָשֵֽׁשׁ:
All the souls coming…with Jacob: Who left the land of Canaan to come to Egypt. Now this [word] הַבָּאָה is not the past tense but the present tense, similar to“In the evening she would come (בָאָה)” (Esther 2:14), and like“and behold, his daughter Rachel is coming (בָּאָה) with the sheep” (Gen. 29:6). Therefore, its accent is below (i.e., at the end of the word), on the“aleph,” because when they left to come from the land of Canaan, they were only 66 [excluding Jochebed, Joseph, and his two sons]. The second [instance of הַבָּאָה, however,]“all the souls of the house of Jacob who came (הַבָּאָה) to Egypt were seventy,” is in the past tense; therefore, its accent is above (i.e., on an earlier syllable), on the“beth,” because when they came there they were seventy, for there they found Joseph and his two sons, and Jochebed was added to them between the walls. According to the one who says that twin sisters were born with [each of the progenitors of] the tribes (37: 35), we must say that they died before their descent to Egypt, for they were not counted here. I found in Leviticus Rabbah (4:6): Esau had six souls [in his family], and the text calls them נַפְשׁוֹת בֵּיתוֹ,“the souls of his household” (Gen. 36:6) in the plural, because they worshipped many gods [in his family, each his or her own deity]. Jacob had seventy (souls), but the text calls them נֶפֶשׁ [in the singular] because they [all] worshiped one God כל הנפש הבאה ליעקב: שיצאו מארץ כנען לבוא למצרים. ואין הבאה זו לשון עבר, אלא לשון הווה, כמו (אסתר ב יד) בערב היא באה, וכמו (לעיל כט ו) הנה רחל בתו באה עם הצאן, לפיכך טעמו למטה באל"ף, לפי שכשיצאו לבוא מארץ כנען לא היו אלא ששים ושש. והשני (להלן פסוק כז) כל הנפש לבית יעקב הבאה מצרימה שבעים, הוא לשון עבר, לפיכך טעמו למעלה בבי"ת, לפי שמשבאו שם היו שבעים שמצאו שם יוסף ושני בניו ונתוספה להם יוכבד בין החומות. ולדברי האומר תאומות נולדו עם השבטים צריכים אנו לומר שמתו לפני ירידתן למצרים, שהרי לא נמנו כאן. מצאתי בויקרא רבה (ד ו) עשו שש נפשות היו לו והכתוב קורא אותן (לעיל לו ו) נפשות ביתו, לשון רבים, לפי שהיו עובדין לאלהות הרבה, יעקב שבעים היו לו והכתוב קורא אותן נפש, לפי שהיו עובדים לאל אחד:
27And Joseph's sons, who were born to him in Egypt, two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came to Egypt were seventy. כזוּבְנֵ֥י יוֹסֵ֛ף אֲשֶׁר־יֻלַּד־ל֥וֹ בְמִצְרַ֖יִם נֶ֣פֶשׁ שְׁנָ֑יִם כָּל־הַנֶּ֧פֶשׁ לְבֵֽית־יַֽעֲקֹ֛ב הַבָּ֥אָה מִצְרַ֖יְמָה שִׁבְעִֽים:
• Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 39-43
• Chapter 39
David's prayer bewailing his suffering. But it is not suffering itself that pains him, rather he is saddened by its disturbing his Torah study. For man's days are few, "and if not now, when (will he study)?" for he may die, today or tomorrow. He therefore requests that his suffering be removed, to enable him to study Torah and acquire a place in the World to Come.
1. For the Conductor, for yedutun,1 a psalm by David.
2. I said that I would guard my ways from sinning with my tongue; I would guard my mouth with a muzzle, [even] while the wicked one is before me.
3. I became mute with stillness, I was silent [even] from the good, though my pain was crippling.
4. My heart grew hot within me, a fire blazed in my utterance, as I spoke with my tongue.
5. O Lord, let me know my end and what is the measure of my days, that I may know when I will cease.
6. Behold, like handbreadths You set my days; my lifetime is as naught before You. But all is futility, all mankind's existence, Selah.
7. Only in darkness does man walk, seeking only futility; he amasses riches and knows not who will reap them.
8. And now, what is my hope, my Lord? My longing is to You.
9. Rescue me from all my transgressions; do not make me the scorn of the degenerate.
10. I am mute, I do not open my mouth, for You have caused [my suffering].
11. Remove Your affliction from me; I am devastated by the attack of Your hand.
12. In reproach for sin You chastened man; like a moth, You wore away that which is precious to him. All mankind is nothing but futility, forever.
13. Hear my prayer, O Lord, listen to my cry; do not be silent to my tears, for I am a stranger with You, a sojourner like all my forefathers.
14. Turn from me, that I may recover my strength, before I depart and I am no more.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument (Metzudot).
Chapter 40
The psalmist speaks of the numerous wonders that God wrought for the Jewish people, asking: "Who can articulate His might? I would relate and speak of them, but they are too numerous to recount!" He created the world and split the sea for the sake of Israel, [yet] He desires no sacrifices, only that we listen to His voice.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. I put my hope in the Lord; He turned to me and heard my cry.
3. He raised me from the turbulent pit, from the slimy mud, and set my feet upon a rock, steadying my steps.
4. He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn to our God; multitudes will see and fear, and will trust in the Lord.
5. Fortunate is the man who has made the Lord his trust, and did not turn to the haughty, nor to those who stray after falsehood.
6. You have done much, O You, Lord my God-Your wonders and thoughts are for us; none can compare to You; should I relate or speak of them, they are too numerous to recount!
7. You desired neither sacrifice nor meal-offering, but [obedient] ears You opened for me; You requested neither burnt-offering nor sin-offering.
8. Then I said, "Behold, I come with a Scroll of the Book written for me."1
9. I desire to fulfill Your will, my God; and Your Torah is in my innards.
10. I proclaimed [Your] righteousness in a vast congregation; behold I will not restrain my lips-O Lord, You know!
11. I did not conceal Your righteousness within my heart; I declared Your faithfulness and deliverance; I did not hide Your kindness and truth from the vast congregation.
12. May You, Lord, not withhold Your mercies from me; may Your kindness and truth constantly guard me.
13. For countless evils surround me; my sins have overtaken me and I cannot see; they outnumber the hairs of my head, and my heart has abandoned me.
14. May it please You, Lord, to save me; O Lord, hurry to my aid.
15. Let those who seek my life, to end it, be shamed and humiliated together; let those who desire my harm retreat and be disgraced.
16. Let those who say about me, "Aha! Aha!" be desolate, in return for their shaming [me].
17. Let all those who seek You exult and rejoice in You; let those who love Your deliverance always say, "Be exalted, O Lord!”
18. As for me, I am poor and needy; my Lord will think of me. You are my help and my rescuer; my God, do not delay!
FOOTNOTES
1.Upon recovery, David expresses thanks, not through sacrifices, by dedicating himself to Torah (Radak).
Chapter 41
This psalm teaches many good character traits, and inspires one to be thoughtful and conscientious in giving charity-knowing to whom to give first. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the sick one, providing him with his needs.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the poor, [for] the Lord will save him on the day of evil.
3. The Lord will guard him and keep him alive; he will be praised throughout the land; You will not deliver him to the desires of his enemies.
4. The Lord will support him on the bed of illness; You will turn him over in his bed all throughout his sickness.
5. I said, "Lord, be gracious to me! Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You!”
6. My foes say that evil [awaits] me: "When will he die, and his name perish?”
7. And if one comes to see [me], he speaks insincerely, for his heart gathers iniquity for himself, and when he goes out he speaks of it.
8. Together they whisper against me-all my enemies; against me they devise my harm, [saying]:
9. "Let his wickedness pour into him; now that he lies down, he shall rise no more.”
10. Even my ally in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has raised his heel over me.
11. But you, Lord, be gracious to me and raise me up, and I will repay them.
12. With this I shall know that You desire me, when my enemies will not shout gleefully over me.
13. And I, because of my integrity, You upheld me; You set me before You forever.
14. Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, to all eternity, Amen and Amen.
Chapter 42
This psalm awakens the hearts of the Children of Israel who do not feel the immense ruin, loss, and bad fortune in their being exiled from their Father's table. Were they wise, they would appreciate their past good fortune in coming thrice yearly, with joy and great awe, to behold God during the festivals, free of adversary and harm. May God place mercy before us from now to eternity, Amen Selah.
1. For the Conductor, a maskil1 by the sons of Korach.
2. As the deer cries longingly for brooks of water, so my soul cries longingly for You, O God!
3. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When will I come and behold the countenance of God?
4. My tears have been my bread day and night, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
5. These do I recall, and pour out my soul from within me: how I traveled [to Jerusalem] in covered wagons; I would walk leisurely with them up to the House of God, amid the sound of rejoicing and thanksgiving, the celebrating multitude.
6. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him for the deliverances of His countenance.
7. My God! My soul is downcast upon me, because I remember You from the land of Jordan and Hermon's peaks, from Mount Mitzar.2
8. Deep calls to deep3 at the roar of Your channels; all Your breakers and waves have swept over me.
9. By day the Lord ordains His kindness, and at night His song is with me, a prayer to the God of my life.
10. I say to God, my rock, "Why have You forgotten me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?”
11. Like a sword in my bones, my adversaries disgrace me, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
12. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge. (Metzudot)
2.My heart aches when I remember the pilgrims from lands east of Jordan, and those from distant Hermon and Mitzar, who would travel to Jerusalem for the festivals (Radak)
3.Before one misfortune has ended, another is already upon us; as if one calls the other to come (Metzudot).
Chapter 43
A significant prayer concerning the magnitude of the troubles we have suffered at the hands of the impious nations. May it be God's will to send Moshiach and Elijah the Prophet, who will lead us to the Holy Temple to offer sacrifices as in days of old.
1. Avenge me, O God, and champion my cause against an impious nation; rescue me from the man of deceit and iniquity.
2. For You are the God of my strength; why have You abandoned me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?
3. Send Your light and Your truth, they will guide me; they will bring me to Your holy mountain and to your sanctuaries.
4. Then I will come to the altar of God-to God, the joy of my delight-and praise You on the lyre, O God, my God.
5. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 8
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Thursday, 7 Tevet, 5777 · 5 January 2017
• Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 8
• ועוד זאת במאכלות אסורות, שלכך נקראים בשם איסור
• Rambam - Thursday, 7 Tevet, 5777 · 5 January 2017
• Today's Mitzvah
A 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.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• 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.
• Rambam - 1 Chapter: Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Six
• Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Six
• Ishut - Chapter Seventeen
• Thursday, 7 Tevet, 5777 · 5 January 2017
• "Today's Day"
• Tuesday, Tevet 7, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayigash, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 39-43.
Tanya: consequently, this world (p. 23)...end of ch. 5. (p. 25).
To avert chibut hakever ("Purgatory of the grave")1 recite words of Torah, Tehillim, etc., for one sixth of the day.2 To merit purity of the soul that obviates kaf hakela ("the hollow of a sling"),3 spend as much of the day as possible in reciting Mishna, Tanya and Tehillim by heart.
FOOTNOTES
1.Tanya p. 29 and p. 33. This and kaf hakela (below) are processes of purgatory undergone by the soul after death.
2.Namely, four hours.
3.Tanya p. 33. See Supplementary Footnotes, (p. 124 in the printed version).
• Daily Thought:
The Unnatural Nature of Things
He could have made a world where the nature of each thing may be deduced from its parts. A predictable, orderly world. A world devoid of wonder.
And then we would say, “Things are this way because they must be this way.”
G‑d would be a stranger in His own world.
Instead, at each step a whole new world emerges, one we could never have predicted from anything we knew before. Until we must conclude that our finite world somehow contains infinite possibilities, that both nothing and everything is possible, that things are the way they are only because He desires they be that way.
He has made our world wondrous, so that it has room for Him.[Maamar Acharei 5733:1. Patach Eliyahu 5715.]
Chumash: Parshat Vayigash, 5th Portion (Genesis 46:8-46:27) with Rashi
• Genesis Chapter 46
8And these are the names of the children of Israel who were coming to Egypt: Jacob and his sons Jacob's firstborn was Reuben. חוְאֵ֨לֶּה שְׁמ֧וֹת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הַבָּאִ֥ים מִצְרַ֖יְמָה יַֽעֲקֹ֣ב וּבָנָ֑יו בְּכֹ֥ר יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב רְאוּבֵֽן:
who were coming to Egypt: Heb. הַבָּאִים. Relative to that time [when they were migrating to Egypt, the text] calls them “coming” [in the present tense], and [therefore] there is no reason to wonder why it is not written:“who came” (אֲשֶׁר בָּאוּ) . הבאים מצרימה: על שם השעה קורא להם הכתוב באים. ואין לתמוה על אשר לא כתב אשר באו:
9And the sons of Reuben were Hanoch and Pallu, Hezron and Carmi. טוּבְנֵ֖י רְאוּבֵ֑ן חֲנ֥וֹךְ וּפַלּ֖וּא וְחֶצְרֹ֥ן וְכַרְמִֽי:
10And the sons of Simeon were Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, and Zohar, and Saul the son of the Canaanitess. יוּבְנֵ֣י שִׁמְע֗וֹן יְמוּאֵ֧ל וְיָמִ֛ין וְאֹ֖הַד וְיָכִ֣ין וְצֹ֑חַר וְשָׁא֖וּל בֶּן־הַכְּנַֽעֲנִֽית:
the son of the Canaanitess: The son of Dinah, who had been possessed by a Canaanite. When they killed Shechem, Dinah did not want to leave until Simeon swore to her that he would marry her - [Gen. Rabbah (80:11)]. בן הכנענית: בן דינה שנבעלה לכנעני, כשהרגו את שכם לא היתה דינה רוצה לצאת עד שנשבע לה שמעון שישאנה:
11And the sons of Levi were Gershon, Kehath, and Merari. יאוּבְנֵ֖י לֵוִ֑י גֵּֽרְשׁ֕וֹן קְהָ֖ת וּמְרָרִֽי:
12And the sons of Judah were Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, and Zerah. Now Er and Onan had died in the land of Canaan; and the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul. יבוּבְנֵ֣י יְהוּדָ֗ה עֵ֧ר וְאוֹנָ֛ן וְשֵׁלָ֖ה וָפֶ֣רֶץ וָזָ֑רַח וַיָּ֨מָת עֵ֤ר וְאוֹנָן֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵי־פֶ֖רֶץ חֶצְרֹ֥ן וְחָמֽוּל:
13And the sons of Issachar were Tola, Puvvah, Iob, and Shimron. יגוּבְנֵ֖י יִשָּׂשכָ֑ר תּוֹלָ֥ע וּפֻוָּ֖ה וְי֥וֹב וְשִׁמְרֹֽן:
14And the sons of Zebulun were Sered, Elon, and Jahleel. ידוּבְנֵ֖י זְבֻל֑וּן סֶ֥רֶד וְאֵל֖וֹן וְיַחְלְאֵֽל:
15These are the sons of Leah, that she bore to Jacob in Padan Aram, and Dinah his daughter. All the souls of his sons and daughters were thirty three. טואֵ֣לֶּה | בְּנֵ֣י לֵאָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָֽלְדָ֤ה לְיַֽעֲקֹב֙ בְּפַדַּ֣ן אֲרָ֔ם וְאֵ֖ת דִּינָ֣ה בִתּ֑וֹ כָּל־נֶ֧פֶשׁ בָּנָ֛יו וּבְנוֹתָ֖יו שְׁלשִׁ֥ים וְשָׁלֽשׁ:
These are the sons of Leah …and Dinah his daughter: The males are attributed to Leah and the females to Jacob, to teach you that if the woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male, but if the male emits seed first, she (the woman) gives birth to a female. [From Niddah 31a] אלה בני לאה. ואת דינה בתו: הזכרים תלה בלאה והנקבות תלה ביעקב, ללמדך אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר, איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה:
thirty-three: But if you count them individually, you find only thirty-two. This [missing one] is Jochebed, who was born between the walls when they entered the city, as it is said: “whom she bore to Levi in Egypt” (Num. 26:59). Her birth was in Egypt, but her conception was not in Egypt. [From Num. Rabbah 13:20] שלשים ושלש: ובפרטן אי אתה מוצא אלא שלשים ושנים, אלא זו יוכבד שנולדה בין החומות בכניסתן לעיר, שנאמר (במדבר כו נט) אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים, לידתה במצרים ואין הורתה במצרים:
16And the sons of Gad were Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, and Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, and Areli. טזוּבְנֵ֣י גָ֔ד צִפְי֥וֹן וְחַגִּ֖י שׁוּנִ֣י וְאֶצְבֹּ֑ן עֵרִ֥י וַֽאֲרוֹדִ֖י וְאַרְאֵלִֽי:
17And the sons of Asher were Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, and Briah, and Serah, their sister; and the sons of Briah were Heber and Malkiel. יזוּבְנֵ֣י אָשֵׁ֗ר יִמְנָ֧ה וְיִשְׁוָ֛ה וְיִשְׁוִ֥י וּבְרִיעָ֖ה וְשֶׂ֣רַח אֲחֹתָ֑ם וּבְנֵ֣י בְרִיעָ֔ה חֶ֖בֶר וּמַלְכִּיאֵֽל:
18These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to his daughter Leah, and she bore these to Jacob, sixteen souls. יחאֵ֚לֶּה בְּנֵ֣י זִלְפָּ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־נָתַ֥ן לָבָ֖ן לְלֵאָ֣ה בִתּ֑וֹ וַתֵּ֤לֶד אֶת־אֵ֨לֶּה֙ לְיַֽעֲקֹ֔ב שֵׁ֥שׁ עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה נָֽפֶשׁ:
19The sons of Rachel, Jacob's wife, were Joseph and Benjamin. יטבְּנֵ֤י רָחֵל֙ אֵ֣שֶׁת יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב יוֹסֵ֖ף וּבִנְיָמִֽן:
The sons of Rachel, Jacob’s wife: Concerning none of them does it say [Jacob’s]“wife,” but [the meaning is] that she was the mainstay of the household. [From Gen. Rabbah 73:2] Cf. Gen 31:33. בני רחל אשת יעקב: ובכולן לא נאמר בהן אשת, אלא שהיתה עיקרו של בית:
20And to Joseph were born in the land of Egypt, whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, the governor of On, bore to him: Manasseh and Ephraim. כוַיִּוָּלֵ֣ד לְיוֹסֵף֘ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֒יִם֒ אֲשֶׁ֤ר יָֽלְדָה־לּוֹ֙ אָֽסְנַ֔ת בַּת־פּ֥וֹטִי פֶ֖רַע כֹּהֵ֣ן אֹ֑ן אֶת־מְנַשֶּׁ֖ה וְאֶת־אֶפְרָֽיִם:
21And the sons of Benjamin were Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Na'aman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard. כאוּבְנֵ֣י בִנְיָמִ֗ן בֶּ֤לַע וָבֶ֨כֶר֙ וְאַשְׁבֵּ֔ל גֵּרָ֥א וְנַֽעֲמָ֖ן אֵחִ֣י וָרֹ֑אשׁ מֻפִּ֥ים וְחֻפִּ֖ים וָאָֽרְדְּ:
22These the sons of Rachel, who were born to Jacob: all the souls were fourteen. כבאֵ֚לֶּה בְּנֵ֣י רָחֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יֻלַּ֖ד לְיַֽעֲקֹ֑ב כָּל־נֶ֖פֶשׁ אַרְבָּעָ֥ה עָשָֽׂר:
23And the sons of Dan: Hushim. כגוּבְנֵי־דָ֖ן חֻשִֽׁים:
24And the sons of Naphtali were Jahzeel, Guni, Jezer, and Shillem. כדוּבְנֵ֖י נַפְתָּלִ֑י יַחְצְאֵ֥ל וְגוּנִ֖י וְיֵ֥צֶר וְשִׁלֵּֽם:
25These are the sons of Bilhah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Rachel, and she bore these to Jacob, all the souls were seven. כהאֵ֚לֶּה בְּנֵ֣י בִלְהָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־נָתַ֥ן לָבָ֖ן לְרָחֵ֣ל בִּתּ֑וֹ וַתֵּ֧לֶד אֶת־אֵ֛לֶּה לְיַֽעֲקֹ֖ב כָּל־נֶ֥פֶשׁ שִׁבְעָֽה:
26All the souls coming to Egypt with Jacob, those descended from him, excluding the wives of Jacob's sons, all the souls were sixty six. כוכָּל־הַ֠נֶּ֠פֶשׁ הַבָּאָ֨ה לְיַֽעֲקֹ֤ב מִצְרַ֨יְמָה֙ יֹֽצְאֵ֣י יְרֵכ֔וֹ מִלְּבַ֖ד נְשֵׁ֣י בְנֵי־יַֽעֲקֹ֑ב כָּל־נֶ֖פֶשׁ שִׁשִּׁ֥ים וָשֵֽׁשׁ:
All the souls coming…with Jacob: Who left the land of Canaan to come to Egypt. Now this [word] הַבָּאָה is not the past tense but the present tense, similar to“In the evening she would come (בָאָה)” (Esther 2:14), and like“and behold, his daughter Rachel is coming (בָּאָה) with the sheep” (Gen. 29:6). Therefore, its accent is below (i.e., at the end of the word), on the“aleph,” because when they left to come from the land of Canaan, they were only 66 [excluding Jochebed, Joseph, and his two sons]. The second [instance of הַבָּאָה, however,]“all the souls of the house of Jacob who came (הַבָּאָה) to Egypt were seventy,” is in the past tense; therefore, its accent is above (i.e., on an earlier syllable), on the“beth,” because when they came there they were seventy, for there they found Joseph and his two sons, and Jochebed was added to them between the walls. According to the one who says that twin sisters were born with [each of the progenitors of] the tribes (37: 35), we must say that they died before their descent to Egypt, for they were not counted here. I found in Leviticus Rabbah (4:6): Esau had six souls [in his family], and the text calls them נַפְשׁוֹת בֵּיתוֹ,“the souls of his household” (Gen. 36:6) in the plural, because they worshipped many gods [in his family, each his or her own deity]. Jacob had seventy (souls), but the text calls them נֶפֶשׁ [in the singular] because they [all] worshiped one God כל הנפש הבאה ליעקב: שיצאו מארץ כנען לבוא למצרים. ואין הבאה זו לשון עבר, אלא לשון הווה, כמו (אסתר ב יד) בערב היא באה, וכמו (לעיל כט ו) הנה רחל בתו באה עם הצאן, לפיכך טעמו למטה באל"ף, לפי שכשיצאו לבוא מארץ כנען לא היו אלא ששים ושש. והשני (להלן פסוק כז) כל הנפש לבית יעקב הבאה מצרימה שבעים, הוא לשון עבר, לפיכך טעמו למעלה בבי"ת, לפי שמשבאו שם היו שבעים שמצאו שם יוסף ושני בניו ונתוספה להם יוכבד בין החומות. ולדברי האומר תאומות נולדו עם השבטים צריכים אנו לומר שמתו לפני ירידתן למצרים, שהרי לא נמנו כאן. מצאתי בויקרא רבה (ד ו) עשו שש נפשות היו לו והכתוב קורא אותן (לעיל לו ו) נפשות ביתו, לשון רבים, לפי שהיו עובדין לאלהות הרבה, יעקב שבעים היו לו והכתוב קורא אותן נפש, לפי שהיו עובדים לאל אחד:
27And Joseph's sons, who were born to him in Egypt, two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came to Egypt were seventy. כזוּבְנֵ֥י יוֹסֵ֛ף אֲשֶׁר־יֻלַּד־ל֥וֹ בְמִצְרַ֖יִם נֶ֣פֶשׁ שְׁנָ֑יִם כָּל־הַנֶּ֧פֶשׁ לְבֵֽית־יַֽעֲקֹ֛ב הַבָּ֥אָה מִצְרַ֖יְמָה שִׁבְעִֽים:
• Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 39-43
• Chapter 39
David's prayer bewailing his suffering. But it is not suffering itself that pains him, rather he is saddened by its disturbing his Torah study. For man's days are few, "and if not now, when (will he study)?" for he may die, today or tomorrow. He therefore requests that his suffering be removed, to enable him to study Torah and acquire a place in the World to Come.
1. For the Conductor, for yedutun,1 a psalm by David.
2. I said that I would guard my ways from sinning with my tongue; I would guard my mouth with a muzzle, [even] while the wicked one is before me.
3. I became mute with stillness, I was silent [even] from the good, though my pain was crippling.
4. My heart grew hot within me, a fire blazed in my utterance, as I spoke with my tongue.
5. O Lord, let me know my end and what is the measure of my days, that I may know when I will cease.
6. Behold, like handbreadths You set my days; my lifetime is as naught before You. But all is futility, all mankind's existence, Selah.
7. Only in darkness does man walk, seeking only futility; he amasses riches and knows not who will reap them.
8. And now, what is my hope, my Lord? My longing is to You.
9. Rescue me from all my transgressions; do not make me the scorn of the degenerate.
10. I am mute, I do not open my mouth, for You have caused [my suffering].
11. Remove Your affliction from me; I am devastated by the attack of Your hand.
12. In reproach for sin You chastened man; like a moth, You wore away that which is precious to him. All mankind is nothing but futility, forever.
13. Hear my prayer, O Lord, listen to my cry; do not be silent to my tears, for I am a stranger with You, a sojourner like all my forefathers.
14. Turn from me, that I may recover my strength, before I depart and I am no more.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument (Metzudot).
Chapter 40
The psalmist speaks of the numerous wonders that God wrought for the Jewish people, asking: "Who can articulate His might? I would relate and speak of them, but they are too numerous to recount!" He created the world and split the sea for the sake of Israel, [yet] He desires no sacrifices, only that we listen to His voice.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. I put my hope in the Lord; He turned to me and heard my cry.
3. He raised me from the turbulent pit, from the slimy mud, and set my feet upon a rock, steadying my steps.
4. He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn to our God; multitudes will see and fear, and will trust in the Lord.
5. Fortunate is the man who has made the Lord his trust, and did not turn to the haughty, nor to those who stray after falsehood.
6. You have done much, O You, Lord my God-Your wonders and thoughts are for us; none can compare to You; should I relate or speak of them, they are too numerous to recount!
7. You desired neither sacrifice nor meal-offering, but [obedient] ears You opened for me; You requested neither burnt-offering nor sin-offering.
8. Then I said, "Behold, I come with a Scroll of the Book written for me."1
9. I desire to fulfill Your will, my God; and Your Torah is in my innards.
10. I proclaimed [Your] righteousness in a vast congregation; behold I will not restrain my lips-O Lord, You know!
11. I did not conceal Your righteousness within my heart; I declared Your faithfulness and deliverance; I did not hide Your kindness and truth from the vast congregation.
12. May You, Lord, not withhold Your mercies from me; may Your kindness and truth constantly guard me.
13. For countless evils surround me; my sins have overtaken me and I cannot see; they outnumber the hairs of my head, and my heart has abandoned me.
14. May it please You, Lord, to save me; O Lord, hurry to my aid.
15. Let those who seek my life, to end it, be shamed and humiliated together; let those who desire my harm retreat and be disgraced.
16. Let those who say about me, "Aha! Aha!" be desolate, in return for their shaming [me].
17. Let all those who seek You exult and rejoice in You; let those who love Your deliverance always say, "Be exalted, O Lord!”
18. As for me, I am poor and needy; my Lord will think of me. You are my help and my rescuer; my God, do not delay!
FOOTNOTES
1.Upon recovery, David expresses thanks, not through sacrifices, by dedicating himself to Torah (Radak).
Chapter 41
This psalm teaches many good character traits, and inspires one to be thoughtful and conscientious in giving charity-knowing to whom to give first. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the sick one, providing him with his needs.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the poor, [for] the Lord will save him on the day of evil.
3. The Lord will guard him and keep him alive; he will be praised throughout the land; You will not deliver him to the desires of his enemies.
4. The Lord will support him on the bed of illness; You will turn him over in his bed all throughout his sickness.
5. I said, "Lord, be gracious to me! Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You!”
6. My foes say that evil [awaits] me: "When will he die, and his name perish?”
7. And if one comes to see [me], he speaks insincerely, for his heart gathers iniquity for himself, and when he goes out he speaks of it.
8. Together they whisper against me-all my enemies; against me they devise my harm, [saying]:
9. "Let his wickedness pour into him; now that he lies down, he shall rise no more.”
10. Even my ally in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has raised his heel over me.
11. But you, Lord, be gracious to me and raise me up, and I will repay them.
12. With this I shall know that You desire me, when my enemies will not shout gleefully over me.
13. And I, because of my integrity, You upheld me; You set me before You forever.
14. Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, to all eternity, Amen and Amen.
Chapter 42
This psalm awakens the hearts of the Children of Israel who do not feel the immense ruin, loss, and bad fortune in their being exiled from their Father's table. Were they wise, they would appreciate their past good fortune in coming thrice yearly, with joy and great awe, to behold God during the festivals, free of adversary and harm. May God place mercy before us from now to eternity, Amen Selah.
1. For the Conductor, a maskil1 by the sons of Korach.
2. As the deer cries longingly for brooks of water, so my soul cries longingly for You, O God!
3. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When will I come and behold the countenance of God?
4. My tears have been my bread day and night, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
5. These do I recall, and pour out my soul from within me: how I traveled [to Jerusalem] in covered wagons; I would walk leisurely with them up to the House of God, amid the sound of rejoicing and thanksgiving, the celebrating multitude.
6. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him for the deliverances of His countenance.
7. My God! My soul is downcast upon me, because I remember You from the land of Jordan and Hermon's peaks, from Mount Mitzar.2
8. Deep calls to deep3 at the roar of Your channels; all Your breakers and waves have swept over me.
9. By day the Lord ordains His kindness, and at night His song is with me, a prayer to the God of my life.
10. I say to God, my rock, "Why have You forgotten me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?”
11. Like a sword in my bones, my adversaries disgrace me, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
12. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge. (Metzudot)
2.My heart aches when I remember the pilgrims from lands east of Jordan, and those from distant Hermon and Mitzar, who would travel to Jerusalem for the festivals (Radak)
3.Before one misfortune has ended, another is already upon us; as if one calls the other to come (Metzudot).
Chapter 43
A significant prayer concerning the magnitude of the troubles we have suffered at the hands of the impious nations. May it be God's will to send Moshiach and Elijah the Prophet, who will lead us to the Holy Temple to offer sacrifices as in days of old.
1. Avenge me, O God, and champion my cause against an impious nation; rescue me from the man of deceit and iniquity.
2. For You are the God of my strength; why have You abandoned me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?
3. Send Your light and Your truth, they will guide me; they will bring me to Your holy mountain and to your sanctuaries.
4. Then I will come to the altar of God-to God, the joy of my delight-and praise You on the lyre, O God, my God.
5. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 8
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Thursday, 7 Tevet, 5777 · 5 January 2017
• Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 8
• ועוד זאת במאכלות אסורות, שלכך נקראים בשם איסור
There is an additional aspect in the matter of forbidden foods, for which reason they are called issur(“bound” and attached):
מפני שאף מי שאכל מאכל איסור בלא הודע, לשם שמים, לעבוד ה׳ בכח אכילה ההיא
Even if one ate a forbidden food unwittingly and his intention in eating was for the sake of heaven, i.e., in order to serve G‑d with the energy derived from it;
(Had the food been permitted, the very act of eating for the sake of heaven would suffice to extract the good from the evil of the food’s vitality, as explained above. In this instance, however, forbidden food was eaten for the sake of heaven.)
וגם פעל ועשה כן, וקרא והתפלל בכח אכילה ההיא
moreover, even if he actually carried out his intention, having studied and prayed with the energy derived from that food;
(Again, had the food been permitted and the person studied and prayed with the energy provided by the food, the energy would be elevated to Sanctity. But because the food was forbidden —)
אין החיות שבה עולה ומתלבשת בתיבות התורה והתפלה כמו ההיתר
the vitality contained in it does not ascend or become clothed in the words of Torah and prayer that he studies and prays with the energy of that food as is the case with permitted foods,
מפני איסורה בידי הסטרא אחרא משלש קליפות הטמאות
because it is held captive in the power of the sitra achra of the three unclean kelipot which do not permit the energy of the food to be elevated to Sanctity.
ואפילו הוא איסור דרבנן, שחמורים דברי סופרים יותר מדברי תורה כו׳
This is so even if it is forbidden by reason of a Rabbinic prohibition, for1 “the words i.e., the prohibitions of the Scribes are even more stringent than the words of the Torah.”
ולכן, גם היצר הרע וכח המתאוה לדברים האסורים הוא שד משדין נוכראין, שהוא יצר הרע של אומות העולם, שנפשותיהם משלש קליפות הטמאות
Therefore, the yetzer hara (evil impulse) and the force that lusts after forbidden things is also2 “one of the non-Jewish demons,” which is the yetzer hara of the nations, whose souls are derived from the three unclean kelipot.
They therefore lust after forbidden matters, since the forbidden matters, too, derive their energy from the three unclean kelipot.
מה שאין כן היצר הרע וכח המתאוה לדברים המותרים, למלאות תאותו, הוא שד משדין יהודאין, לפי שיכול לחזור לקדושה כדלעיל
On the other hand, the evil impulse and the craving force after permissible things even when done solely to satisfy one’s craving in which case, as mentioned earlier, even the permissible matter descends into the utter evil of the three unclean kelipot; still it is3 “one of the Jewish demons”; it is, as it were, a Jewish evil impulse, for it (the vitality of a permitted thing) can be reverted to holiness, as was explained above.4
Since the food itself is permissible, therefore, though it was eaten to satisfy bodily desire, it can still be elevated to holiness (when the person returns to the study of Torah and the service of G‑d). The yetzer hara for forbidden matters, however, is intrinsically un-Jewish, i.e., essentially foreign to the Jew’s character. As explained elsewhere, one acquires this “foreign” yetzer hara by immersing himself in “permitted” pleasures. These so coarsen him that he begins to lust after prohibited matters as well — a desire totally unnatural for the Jew.
אך מכל מקום קודם שחזר לקדושה הוא סטרא אחרא וקליפה
Although the vitality of permitted foods eaten out of bodily desire can revert to holiness through the person’s repentance,nevertheless, before it has reverted to holiness it is sitra achra and kelipah,
וגם אחר כך הרשימו ממנו נשאר דבוק בגוף
and even afterwards (after the person repented and elevated the energy of the food to holiness) a trace of it remains attached to the person’s body,
להיות כי מכל מאכל ומשקה נעשה תיכף דם ובשר מבשרו
since each item of food and drink that one ingests immediately becomes blood and flesh of his flesh.
Since the food which became his flesh and blood was evil at the time of consumption — having been eaten for the sake of bodily pleasure — a trace of the kelipah remains in the body even after the person has repented and elevated the vitality of the food to holiness.
ולכן צריך הגוף לחיבוט הקבר, לנקותו ולטהרו מטומאתו שקיבל בהנאת עולם הזה ותענוגיו, מטומאת קליפת נוגה ושדין יהודאין
That is why the body must undergo the “Purgatory of the Grave” (a specific punishment for the body5 ) in order to cleanse it and purify it of the uncleanness which it had received from the enjoyment of mundane things and pleasures, which are from the impurity of the kelipat nogah and of the “Jewish demons” (i.e., the “Jewish yetzer hara” which desires permitted matters);
אלא אם כן מי שלא נהנה מעולם הזה כל ימיו
unless one had never derived enjoyment from this world all his life (i.e., either he actually derived no enjoyment, or his enjoyment was not of this world, since all his actions were completely for the sake of mitzvot and holiness),
כרבינו הקדוש
as was the case with Rabbeinu HaKadosh (Rabbi Judah the Prince, who said at the time of his demise that he had had no enjoyment of this world even to the extent of his “small finger”).
He who never derived pleasure from this world all his life need not undergo the “Purgatory of the Grave.” However, anyone who has not attained this level must undergo this punishment to purify his body of the uncleanness received from the enjoyment of mundane pleasures.
* * *
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Mishnah, Sanhedrin 88b; Bamidbar Rabbah 14:12. |
| 2. | Zohar III, 253a; 277a. |
| 3. | Zohar III, 253a; 277a. |
| 4. | Ch. 7. |
| 5. | See Zohar II, 151a, and especially Rabbi Chayim Vital, end of Sefer HaGilgulim, and Sefer HaKavanot, p. 55b. |
• Today's Mitzvah
A 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.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• 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.
• Rambam - 1 Chapter: Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Six
• Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Six
1
The following rules apply when a river washes away beams, stones, wood and the like. If the owners despaired of their return, it is permitted for the finder to keep them, and they become his property. If, however, the finder does not know whether or not the owners have despaired, he is obligated to return the objects. Needless to say, this applies if the owners are pursuing the article.
א
קורות ואבנים ועצים וכיוצא בהן ששטפם הנהר אם נתייאשו הבעלים מהן הרי אלו מותרין והן של מצילן ואם אינו יודע אם נתייאשו אם לא נתייאשו חייב להחזיר ואין צריך לומר אם היו הבעלים מרדפין אחריהם:
2
Therefore, the same principle is applied when a person saves an article from the bed of a sea, from a flooding river, from gentiles, from a fire, from a lion, from a bear, from a tiger or from a leopard. If one knows that the owners have despaired of the article's return, it may be kept by the finder. If one does not know, one must return it.
ב
לפיכך
3
When a person saves an article from a Jewish robber, he may keep it, for we assume that the owners despaired of its return. If, however, he knows that they did not despair of its return, he is obligated to return it.
When, by contrast, a person saves an article from a gentile robber, he is obligated to return it, for we do not assume that the owners despaired of its return. If, however, he knows that they did despair of its return, he may keep it.
Why do we say with regard to Jewish robbers that we can assume that the owners despair, while with regard to gentile robbers we do not assume that they despair? Because the owners know that the gentile authorities will require a robber to return an article obtained by robbery, although there are no witnesses that he committed robbery. Circumstantial evidence and probability are sufficient.
ג
המציל מיד ליסטים ישראל הרי אלו שלו מפני שסתם הדבר שנתייאשו הבעלים. ואם ידע שלא נתייאשו חייב להחזיר. אבל המציל מיד לסטים עובד כוכבים או מוכס עכו"ם חייב להחזיר שסתם הדבר שלא נתייאשו הבעלים. ואם ידע בודאי שנתייאשו הרי אלו שלו. ומפני מה סתם ליסטים ישראל נתייאשו הבעלים וסתם העכו"ם לא נתייאשו. מפני שהבעלים יודעים שהעכו"ם מחזירין מיד הגזלן אף על פי שאין שם עדים שגזל אלא בראיות רעועות ובאומד הדעת:
4
It is not considered robbery to take fresh cress that grows among flax, because it harms the flax belonging to the owner of the field. If the cress has become dry, taking it is considered robbery, because it has already caused whatever damage it might cause.
If it grows on the border of the rows of flax, it is forbidden to be taken even if it is fresh.
ד
שחליים הצומחים בתוך הפשתן המלקטן כשהן לחין אין בו משום גזל מפני שהן מפסידין הפשתן של בעל השדה. ואם יבשו אסורין משום גזל שכבר הפסידו מה שהפסידו. ואם היו על הגבול אסורין אפילו כשהן לחין:
5
We have stated in Hilchot Nizkei Mammon that taking straw and hay that a person has placed in the public domain is not considered robbery. If, however, a piece of feces is placed in the public domain, whether during the time when taking out wastes is permitted or at other times, taking it is considered to be robbery.
ה
כבר ביארנו בנזקי ממון שהמוציא תבנו וקשו לרשות הרבים אין בהם משום גזל. אבל המוציא הגלל לרשות הרבים בין בשעת הוצאת זבלים בין שלא בשעת הוצאת זבלים חייבין עליהם משום גזל:
6
When a person's clothes were exchanged for those belonging to another person at a house of mourning or a place of celebration,he should not use the article in his possession unless the owner comes and returns the original article and takes his own.
Slightly different rules apply if a person's articles become exchanged for another's in the home of a craftsman. If the craftsman's wife or children gave him the articles, or the craftsman gave him the articles and told him: "Take your articles," the person should not use the articles in his possession unless the owner comes and returns the original articles and takes his own.
If, however, the craftsman tells him: "Take this article," he may use it until the owner comes and returns the original articles and takes his own. For it is possible that the article belongs to the craftsman, or that the owner of the article told the craftsman to sell it for him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ו
מי שנתחלפו לו כליו בכלים אחרים בבית האבל או בבית המשתה הרי זה לא ישתמש בהן עד שיבא הלה ויחזיר ויטול את שלו. נתחלפו לו בבית האומן אם אשתו ובניו של אומן נתנו לו או שנתן לו האומן ואמר לו טול כליך הרי זה לא ישתמש בהן עד שיבא הלה ויחזיר ויטול את שלו. אמר לו האומן טול כלי זה הרי זה ישתמש בו עד שיבא הלה ויחזיר ויטול את שלו שמא כליו של אומן הוא או בעל הכלי צוה את האומן למכרו לו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
7
Our Sages forbade many acts, classifying them as robbery - e.g., one who sets doves into flight or plays dice. If a person transgresses these prohibitions, he is considered a robber by Rabbinic decree.
What is meant by setting doves into flight? A person should not set doves into flight in a settled area, because he will take property belonging to others unjustly. For he will send out a male and it will bring a female from another dovecote; he will send out a female and it will bring a male.
This does not apply to doves alone. Instead, anyone who performs a like act with regard to other fowl, beasts or domesticated animals is considered to be a robber by Rabbinic decree.
ז
דברים הרבה אסרו חכמים משום גזל והעובר עליהן הרי זה גזלן מדבריהם. כגון מפריחי יונים והמשחקים בקוביא. מפריחי יונים כיצד. לא יפריח אדם בתוך היישוב שהרי לוקח ממון אחרים שלא כדין מפני שמשלח זכר ויביא נקבה משובך אחר או נקבה ותביא זכר. ולא יונים בלבד אלא כל העושה כזה בשאר עופות או חיה ובהמה הרי זה גזלן מדבריהם:
8
Similarly, our Sages forbade snaring doves within a settled area, for we can assume that the doves belong to others. One may not set a snare for doves unless one places a distance of four milbetween the snare and the settled area. Moreover, if the settled area is composed of vineyards, one should not set a snare even within 100 mil, for the doves belong to the owners of the vineyards.
Similarly, a person should not set a snare among dovecotes even if he owns those dovecotes, or they belong to a gentile or are ownerless, even if the dovecotes are more than 100 mil from the settled area, for the doves from the settled area will come to the area of the dovecotes.
ח
וכן אסרו חכמים לצוד יונים בתוך היישוב מפני שהן של אחרים ואין פורשין נישובין ליונים אלא אם כן הרחיק מן היישוב ארבעה מילין. ואם היה יישוב כרמים אפילו מאה מיל לא יפרוש שהיונים של בעלי כרמים הם. וכן לא יפרוש בתוך השובכין אע"פ שהן שלו או של עכו"ם או של הפקר ואף על פי שהרחיק מן היישוב מאה מיל מפני שהיונים [ב] באות ליישוב השובכין:
9
When constructing a dovecote, a person should position it at least 50 cubits from the village. Similarly, a person should not construct a dovecote in his field unless he owns the property in a radius of 50 cubits on all sides, so the doves will not be drawn forth and damage the fields of others by eating their produce.
If a person purchased a dovecote from another person, he may continue using it even if there is only a distance in which a quarter of a kav of grain can be sown between the dovecote and the beginning of his colleague's field. We do not require him to move it further away.
ט
מרחיקין את השובך מן העיר חמשים אמה ולא יעשה אדם שובך [ג] בתוך שדהו אלא אם כן יש לו חמשים אמה לכל רוח כדי שלא ימשכו הגוזלות ויפסידו בשדות ויאכלו משל אחרים. ואם לקחו מאחר אפילו היה בינו ובין תחילת שדה חבירו בית רובע בלבד הרי הוא בחזקתו ואין מחייבין אותו להרחיק:
10
What is meant by dice players? People who play with pieces of wood, pebbles, bones or the like and establish a condition that whoever will better a colleague in this sport is entitled to take a certain amount of money from him. This is robbery according to Rabbinic decree. Although the person himself consents to the other person's taking his money, since he is taking it for nothing, as part of the frivolous sport, it is considered to be robbery.
Similarly, those who gamble with regard to domesticated animals, beasts or fowl, making a condition that whosoever's animal will vanquish or outrace the other one's is entitled to take a certain amount of money from him - this and all forms of gambling are forbidden and considered to be robbery by Rabbinic decree.
י
המשחקין בקוביא כיצד. אלו שמשחקים בעצים או בצרורות או בעצמות וכיוצא בהן ועושים תנאי ביניהם שכל הנוצח את חבירו באותו שחוק יקח ממנו כך וכך הרי זה גזל מדבריהם. אע"פ שברצון הבעלים לקח הואיל ולקח ממון חבירו בחנם דרך שחוק והתול הרי זה גוזל. וכן המשחקים בבהמה או בחיה או בעופות ועושים תנאי שכל שתנצח בהמתו או תרוץ יותר יקח מחבירו כך וכך וכל כיוצא בדברים אלו הכל אסור וגזל מדבריהם הוא:
11
When a person plays dice with gentiles, he does not violate the prohibition against robbery. He does, however, violate the prohibition against occupying oneself with empty matters. It is not fitting for a person to spend any of his days occupied in anything other than words of wisdom or pursuits that lead to a stable world.
יא
והמשחק בקוביא עם העכו"ם אין בו איסור גזל אבל יש בו איסור עוסק בדברים בטלים שאין ראוי לאדם שיעסוק כל ימיו אלא בדברי חכמה
12
The following principle applies with regard to snares for beasts, fowl and fish: If an animal falls into such a snare and another person takes it, this is considered robbery by Rabbinic law. It is not considered to be robbery by Scriptural law because they have not as yet entered the possession of the person who acquires them.
יב
מצודות חיה ועופות ודגים שנפלו מיני החיה לתוך המצודה ובא אחר ונטלן הרי זה גזל מדבריהם מפני [ד] שעדיין לא הגיעו ליד הזוכה בהן:
13
A river and a stream that flow belong to all people.
When a poor person climbs to the top of an olive tree and beats the branches so that olives that have been forgotten by their owner will fall, he is entitled to them. If another poor person takes them, it is considered robbery by Rabbinic decree.
If the poor person collects them in his hand and then throws them to the earth, taking them is full-fledged robbery, for they have entered the possession of the person who acquires them.
יג
נהר המושך ומעיינות הנובעין הרי הן של כל אדם. עני המנקף בראש הזית זיתים של שכחה ובא עני אחר ונטלן מעל הארץ הרי זה גזל [ה] מדבריהם. ואם היה העני מקבץ בידו בראש הזית ומשליך לארץ הרי זה גזל גמור שהרי הגיעו ליד הזוכה בהן:
14
Unlike chickens and ducks, bees are not considered the private property of a person according to Scriptural law. Nevertheless, it is possible to acquire them according to Rabbinic law.
A person who steals a swarm of bees or prevents their owner from taking them if the swarm comes into his domain is considered a robber by Rabbinic decree. Thus, if a swarm of bees leaves a person's property and comes to rest in a colleague's property, the owner of the bees has the right to enter his colleague's field and proceed until he takes his bees. If in his progress he damages his colleague's field, he must reimburse him for the damages. He may not, however, cut down a branch with the intent that later he will reimburse the owner for the damages.
יד
הדבורים אינן ברשותו של אדם כמו תרנגולים ואווזים ואף על פי כן יש בהן קניין מדבריהם. והגוזל נחיל דבורים או שמנעו מבעליו אם בא לרשותו הרי זה גזל מדבריהם. לפיכך מי שיצא נחיל של דבורים מרשותו ושכן ברשות חבירו יש לבעל הנחיל להלך בתוך שדה חבירו עד שיטול את נחילו ואם הזיק משלם מה שהזיק. אבל לא יקוץ את שוכה על מנת ליתן דמים:
15
We accept the statements of a woman or a minor who says, "this swarm of bees left this property," provided that the statements are made in the course of conversation and the owners are pursuing the swarm and asking "Where did it come to rest?"
Although a woman or a minor is not generally accepted as a witness, since the ownership of bees is a matter of Rabbinic law, their testimony is accepted in this case.
טו
נאמנת אשה או קטן לומר מכאן יצא נחיל זה והוא שיהיו משיחין לפי תומן ויהיו הבעלים מרדפין אחר הנחיל ושואלים היכן חונה. ואע"פ שאין אשה או קטן בני עדות הואיל וקניין דבורים מדבריהם האמינו אותם בו:
16
Whenever a person is in possession of property that is considered to be robbed according to Rabbinic law, it cannot be expropriated by judges.
Similarly, if the person denied possession of it and took a false oath to that effect, he is not required to add a fifth, as he is with regard to property acquired by full-fledged robbery.
טז
כל מי שיש בידו גזל של דבריהם אינו יוצא מידו בדיינין. וכן אם כפר בו ונשבע אינו מוסיף חומש כמו שמוסיף על הגזל הגמור:
• Ishut - Chapter Seventeen
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.
א
מי שהיה נשוי נשים רבות ומת. כל שנשאת בתחלה קודמת ליטול כתובתה. ואין אחת מהן נוטלת אלא בשבועה. ואין לאחרונה אלא מה ששיירה שלפניה וגם היא נשבעת ונוטלת השאר. וכן אם היה עליו שטר חוב. אם היה החוב קודם גובה בעל חוב תחילה. ואם הכתובה קדמה גובה האשה בתחלה והנשאר לבעל חוב:
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
ב
בד"א כשהיתה הקרקע שבאו לגבות ממנה קנויה לו בשעת נשואים ובשעה שלוה הוא שהדין נותן שכל הקודם בשטר תחלה זכה תחלה. אבל אם נשא נשים זו אחר זו ולוה בין קודם נישואין בין אחר נישואין ואחר שנשא ולוה קנה קרקע כולן חולקין כאחד ששיעבוד כולן כאחד בא. שבשעה שקנה היה משועבד לכל ואין כאן דין קדימה:
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
ג
וכן אם היה זמן הכתובות והשטרות כולן יום אחד או שעה אחת במקום שכותבים שעות חולקין כאחד שאין שם קודם. ולעולם כל שקדם וזכה במטלטלין כדי חובו או כדי כתובתה אין מוציאין מידו שאין דין קדימה במטלטלין:
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.
ד
מי שגירש את אשתו ועליו שטר חוב ובא בעל חוב והאשה לגבות והיו לו מעות וקרקע כדי החוב והכתובה. בעל חוב נוטל מעות והאשה נוטלת כתובתה מן הקרקע. ואם אין לו אלא קרקע שאין בה כדי לגבות שניהם ולא היה בה דין קדימה נותנין אותו לבעל חוב. ואם נשאר לאשה כלום תטול ואם לאו תדחה מפני בעל חוב. שהרי בעל חוב הפסיד והוציא מעותיו והאשה לא חסרה דבר שיותר משהאיש רוצה לישא אשה רוצה להנשא:
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.
ה
וכן מי שמת והניח אשה ובעל חוב וקרקע שאין בה דין קדימה האשה נדחית מפני בעל חוב והוא גובה חובו תחלה:
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] her ketubah, it should be given to her. If nothing remains, the wife must yield.
ו
וכיון שתקנו הגאונים שתגבה האשה ובעל חוב מן המטלטלין והדבר ידוע שאין דין קדימה במטלטלין אם לא הניח מטלטלין כדי ליתן לשניהם נותנין לבעל חוב כל חובו תחלה. ואם נשאר לאשה מה שתטול בכתובתה תטול ואם לאו תדחה:
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.
ז
היו כתובין בכתובתה נכסי צאן ברזל וטענה שאבדו או שלקחם הבעל הרי היא בנכסי צאן ברזל שלה כשאר בעלי חובות ונשבעת שלא לקחה אותן ולא נתנה ולא מחלה וחולקת עם בעלי חובות:
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
ח
מי שמת או גירש ויש לו נשים רבות ואין שם דין קדימה ואין לו כדי כל הכתובות כיצד הן חולקות. רואים אם כשיחלק הממון על מנין הנשים יגיע לפחותה שבהן כדי כתובתה או פחות חולקות בשוה. ואם היה הממון יותר על זה חולקים ממנו כדי שיגיע לפחותה שבהן כשיעור כתובתה. וחוזרות וחולקות את המותר בין הנותרות על דרך הראשון. כיצד מי שהיה נשוי ארבע נשים כתובתה של ראשונה ארבע מאות ושל שנייה שלש מאות ושל שלישית מאתים ושל רביעית מאה נמצא הכל אלף וגירש כולן או מת. אם הניח ארבע מאות או פחות חולקות בשוה וכל אחת נוטלת מאה או פחות. הניח שמונה מאות אם תחלק בין כולן בשוה נמצאת הרביעית נוטלת מאתים והרי אין בכתובתה אלא מאה אלא כיצד עושין לוקחין ארבע מאות זוז וחולקין אותן ביניהן בשוה מאה מאה נמצאת הרביעית נטלה כדי כתובתה והלכה לה נשאר כאן ארבע מאות זוז ושלש נשים שביד כל אחת משלשתן מאה זוז אם תחלוק הארבע מאות בין שלשתן בשוה נמצא השלישית נוטלת מאתים ושלשים ושלש ושליש והרי אין בכתובתה אלא מאתים. לפיכך לוקחין מארבע המאות שלש מאות וחולקין בין שלשתן בשוה שנמצאת השלישית שנטלה מאתים שלה והלכה לה נשאר כאן מאה ושתי נשים חולקין את המאה בשוה בין ראשונה ושנייה. נמצא ביד הראשונה מאתים וחמשים וכן ביד השנייה. ונמצא ביד השלישית מאתים וביד הרביעית מאה ועל דרך זו חולקות לעולם אפי' הן מאה:
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.
ט
הערב לאשה בכתובתה אע"פ שקנו מידו אינו חייב לשלם שמצוה עשה והרי לא חסרה כלום. ואם ערב של כתובת בנו הוא וקנו מידו חייב לשלם שהאב בגלל בנו משעבד עצמו וגומר ומקנה. וקבלן של כתובה חייב לשלם אע"פ שלא קנו מידו. ואי זה הוא קבלן זה שאמר לאשה הנשאי לזה ואני נותן כתובה זו. אבל אם אמר לה הריני ערב כתובה זו. אני פורע כתובה זו. אני חייב בה. וכיוצא בזה פטור אלא א"כ היה אביו. המגרש את אשתו ידירנה הנאה ואחר כך תפרע כתובתה מן הקבלן או מאביו אם היה ערב. שמא יחזירנה ונמצאו עושין קנוניא על נכסיו של זה:
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 the ketubah of a woman, and they caused themselves the loss by taking property that was under such a lien.
י
וכן המקדיש נכסיו וגירש את אשתו ידירנה הנאה ואח"כ תפרע מן הפודה מיד ההקדש שמא יעשו קנוניא על ההקדש. אבל המגרש את אשתו ובאה לטרוף מן הלקוחות אין מחייבין אותו להדירה אלא נשבעת וטורפת. ואם רצתה תחזור לבעלה שכבר ידעו הלקוחות שיש עליו כתובת אשה והם הפסידו על עצמם שלקחו נכסים שתחת שיעבודה:
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.
יא
הבעל שמכר נכסיו ואח"כ כתבה אשתו ללוקח דין ודברים אין לי עמך והסכימה למעשיו אע"פ שקנו ממנה הרי זו טורפת. שלא כתבה לו אלא שלא תהיה בינה לבין בעלה קטטה ויש לה לומר נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי. אבל אם קנו מיד האשה תחלה שאין לה שיעבוד על מקום זה ואחר כך מכר אותו הבעל אינה טורפת אותו. וכן אם מכר הבעל ואמר לאשתו לכתוב ללוקח דין ודברים אין לי עמך ולא כתבה ולא הסכימה למעשיו ונפסד המכר וחזר הבעל ומכר לאיש אחר בין אותה שדה בין שדה אחרת ואחר שמכר הבעל הסכימה למעשיו וקנו מידה שאין לה שיעבוד על שדה זו אינה יכולה לטרוף שאינה יכולה לומר נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי שהרי בראשונה כשלא רצתה לא הלכה ברצון בעלה:
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
יב
מי שהיו לו שתי נשים ומכר את שדהו וקנו מיד הראשונה שאין לה שיעבוד על שדה זו ואינה טורפת אותו מן הלוקח והיה הקנין מועיל שאינה יכולה לטעון בו נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי ואחר כך מת הבעל או גירש שתיהן השנייה מוציאה מיד הלוקח שהרי לא קנו מידה ללוקח. והראשונה מוציאה מיד השנייה מפני שהיא קדמה ולא הסירה שיעבודה אלא מעל הלוקח. וכשתחזור השדה לראשונה חוזר הלוקח ומוציאה מידה שהרי קנו לו וחוזרות חלילה עד שיעשו פשרה ביניהן:
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] her ketubah. [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].
יג
אלמנה בין מן הנישואין בין מן האירוסין נשבעת ומוכרת מקרקע בעלה ונפרעת כתובתה בין בבית דין מומחין בין בבית דין שאינן מומחין. והוא שיהיו השלשה האנשים נאמנין ויודעין בשומת הקרקע. ואחריות המכר על נכסי יתומים. אבל הגרושה לא תמכור אלא בבית דין מומחין. וכל המוכרת בבית דין לא תמכור אלא בהכרזה. ובהלכות הלואה יתבאר משפט מכירת בית דין היאך היא. אבל המוכרת שלא בבית דין אינה צריכה הכרזה ואע"פ כן צריך שלשה שהם נאמנים ויודעים בשומא:
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].
יד
אלמנה שמכרה קרקע בכתובתה בינה לבין עצמה אם מכרה שוה בשוה מכרה קיים ונשבעת שבועת אלמנה אחר שמכרה. והוא שמכרה לאחר אבל אם שמה לעצמה לא עשתה כלום ואפילו הכריזה:
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."
טו
היתה כתובתה מאתים ומכרה שוה מאה במאתים או שוה מאתים במאה נתקבלה כתובתה ואין לה כלום ובלבד שתשבע שבועת אלמנה. היתה כתובתה מאה ומכרה שוה מאה ודינר במאה מכרה בטל ואפילו אמרה אני אחזיר את הדינר ליורשים:
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 zuz for 100 [zuz - the final sale is nullified, but the [first three] are all binding.
טז
היתה כתובתה ארבע מאות זוז ומכרה לזה במנה ולזה במנה שוה בשוה ולאחרון שוה מאה ודינר במאה של אחרון בטל ושל כולם קיים:
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 her ketubah].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.
יז
יש לאשה למכור כתובתה או ליתנה במתנה אם מת הבעל או גירשה יבא הלה ויטול ואם מתה היא בחיי בעלה או קודם שנשבעה אין לו כלום:
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.
יח
הרי שמכרה מקצת כתובתה או משכנה מקצת כתובתה או נתנה לאחר מקצת כתובתה מוכרת מקרקע בעלה ותגבה השאר בין בבית דין מומחין בין בשלשה נאמנים. ומוכרת לכתובתה אפילו פעמים רבות בין בבית דין בין בשלשה נאמנים ויודעים שומת הקרקע:
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
יט
המוכרת כתובתה בין לאחרים בין לבעלה לא אבדה שאר תנאי כתובה. ואם היה לה בן זכר יורש כנגד הכתובה הזאת שנמכרה מנכסי אביו יותר על חלקו כדין תנאי זה. אבל המוחלת כתובתה לבעלה איבדה כל תנאי כתובתה ואפילו מזונות אין לה עליו. ומוחלת כתובתה אינה צריכה קנין ולא עדים כשאר כל המוחלים שאינן צריכין לא עדים ולא קנין אלא בדברים בלבד. והוא שיהיו דברים שהדעת סומכת עליהן ולא יהיו דברי שחוק והתול או דברי תימה אלא בדעת נכונה:
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 new ketubah.) 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 other Rishonim (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
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.
א
אלמנה ניזונת מנכסי יורשין כל זמן אלמנותה עד שתטול כתובתה. ומשתתבע כתובתה בב"ד אין לה מזונות וכן אם מכרה כתובתה כולה או משכנה כתובתה או עשתה כתובתה אפותיקי לאחר והוא שתאמר לו פה תגבה חובך. בין שעשתה דברים אלו בב"ד מומחין בין שלא בב"ד בין שעשתה בחיי בעלה בין שעשתה לאחר מיתת בעלה אין לה מזונות מן היורשים. אבל אם מכרה מקצתה יש לה מזונות. ומשתתארס האלמנה אבדה מזונותיה:
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.
ב
כשם שניזונת אחר מותו מנכסיו כך נותנין לה כסות וכלי תשמיש ומדור (או יושבת במדור) שהיתה בו בחיי בעלה ומשתמשת בכרים וכסתות בעבדים ובשפחות שנשתמשה בהן בחיי בעלה. נפל המדור אין היורשין חייבין לבנותה. ואם אמרה הניחו לי ואני אבננו משלי אין שומעין לה. וכן לא תחזק בדקו ולא תטחה אותו אלא תשב בו כמה שהוא או תצא. ויורשין שמכרו מדור אלמנה לא עשו ולא כלום:
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.
ג
נפל הבית או שלא היה לבעלה בית אלא בשכר נותנין לה מדור לפי כבודה. וכן מזונותיה וכסותה לפי כבודה. ואם היה כבוד הבעל גדול מכבודה נותנין לה לפי כבודו מפני שעולה עמו ואינה יורדת אפילו לאחר מיתה:
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
ד
ברכת הבית מרובה כיצד. חמשה שהיה מזונות כל אחד מהן קב בשיאכל לבדו אם היו חמשתן בבית אחד ואוכלין בעירוב מספיק להן ארבע קבין והוא הדין לשאר צרכי הבית. לפיכך אלמנה שאמרה אינני זזה מבית אבי פסקו לי מזונות ותנו לי שם. יכולין היורשין לומר לה אם את אצלנו יש לך מזונות ואם לאו אין אנו נותנים לך אלא כפי ברכת הבית. ואם היתה טוענת מפני שהיא ילדה והם ילדים נותנין לה מזונות המספיקין לה לבדה והיא בבית אביה. ומותר מזונות האלמנה ומותר הכסות ליורשין:
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.
ה
אלמנה שחלתה אם צריכה לרפואה שאין לה קצבה הרי זו כמזונות ויורשין חייבין בה. ואם היא צריכה רפואה שיש לה קצבה הרי זו מתרפאה מכתובתה. נשבית אין היורשין חייבין לפדותה אפילו היתה יבמה ואפילו נשבית בחיי בעלה ומת והיא בשביה אין חייבין לפדותה מנכסיו אלא נפדית משל עצמה או תטול כתובתה ותפדה עצמה:
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
ו
מתה האלמנה יורשי הבעל חייבין בקבורתה. ואם נשבעה שבועת אלמנה ואח"כ מתה יורשיה יורשין כתובתה והן חייבין בקבורתה אבל לא יורשי הבעל. מעשה ידי האלמנה ליורשין. ויורש שאמר לאלמנה טלי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך אין שומעין לו אבל היא שרצתה בזה שומעין לה:
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
ז
וכל מלאכות שהאשה עושה לבעלה אלמנה עושה ליתומים חוץ ממזיגת הכוס והצעת המטה והרחצת פניו ידיו ורגליו:
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
ח
מציאת האלמנה ופירות נכסים שהכניסה לבעל לעצמה ואין ליורש בהם כלום:
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.
ט
והנכסים עצמם שהם נדונייתה נוטלת אותן בלא שבועה ואין ליורשים בהם דין לעולם אלא אם כן הותירו בחיי הבעל והיו נכסי צאן ברזל שהמותר לבעל. ואם מתה האלמנה בלא שבועה יורשיה יורשים נדוניתה אע"פ שהוא נכסי צאן ברזל ואם היה בהן מותר המותר ליורשי הבעל:
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.
י
אלמנה שתפסה מטלטלין כדי שתזון מהן בין שתפסה מחיים בין שתפסה אחר מותו אפילו תפסה ככר זהב אין מוציאין מידה אלא כותבין עליה בית דין מה שתפסה ופוסקין לה מזונות ומחשבין עמה והיא ניזונית ממה שבידה עד שתמות או עד שלא יהיו לה מזונות. ויקחו היורשין את השאר:
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
יא
וכן אם תפסה מטלטלין בכתובתה בחיי בעלה ומת גובה מהן. אבל אם תפסה אחר מותו לכתובתה אינה גובה מהן אע"ג שתקנו הגאונים שתגבה הכתובה ותנאי הכתובה מן המטלטלין. לפיכך תזון האלמנה מן המטלטלין אע"פ שלא תפסה:
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 ketubah from 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.22 This is the ruling that is universally followed in all courts.
יב
ואם הניח בעלה מטלטלין ולא תפסה אותן היורשים נוטלין אותן והן מעלין לה מזונות ואינה יכולה לעכב עליהן ולומר יהיו המטלטלין מונחין בבית דין עד שאיזון מהן שמא יאבדו ולא יהיו לי מזונות. ואפילו התנתה עליו בפירוש שתזון מן המטלטלין אינה מעכבת וכזה דנין תמיד בכל בתי דינין:
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
יג
אבל אם הניח קרקע יכולה היא לעכב עליהן שלא ימכרו ואם מכרו אינה מוציאה מיד הלקוחות שאין האשה והבנות ניזונות אלא מנכסים בני חורין:
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
יד
הניח נשים רבות אע"פ שנשאן זו אחר זו ניזונות בשוה (כמו) שאין דין קדימה במטלטלין:
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.
טו
אלמנה שנפלה לפני יבם בשלשה חדשים הראשונים ניזונת משל בעל. ואם הוכר העובר וכן אם הניחה מעוברת ניזונת והולכת עד שתלד. ילדה בן של קיימא ניזונת והולכת כל ימי אלמנותה כשאר כל הנשים. לא נמצאת מעוברת אחר שלשה חדשים או שהפילה אינה ניזונת לא משל בעל ולא משל יבם אלא תובעת יבמה לכנוס או לחלוץ:
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
טז
תבעה יבמה לכנוס או לחלוץ ועמד בבית דין וברח או שחלה או שהיה היבם במדינת הים הרי זו ניזונת משל יבם בלא שבועה כלל:
17
יז
נפלה לפני יבם קטן אין לה מזונות עד שיגדל ויהיה כשאר היבמין:
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.
יח
מי שייחד קרקע לאשתו במזונותיה בשעת מיתה ואמר יהיה מקום פלוני למזונות הרי ריבה לה מזונות. ואם היה שכרו פחות ממזונות הראויות לה נוטלת השאר משאר נכסים. ואם היה שכרו יותר מן הראוי לה נוטלת הכל. אבל אם אמר לה יהיה במקום פלוני במזונותיה ושתקה אין לה אלא פירות אותו מקום בלבד שהרי קצץ לה מזונות:
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.
יט
אלמנה שבאה לבית דין לתבוע מזונות יש מי שהורה שפוסקין לה מזונות ואין משביעים אותה. ואין ראוי לסמוך על הוראה זו מפני שנתחלף לו הדבר באשה שהלך בעלה למדינת הים. ורבותי הורו שאין לה מזונות מב"ד עד שתשבע שהרי זו באה להפרע מנכסי יתומים וכל הנפרע מנכסי יתומים לא תפרע אלא בשבועה. ולזה דעתי נוטה וכן ראוי לדון:
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.
כ
אלמנה שבאה לבית דין לתבוע מזונות משביעין אותה בתחלה ומוכרין בלא הכרזה ונותנין לה מזונות. וכן יש לה למכור למזונות שלא בב"ד מומחין אלא בשלשה אנשים נאמנים בלא הכרזה. וכן אם מכרה למזונות בינה לבין עצמה שוה בשוה מכרה קיים וכשיבאו היורשין להשביע אותה נשבעת:
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.41Afterwards, 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
כא
וכמה מוכרין למזונות כדי לזון מהם ששה חדשים לא יותר על זה. ומוכין ע"מ שיהיה הלוקח נותן לה מזון שלשים יום וחוזרת ומוכרת פעם שניה לששה חדשים. וכן מוכרת והולכת לעולם עד שישאר מן הנכסים כדי כתובתה גובה כתובתה מן השאר והולכת לה:
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].
כב
אלמנה שפסקו לה ב"ד מזונות אין מחשבין עמה על מעשה ידיה עד שיבאו היורשים ויתבעוה. אם מצאו לה מעשה ידיה נוטלין אותו ואם לאו הולכין לדרכם. ואני אומר שאם היו היורשים קטנים ב"ד מחשבין עמה ופוסקין מעשה ידיה כדרך שפוסקין לה מזונות:
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 her ketubah [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 the ketubah.45
כג
אלמנה שאין שטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידה אין לה מזונות שמא מחלה כתובתה או מכרה או משכנה אותה. אע"פ שלא טען יורש טוענין אנו לו ואומרים לה הביאי כתובתיך והשבעי וטלי מזונותיך. אלא אם אין דרכם לכתוב כתובה:
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.
כד
האשה שהלכה היא ובעלה למדינת הים ובאה ואמרה מת בעלי רצתה ניזונת כדין כל האלמנות רצתה נוטלת כתובה. אמרה גרשני בעלי אינה נאמנת וניזונת מנכסיו עד כדי כתובתה מכל פנים. שאם עדיין היא אשתו יש לה מזונות. ואם גרשה כמו שאמרה יש לה כתובה שהרי כתובתה בידה לפיכך נוטלת מזונות עד כדי כתובתה והולכת לה:
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
כה
האשה שהיה לה ספק גירושין ומת בעלה אינה ניזונת מנכסיו שאין מוציאין מיד היורש מספק. אבל בחיי בעלה יש לה מזונות עד שתתגרש גירושין גמורין:
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.
כו
אלמנה עניה ששהתה שתי שנים ולא תבעה מזונות או עשירה ששהתה שלש שנים ולא תבעה ויתרה ואין לה מזונות בשנים שעברו אלא משעה שתבעה. ואם שהתה פחות מזה אפילו ביום אחד לא ויתרה אלא תובעת ונוטלת מזון השנים שעברו:
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
כז
אלמנה שתבעה מזונות מן היורשים הם אומרים נתננו והיא אומרת לא נטלתי כל זמן שלא נשאת על היתומים להביא ראיה או תשבע שבועת היסת ותטול. משנשאת עליה להביא ראיה או ישבעו היורשים שבועת היסת שנתנו לה:
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 the ketubah 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 term ketubah is universally used to refer to both these items.
כח
דין תוספת כתובה כדין העיקר. לפיכך אלמנה שתבעה או מכרה או מחלה או משכנה תוספת כתובתה עם העיקר אין לה מזונות. ואם תבעה מקצת והניחה מקצת הרי זו כמי שתבעה מקצת העיקר והניחה מקצתו. וכל המוכרת או המוחלת סתם מכרה ומחלה התוספת עם העיקר ששניהם כתובה שמם בכל מקום:
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 ketubah remains 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. The Shulchan 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 her ketubah 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 ketubah regarding 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 the ketubah, but did not demand payment for the additional amount.
55.
See Halachah 1.
Ishut - Chapter Nineteen
1
א
מתנאי הכתובה שיהיו בנים הזכרים יורשים כתובת אמן ונדונייתה שהכניסה בתורת נכסי צאן ברזל ואח"כ חולקין שאר הירושה עם אחיהם בשוה:
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 whose ketubah 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's ketubah, 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].
ב
כיצד נשא אשה כתובתה ונדונייתה אלף וילדה בן ומתה בחייו. ואחר כך נשא אשה אחרת כתובתה ונדונייתה מאתים וילדה בן ומתה בחייו. ואחר כך מת הוא והניח אלפים. בנו מן הראשונה יורש אלף שבכתובת אמו. ובנו מן השנייה יורש מאתים שבכתובת אמו והשאר יורשים אותו בשוה. נמצא ביד בן הראשונה אלף וארבע מאות. וביד בן השנייה שש מאות:
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 one dinar 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.
ג
בד"א בשהניח יותר על כדי שתי כתובות דינר אחד או יותר כדי שיחלקו השאר בשוה. אבל אם לא הניח יותר דינר חולקים הכל בשוה שאם יירשו אלו כתובת אמן ואלו כתובת אמן ולא ישאר דינר אחד לחלוק אותו בין היורשים נמצא תנאי זה מבטל חלוק ירושה בין הבנים בשוה שהוא מן התורה:
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 dinar more 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.
ד
והוא הדין למי שנשא נשים רבות בין בזו אחר זו בין בבת אחת ומתו כולן בחייו ולו מהן בנים זכרים אם היה שם יותר על כדי כל הכתובות דינר כל אחד ואחד יורש כתובת אמו והשאר חולקין בשוה:
5
[Should the estate not be large enough to satisfy the obligations of both ketubot and 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.
ה
אמרו היתומים הרי אנו מעלין על נכסי אבינו יותר דינר כדי שיטלו כתובת אמן אין שומעין להם. אלא שמין את הנכסים בב"ד כמה שהיו שוין בשעת מיתת אביהן ואע"פ שנתרבו או נתמעטו אחרי מיתת אביהן קודם שיבואו לחלוק אין שמין אותן אלא כשעת מיתת אביהן:
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].
ו
היה שם יותר על כדי כל הכתובות דינר או יותר אע"פ שיש עליו שטר חוב כנגד היותר אינו ממעט אלא כל אחד מהן יורש כתובת אמו:
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 two ketubot, 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] her ketubah.6 The remainder is divided equally.
ז
מי שהיה נשוי שתי נשים ומתה אחת מהן בחייו ואחת אחר מותו ולו בנים משתיהן אע"פ שלא הניח יתר על שתי הכתובות אם נשבעה השניה שבועת אלמנה קודם שתמות בניה קודמים לירושת כתובתה. מפני שאינן יורשין כתובת אמן בתנאי זה אלא ירושה של תורה ואחר כך יורשין בני הראשונה כתובת אמן בתנאי זה. ואם נשאר שם כלום חולקין אותו בשוה. ואם מתה קודם שתשבע בני הראשונה יורשים כתובת אמן בלבד והשאר חולקין בשוה:
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 two ketubot 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
ח
היה נשוי שתי נשים והיו לו בנים מהן ומת ואח"כ מתו הנשים אם נשבעו ואח"כ מתו כל אחד ואחד יורש כתובת אמו בירושה של תורה ולא בתנאי זה. לפיכך אין משגיחין אם יש שם מותר או אין שם. ויורשי הראשונה קודמין ליורשי השנייה. ואם לא נשבעו חולקין הבנים הכל בשוה ואין שם ירושת כתובה לפי שאין לאלמנה כתובה עד שתשבע:
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 ketubah after 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.
ט
אחת נשבעה ואחת לא נשבעה זו שנשבעה בניה יורשין כתובתה תחלה והשאר חולקין אותו בשוה. וכל היורש כתובת אמו שמתה בחיי אביו אינו טורף מנכסים משועבדים אלא מבני חורין ככל היורשין:
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
י
ומתנאי כתובה שתהיינה הבנות ניזונות מנכסי אביהן אחר מותו עד שיתארסו או עד שיבגרו. בגרה הבת אע"פ שלא נתארסה או נתארסה אע"פ שלא בגרה אין לה מזונות. ובת הניזונת מנכסי אביה לאחר מותו מעשה ידיה ומציאתה לעצמה לא לאחים:
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
יא
פוסקין לבת מזונות וכסות ומדור מנכסי אביה כדרך שפוסקין לאלמנה. ומוכרין למזון הבנות וכסותן בלא הכרזה כדרך שמוכרין למזון האלמנה וכסותה. אלא שהאשה פוסקין לה לפי כבודה וכבוד הבעל ולבנות פוסקין להן דבר המספיק להן בלבד. ואין הבנות נשבעות:
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.
יב
אין הבנים יורשין כתובת אמן. ולא הבנות ניזונות בתנאים אלו עד שיהיה שטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידם. אבל אם אין שם שטר כתובה אין לה כלום. שמא מחלה אמן כתובתה. ואם אין דרכם לכתוב כתובה יש להן כפי התנאים:
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
יג
מי שצוה בשעת מיתתו לעקור אחד מתנאי כתובה. כגון שאמר אל יזונו בנותיו מנכסיו. או אל תזון אלמנתו מנכסיו או אל יירשו בניו כתובת אמן אין שומעין לו. נתן כל נכסיו במתנה לאחרים הואיל ומתנת שכיב מרע אינה קונה אלא לאחר מיתה כמו שיתבאר הרי המתנה וחיוב הנכסים בתנאין אלו באין כאחד ולפיכך אלמנתו ובנותיו ניזונות מנכסיו ובניו יורשים כתובת אמן שמתה בחיי בעלה:
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].20Nevertheless, the daughter of a yevamah,21 the daughter of a sh'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.
יד
בת הממאנת הרי היא כשאר הבנות ויש לה מזונות. אבל בת היבמה ובת השנייה ובת הארוסה ובת האנוסה אין להן מזונות אחר מיתת אביהן בתנאי זה. אבל בחיי אביהן הוא חייב במזונותן כדין שאר הבנים והבנות בחיי אביהן:
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 after nisu'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
טו
המארס בת הניזונת מן האחין חייב במזונותיה משעת האירוסין שהרי אין לה מזונות מאחיה (אלא עד שתתארס או עד שתבגר וזו) אינה בוגרת כדי שתזון עצמה אלא קטנה או נערה ואין אדם רוצה שתתבזה ארוסתו ותלך ותשאל על הפתחים:
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 of bagrut or until she becomes consecrated.27
טז
נשאת הבת ומיאנה או נתגרשה או נתאלמנה אפילו היא שומרת יבם הואיל וחזרה לבית אביה ועדיין לא בגרה הרי זו ניזונת מנכסי אביה עד שתבגר או עד שתתארס:
17
When a mandies leaving both sons and daughters, the sons inherit his estate,28 and 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
יז
מי שמת והניח בנים ובנות יירשו הבנים כל הנכסים והם זנין את אחיותיהם עד שיבגרו או עד שיתארסו. בד"א בשהניח נכסים שאפשר שיזונו מהם הבנים והבנות כאחת עד שיבגרו הבנות ואלו הן הנקראין נכסים מרובין. אבל אם אין בנכסים שהניח אלא פחות מזה מוציאין מהם מזונות לבנות עד שיבגרו ונותנין השאר לבנים. ואם אין שם אלא כדי מזון הבנות בלבד הבנות ניזונות מהן עד שיבגרו או עד שיתארסו והבנים ישאלו על הפתחים:
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
יח
בד"א בשהניח קרקע אבל אם לא הניח אלא מטלטלין הואיל ובתקנת הגאונים הוא שיזונו הבנות מן המטלטלין הרי הבנים והבנות ניזונות כאחד מן הנכסים האלו המועטין. שלא תקנו להם במטלטלין אלא שיהיו כבנים וכזה הורו הגאונים:
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
יט
הניח קרקע והיו הנכסים מרובין ונתמעטו אחר כן כבר זכו בהן יורשים. היו מועטין בשעת מיתה ונתרבו אח"כ הבנים יורשין אותן. ואפילו לא נתרבו אם קדמו הבנים ומכרו נכסים מועטין מכרן קיים:
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
כ
היו הנכסים מרובין ויש עליו חוב או שהתנה עם אשתו שיזון את בתה אין החוב ולא מזונות בת אשתו ממעטין בנכסים אלא יירשו הבנים הכל ויתנו לב"ח חובו ויזונו בת אשת אביהן עד זמן שפסק ויזונו אחיותיהן עד שיבגרו או עד שיתארסו ויצאו מתחת ידיהם:
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.
כא
הניח אלמנה ובת ממנה או מאשה אחרת ואין בנכסים כדי שיזונו שתיהן האלמנה ניזונת והבת תשאל על הפתחים. וכן אני אומר שמזונות הבת קודמין לירושת הבן את כתובת אמו שמתה בחיי אביו ואע"פ ששניהם מתנאי הכתובה. וקל וחומר הדברים אם נדחת ירושה של תורה מפני מזונות הבת לא תדחה ירושת הכתובה שהיא תנאי ב"ד מפני מזונות הבת:
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].
כב
מי שמת והניח בנות גדולות וקטנות ולא הניח בן אין אומרים יזונו הקטנות עד שיבגרו ויחלקו שאר הנכסים בשוה אלא כולן חולקות בשוה:
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 ketubah even 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, the Beit 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 through mi'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 a yevamah 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 the yavam'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 the ketubah 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 the ketubah 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.
• Thursday, 7 Tevet, 5777 · 5 January 2017
• "Today's Day"
• Tuesday, Tevet 7, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayigash, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 39-43.
Tanya: consequently, this world (p. 23)...end of ch. 5. (p. 25).
To avert chibut hakever ("Purgatory of the grave")1 recite words of Torah, Tehillim, etc., for one sixth of the day.2 To merit purity of the soul that obviates kaf hakela ("the hollow of a sling"),3 spend as much of the day as possible in reciting Mishna, Tanya and Tehillim by heart.
FOOTNOTES
1.Tanya p. 29 and p. 33. This and kaf hakela (below) are processes of purgatory undergone by the soul after death.
2.Namely, four hours.
3.Tanya p. 33. See Supplementary Footnotes, (p. 124 in the printed version).
• Daily Thought:
The Unnatural Nature of Things
He could have made a world where the nature of each thing may be deduced from its parts. A predictable, orderly world. A world devoid of wonder.
And then we would say, “Things are this way because they must be this way.”
G‑d would be a stranger in His own world.
Instead, at each step a whole new world emerges, one we could never have predicted from anything we knew before. Until we must conclude that our finite world somehow contains infinite possibilities, that both nothing and everything is possible, that things are the way they are only because He desires they be that way.
He has made our world wondrous, so that it has room for Him.[Maamar Acharei 5733:1. Patach Eliyahu 5715.]
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment