Komentarz do Ketuwot 6:9

מציאת האשה. וירושתה – if an inheritance fell to her,

Introduction This mishnah discusses a wife’s right to money that she receives in various ways while she is married.

he (i.e., her husband) enjoys the usufruct during her lifetime and the principal is hers.

A wife’s find and her handiwork belong to her husband. This halakhah was already learned above in 4:4.

ופגמה – damages for injury that she has [sustained], the diminution of monies that they assess concerning her – how beautiful she was to sell in the marketplace and how much she is worth currently.

And [concerning] her inheritance: He has the usufruct during her lifetime. If a woman receives an inheritance while she is married, the money is treated like certain portions of the dowry she brought into the wedding. This means that the husband cannot use the principle but he can use the interest that the principle accrues. The easiest way to calculate principle and interest is to consider a field. The field itself is the principle. The husband may not sell the field. However, the produce that is picked from the field is the “usufruct”, which is more literally translated as fruits. These belong to the husband.

ובזמן שבגלוי – for the shame is his and furthermore, she is repulsive to him and he suffers for her.

And [concerning] her inheritance: He has the usufruct during her lifetime. The mishnah now discusses two forms of compensation that the wife receives if injured: indignity and blemish. According to the first opinion, these belong to the wife, since she was the one who suffered the injury. However, Rabbi Judah ben Batera distinguishes between injuries inflicted on covered and uncovered parts of her body. If the injury was inflicted upon a covered part of her body, then most of the suffering was hers and she receives two-thirds of the compensation. However, if the injury was inflicted upon an uncovered part, then the husband is more embarrassed and blemished by his wife’s injury than she herself is. Therefore he receives two-thirds. [I realize that the conception of marriage presented by Rabbi Judah ben Batera is not a conception that many of us share.] The money that he receives due to her injury is immediately given to him. The money that she receives belongs in principle to her, and the usufruct belongs to him. Therefore the money is used to buy land and he can enjoy the fruit. Buying land in Mishnaic times was equivalent to our putting money in the bank. It was a way to ensure that the money did not lose its value for real estate was one of the only sure investments in the ancient world. The mishnah does not mention three other payments that an injured party receives: medical fees, loss of work and compensation for pain. The reason that these are not mentioned is that it is clear to whom they belong. Since the husband has a right to her handiwork and must pay for her rehabilitation, the first two payments belong to him. Since the pain is experienced solely by her, she alone receives the compensation for pain. The only question, therefore, was about embarrassment and blemish.

ילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות – during her lifetime and he principal is her, when he dies or divorces her but if she dies, she inheris it, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

ומת חתנו – and she fell before the levir [for him to consummate the marriage].

Introduction This mishnah deals with a father who promises to give his wife a large dowry and then her fiancee dies, leaving her liable for yibbum with the brother. The question is, is the father obligated to give the same amount of money to the yavam.

יכול הוא שיאמר – either remove the shoe or fulfill the role of the levir (i.e., marry your sister-in-law), or give what had been decided or let her sit until her head becomes white (i.e., she becomes old), and even though his brother was an ignoramus and he (who had died) was a Sage, he (i.e., the father-in-law) can say – “to your brother, I would want to give [her], but to you, I would not want to give [her].”

If a man agreed to give a fixed sum of money to his son-in-law and his son-in-law died: the Sages say that he may say “I was willing to give to your brother but I am unwilling to give to you.” If a husband promises to give his daughter’s husband a large dowry he is legally obligated to pay that money to the son. We should note that the rabbis encouraged fathers to give their daughters’ generous dowries so that they would find good matches. However, if the son-in-law dies while they are only engaged, the father-in-law is not liable to pay the same amount of money to the brother-in-law who might perform yibbum. This is true even if the daughter wants to marry the yavam. Since the father’s contract was with the other brother, he has no legal obligation to the yavam.

והוא פוסק כנגדן ט"ו מנה – they are one thousand Denars [that the woman brings into the marriage], which are ten Maneh, and when the groom comes to accept upon himself and to write in the Ketubah , he writes one third more, which are fifteen Maneh, and if the bride brought in to him discernible Denarim because he profits through them.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the sums of the dowry written in the ketubah. Customarily the woman would bring a dowry consisting of money, objects and potentially land (our mishnah does not discuss land, because its location and not value was written in the ketubah). The amount of dowry that the husband would write was the amount he would be obligated to return to her upon divorce or death. If she brought a dowry of money, he would write a higher sum than she actually brought since he benefits from the use of the money. If she brought movable property into the marriage, he writes an amount one-fifth less, for it was customary to overestimate the value of the dowry to make the bride and her family sound richer than they really were.

וכנגד השום – if she brought in [to the marriage] clothing and ornaments that require estimation, he agrees to restore one-fifth less, so if he brought in an estimated value of one-thousand Zuz, he doesn’t accept upon himself other than eight hundred, for it the manner of those who come to estimate clothing and the property of the bride to estimate them as greater than their worth in honor of the bride and to make her more beloved to her husband.

If a woman agreed to bring her husband one thousand denarii he must agree to give her a corresponding sum of fifteen maneh. If a wife brings into the marriage 1000 denarii of cash, the husband writes that he has received 1500. This is because for the duration of the marriage he benefits from the use of the money.

שום במנה ושוה במנה – meaning to say, if they did not estimate the property of the bride and her adornments other than like they are worth in the marketplace.

As a corresponding sum for appraised goods, he agrees to give one-fifth less. If she brings in goods whose value has been assessed, the husband need write in the ketubah only a fifth less of the value. The primary reason, according to most commentators, is that dowries tend to be overestimated (just like people planning weddings tend to be overcharged!). The husband should not have to pay for his overestimation. However, the mishnah notes that if he wrote 100 zuz in ketubah and she brings in goods that are actually worth 100 zuz, he cannot ask for more. The mishnah now illustrates two cases where the amount written in the ketubah is less than she actually brings into the marriage. If he writes 100, she must bring in 125 denarii (sela=4 denar). That is to say, he has reduced the amount by 1/5. Similarly if he writes 400 zuz worth of goods, she must bring 500.

אין לי אלא מנה – they should not write into the document of the Ketubah other than a Man as they have estimated.

[If a husband is requested to enter in his wife's ketubah] “goods assessed at one maneh”, and these are in fact worth a maneh, he only [must agree to] a maneh. [Otherwise, if he is requested to enter in the ketubah:] “goods assessed at a maneh”, his wife must give him thirty-one sela and a denar, and if “at four hundred”, she must give [him goods valued at] five hundred. Whatever a bridegroom agrees to give [his wife in her ketubah] he writes one fifth less [than the appraised value]. The husband too, when he promises to bring a certain amount of goods into the marriage (for instance clothes or perfume for his wife) writes the value at one/fifth less. This is true because these goods are also generally overestimated.

שום במנה היא נותנת שלשים ואחד סלע ודינר – the estimation that he accepts her for a Maneh that they told him, write “Maneh” in the Ketubah and she shall bring in an estimation of a Maneh. They must place it in the house of the wedding ceremony thirty one Selah and a Sinar which is a Maneh and a fifth larger.

ובארבע מאות – the estimated value that the groom accepts upon himself to write four hundred [in the Ketubah], she gives five hundred according to the valuation of those designated/appointed.

וכשחתן פוסק וכו' – and if they estimated first and she brought in to him whether a small or a large valuation, he writes into the document one-fifth less.

Introduction The first part of this mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. The second part discusses the husband’s obligation to provide his bride with money for perfume.

If a woman agreed to bring him cash, every sela’ counts as six denarii. As we learned yesterday, if the wife brings cash as a dowry, her husband must write into the ketubah an amount that is fifty per cent higher than that which she brought. Since a sela is worth 4 denarii, he writes 6 denarii for every sela.

The bridegroom must accept upon himself [to give his wife] ten denarii for her [perfume] basket for call maneh [which she brings as dowry]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: in all matters the local usage shall be followed. For every maneh (100 denarii) that she brings as dowry, her husband must provide 10 denarii of money for her perfume. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees with the setting of an absolute amount. Rather he holds that local custom dictates how much he must provide for her perfume.

המשיא את היתומה – collectors/managers of charity.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a father who either does not specify an amount for his daughter’s dowry, or cuts a deal with the husband that the latter will accept her without a dowry.

אם יש בכיס – of charity.

If a man gives his daughter in marriage without specifying any conditions, he must give her not less than fifty zuz. If a man marries off his daughter and does not state how much dowry he is going to provide her, the husband has a right to claim from him a dowry worth 50 zuz. As we shall see in the end of the mishnah, this is the size of a small dowry that even an orphan would receive from charity.

If [the father] cut a deal [with the husband] that he would take her naked [i.e. without a dowry], the husband may not say “When I have taken her into my house I shall clothe her with clothes of my own”, rather he must provide her with clothing while she is still in her father’s house. The father can cut a deal with the husband that the husband shall marry the daughter without a dowry. The father is then not obligated to provide his daughter with anything, and all of the responsibility falls on the husband’s back. The obligation to provide her with clothing begins already while she is in her father’s house. The husband cannot wait for her to arrive at his home, rather he must send money or clothing to the father so that she will have what to wear for the journey.

Similarly if an orphan is given in marriage she must be given not less than fifty zuz. If [charity] funds are available she is to be provided in accordance with the dignity of her position. Even a poor orphan receives a dowry of 50 zuz. Furthermore, if there is extra money in the charity fund, she is entitled to more, depending on her social status. This might refer to an orphan from a respectable, perhaps once-rich family.

מה שראוי ליתן לה – one tenth of the property.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the dowry given to an orphan girl who was married off by her mother or brothers.

אם השיא – the father, during his lifetime.

If an orphan was given in marriage by her mother or her brothers with her consent and they gave her a dowry of a hundred, or fifty zuz, she may, when she reaches majority age, legally claim from them the amount that was due to her. Rabbi Judah says: if the father had given his first daughter in marriage, the second must receive as much as the first. The Sages say: sometimes a man is poor and becomes rich or rich and becomes poor. Rather the estate should evaluated and [the appropriate amount] given to her. Usually, only a father has the legal ability to give his daughter in marriage. However, the rabbis gave mothers and brothers the ability to marry off the daughter should the father have died. If the mother or brothers give the daughter a smaller dowry than is typical of a family of their economic status, the daughter may, upon reaching majority age, make a legal claim against her father’s estate and receive a higher dowry. We can see that the dowry is a legal right of the daughter’s and that right cannot be abrogated by her mother or brothers, who might, after all, have a vested interest in reducing her dowry (since a large dowry cuts their inheritance. According to Rabbi Judah, if the father had an older daughter whom he married off before dying, the court can force the family to give the same amount to the second daughter. The Sages, however, disagree, for sometimes a family can grow rich and sometimes they grow poor. Furthermore, sometimes a rich father can be cheap and give his daughter a small dowry. While alive, since it is his money, this is his right. Likewise, a poor father might give his first daughter a larger dowry than he could afford. In both cases, the first daughter’s dowry should not indicate the size of the second daughter’s. The only way of assessing how much her dowry should be is by correlating it to the size of the estate.

[married off the first daughter], he should give, etc. (i.e., to the second what the first received), whether it is less than one tenth or whether it is more. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda, for we go after the approximate mental assessment of the father. But if it is impossible to stand by the approximate mental assessment of the father, we give her one-tenth of his possessions as they are found now at the time of her wedding from his immovable (i.e. landed) possessions, but from movable possessions, she does not receive one-tenth. And there are those according to the one who states that in this time, from movable [possessions] she also has one-tenth. But if she married and she did not claim from the heirs, she claims after she got married and we don’t say that she resigned her claim regarding them. And especially, when she was supported from the property of her father but if the heirs stopped from giving her support, [she resigned her claim unless she derived benefit] but if she was an adult woman, she has no support from the property of her father and she resigned her claim regarding the heirs and she is not able to claim further, and even if she was supported from their property.

המשליש מעות לבתו – He [i.e., the father] transferred money in the hands of a third-party for the needs of his daughter to purchase for her a field or a dowry when she gets married.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a father who set aside a sum of money for his daughter for her to use for a specific purpose and then died or went away. The question is, when the daughter gets married, can the trustee give it to her husband and allow him to use it for a different purpose.

If a man deposited a sum of money with an agent for his daugher, and [after she was betrothed] she says, “I trust my husband”, the trustee must act in accordance with the condition of his trust, the words of Rabbi Meir. As explained above, the father gave money to an agent to be used for his daughter for a specific purpose, for instance to buy a field. Now that the father is no longer there and the daughter has been married, she wants the husband to receive the money, for she trusts him. According to Rabbi Meir the agent must do whatever the father told him to do. The Talmud explains that this is because it is a commandment to fulfill the wishes of a dead person.

יעשה שליש כו' – he should purchase/acquire the field and we don’t listen to her for it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the dead person.

Rabbi Yose says: were [the trust] a field and she wished to sell it, it would be as if it was sold immediately! Rabbi Yose responds that even if the agent had already bought the field which the father wanted him to buy, and the daughter now had possession of the field, she could sell it and give the money to her husband. Therefore, there is no reason for the agent to buy the field and give it to her, rather he can give her directly the money for her to give to her husband.

וכי אינה אלא שדה – meaning to say, even if the field was already acquired and she wants to sell, she can sell it; therefore we listen to her. And the dispute of Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Meir is specifically with regard to an adult woman from betrothal. For is she had already gotten married, everyone states that we listen to her, and with a minor also, Rabbi Yosi admits that there is nothing in the actions a minor at all, and we don’t listen to her. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir.

To whom does this apply? To [a daughter] who has reached majority age, but in the case of a minor, there is no validity at all to the act of a minor. The debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose is only with regard to a daughter who has reached majority age. At this age she could have sold the field, and therefore Rabbi Yose holds that the money is given to her husband. However, if she is still a minor she cannot engage in business. Even if the agent had bought her the field, she could not have sold it. Since Rabbi Yose’s reasoning is not applicable in this case, the agent must do what he was told to do by the father.