Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer Siman 93

Siman 93

Presented here for study, not as a practical ruling. The Shulchan Aruch rules by Sephardi custom, the Rema's glosses by Ashkenazi custom, and the Kitzur follows Ashkenazi custom. For a practical question, ask your rabbi.

א הַכְּתֻבָּה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּחוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ זְמַן, וְאֵינָהּ נִגְבֵּית אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל, אוֹ אִם גֵּרְשָׁהּ. הַגָּה: וְהוּא הַדִּין מַה שֶּׁקִּבֵּל בַּנְּדוּנְיָא. וְעַיֵּן לְעֵיל סִימָן ס"ו סָעִיף י"א. כָּתַב לָהּ מַתָּנוֹת, הֵם נִגְבּוֹת מֵחַיִּים; מִיהוּ, אִם דֶּרֶךְ הַמָּקוֹם לִכְתֹּב כֵּן לְכָבוֹד בְּעָלְמָא וְשֶׁלֹּא לִגְבּוֹתָן מֵחַיִּים, הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הַמִּנְהָג (בְּמֵישָׁרִים בְּשֵׁם גָּאוֹן, וּדְלֹא כָּרַשְׁבָּ"א). וְלֹא יוּכַל הָאָב לְהַתְנוֹת עַל בִּתּוֹ בְּשׁוּם דָּבָר לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּשֵֹּׂאת, אֲבָל אִם הוּא מַשִּׂיאָהּ יָכוֹל לְהַתְנוֹת עַל מַתְּנוֹתֶיהָ לְשַׁנּוֹת מִן הַמִּנְהָג קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּשֵֹּׂאת, כְּפִי רְצוֹנוֹ. וְעַיֵּן בְּחשֶׁן הַמִּשְׁפָּט סִימָן צ"ז סָעִיף כ"ד:

1 The Ketuba is like a debt that is time bound, and it can only be collected after the death of the husband, or after divorce. Rema: The same is true about the dowry (Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 61:11) If he included gifts, they are collected while he is alive. Still, if the local practice is to inlcude gists as a honorific gesture, and to not collect them while he is alive, we follow the local practice (following the view of the Gaon, against the Rashb"a). The father cannot stipulate anything about his daughter after she is married, but if he is marrying her off he can put conditions on her gifts to change from the convention, if he so desires. See (Shulchan Arukh, Chosen Mishpat 97:24)

ב הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיוּ לָה סְפֵק גֵּרוּשִׁין וּמֵת בַּעֲלָהּ, אֵינָהּ נִזּוֹנֵית מִנְּכָסָיו, שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיַּד הַיּוֹרֵשׁ, מִסָפֵק. אֲבָל בְּחַיֵּי בַּעֲלָהּ יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת עַד שֶׁתִּתְגָּרֵשׁ גֵּרוּשִׁין גְּמוּרִים:

2 A woman who had a divorce of a dubious nature, whose husband died, is not sustained from his property, as we do not extract from the inheritor out of uncertainty. But while her husband is living, she is provided with sustenance until he divorces her conclusively.

ג אַלְמָנָה נִזּוֹנֵית מִנִּכְסֵי יוֹרְשִׁין כָּל זְמַן אַלְמְנוּתָהּ, אֲפִלּוּ אִם לֹא נִכְתַּב בִּכְתֻבָּהּ, וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם צִוָּה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה: אַל תִּזּוֹן אַלְמְנָתִי מִנְּכָסַי, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וְאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁים יְכוֹלִין לִפְרֹעַ לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ וּלְסַלְּקָהּ מֵהַמְּזוֹנוֹת, אֶלָּא הִיא נִזּוֹנֵית עַל כָּרְחָם כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְבַּע כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִתְנוּ כֵּן בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא תִּזּוֹן אַלְמְנָתוֹ מִנְּכָסָיו, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מִנְהַג הַמָּקוֹם כֵּן. וִיכוֹלִין בֵּית דִּין לְתַקֵּן בִּמְקוֹמָן שֶׁהַיְתוֹמִים יְסַלְּקוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁיִּרְצוּ (בֵּית יוֹסֵף וְרִיבָ"שׁ סִימָן ק"ז):

3 A widow is provided food from the property of the inheritors the entire time of her widowhood, even if it wasn't written in her marriage contract, and even if he commanded at the time of death, "Don't provide food from my property for my widow," we don't listen to him. And the inheritors are NOT able to pay off to her the marriage contract and remove her from the food, but she is provided food against their will as long as she doesn't claim her marriage contract, unless they explicitly stipulated that his widow will not be provided food from his property, or the custom in the place is such. Rema: And the [Jewish] Court is able to decree in their place that the orphans can remove her when they want (Beit Yosef and Riva"sh Siman 107).

ד הַמַּנִּיחַ אַלְמָנָה וּבַת, מִמֶּנָּה אוֹ מֵאִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת, וְאֵין בַּנְּכָסִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזּוֹנוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן, הָאַלְמָנָה נִזּוֹנֵית וְהַבַּת תִּשְׁאַל עַל הַפְּתָחִים. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּבֵין שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרֻבִּין בֵּין שֶׁהֵן מוּעָטִים, אִם יֵשׁ אַלְמָנָה וּבֵן אוֹ אַלְמָנָה וּבַת, תִּזּוֹן הִיא עִם הַבֵּן אוֹ עִם הַבַּת עַד שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ הַנְּכָסִים; וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם תִּנָּשֵּׂא הַבַּת וּמַכְנֶסֶת הַנְּכָסִים לַבַּעַל, הִיא תִּזּוֹן מֵהֶם אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּת. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ אַלְמָנָה וּבֵן וּבַת, וְהַנְּכָסִים מוּעָטִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזּוֹנוּ הַבַּת וְהַבֵּן עַד שֶׁתִּבְגֹּר הַבַּת, אָז יִדָּחוּ הַבֵּן וְהַבַּת וְתִזּוֹן הָאַלְמָנָה לְבַדָּהּ עַד שֶׁתִּגְבֶּה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. הַגָּה: וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁהָאַלְמָנָה דּוֹחָה הַבָּנוֹת, מוֹצִיאִין לָאַלְמָנָה מָזוֹן עַד זְמַן שֶׁאוֹמְדִין בֵּית דִּין שֶׁרְאוּיָה לִחְיוֹת, אִם זְקֵנָה וְאִם יַלְדָּה, וְנוֹתְנִין בְּיַד שָׁלִישׁ וְהוּא מְפַרְנְסָהּ אֶחָד לִשְׁלֹשִים יוֹם (בֵּית יוֹסֵף בְּשֵׁם הַמַּגִּיד מִשְׁנֶה שֶׁכֵּן כָּתַב בְּשֵׁם הָרַמְבַּ"ן והרשב"א):

4 When someone leave behinds a widow and a daughter, whether the daughter is hers or from a previous wife, and there isn't enough in the estate to provide for them both, the widow is supported and the daughter must beg. But some say that whether the estate is large or small, if there's a widow and a child, whether a son or a daughter, she is supported with the child, son or daughter, until the money runs out; and even if the daughter gets married and shares the estate with her husband, she [the widow] is still supported from them even after the death of the daughter. But if there is a widow and a son and a daughter, and the estate is small enough that they can't be supported until the daughter reaches majority age, then the son and daughter are sent away (?) and the widow alone is supported until she collects the worth of her Ketubah. Rema: And in the case where the widow comes before the daughters, the widow is brought food until the point at ______

ה אַלְמָנָה שֶׁתָּבְעָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ בְּבֵית דִּין, אֵין לָהּ עוֹד מְזוֹנוֹת, וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא פְּרָעוּהָ. אֲבָל תָּבְעָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין, לֹא הִפְסִידָה (טוּר). וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ תָּבְעָה בְּבֵית דִּין לֹא הִפְסִידָה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן תָּבְעָה מֵעַצְמָהּ, אֲבָל אִם תָּבְעָה מִדֹּחַק, שֶׁלֹּא נָתְנוּ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, אוֹ שֶׁרִמּוּהָ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ: פְּלוֹנִי חָפֵץ לִשָּׂא אוֹתָךְ, וּמֵחֲמַת זֶה תָּבְעָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ אוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה, לֹא הִפְסִידָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. הַגָּה: הַנִּשְׁבַּעַת עַל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ לִפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין לֹא הִפְסִידָה מְזוֹנוֹת, דִּשְׁבוּעָתָהּ לָא הָוֵי כִּתְבִיעָה (הַגָּהוֹת אַלְפָסִי סוֹף פֶּרֶק נַעֲרָה):

5 A widow who sues [the estate] for her Ketubah is no longer entitled to support from the estate, even if she was not paid. However, if she merely demanded it outside of Bet Din she does not lose [her right to support.] (Tur) Others say that she does not lose it even if she sues in Bet Din unless she sued by choice, but if she sued under pressure because they [the heirs] were not supporting her or because they tricked her [by saying] so-and-so wants to marry you and therefore she sued for the Ketubah (so that she could support herself or have a dowry for her remarriage) or or for similar reasons, she does not lose her right to support. Rema: A woman who swears before the court as to her ketubah does not lose her right to support because swearing [as to the value] does not constitute a claim or suit.

ו שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁצִּוָּה שֶׁתְּהֵא אַלְמְנָתוֹ נִזּוֹנֵית מִנְּכָסָיו כָּל יְמֵי מֵיגַר אַלְמְנוּתָהּ יָתֵר עַל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, יֵשׁ מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר, שֶׁאֵין אַלְמְנָתוֹ מַפְסֶדֶת מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ בִּתְבִיעַת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ בְּבֵית דִּין, וְלֹא בִּשְׁאָר דְּרָכִים הַמַּפְסִידִים מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, וְגַם אֵין מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לַיְתוֹמִים:

6 A bedridden person who orders that his widow be supported from his property all the days of her widowhood, beyond the amount in her ketubah, at least one source says, that his widow cannot lose her support through the execution of the ketubah in court, nor by other ways one loses support, and the fruit of her labor does not go to the orphans.

ז תְּבָעוּהָ לִנָּשֵׂא, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְפַּיְּסָה, לֹא הִפְסִידָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. וְכֵן אִם כִּחֲלָה אוֹ פִּרְכְּסָה אוֹ זָנְתָה, לֹא הִפְסִידָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. אֲבָל אִם נִתְאָרְסָה, הִפְסִידָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּמִיָּד שֶׁעָשְׂתָה שִׁדּוּךְ הִפְסִידָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ (בֵּית יוֹסֵף):

English not available yet

ח מָכְרָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ כֻּלָּהּ אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנָה אוֹ עֲשָׂאַתָּה אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי לְאַחֵר, בֵּין שֶׁעָשְׂתָה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין מֻמְחִין בֵּין בִּפְנֵי שְׁלשָׁה נֶאֱמָנִים, בֵּין שֶׁעָשְׂתָה בְּחַיֵּי בַּעֲלָהּ בֵּין שֶׁעָשְׂתָה לְאַחַר מִיתַת בַּעֲלָהּ, אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת מֵהַיּוֹרְשִׁים:

8 If she sold her ketubah payment right entirely, or was pauperized, or became a ward of someone else, whether she did these things before an expert court of before three dependable [witnesses], whether she did them during her husband's lifetime or she did them after her husband's death, she is not entitled to to board payments from his heirs.

ט מָחֲלָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ לְבַעֲלָהּ, הִפְסִידָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁאַחַר מוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל בְּחַיָּיו יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר, שֶׁאַף בְּחַיָּיו הִפְסִידָה מְזוֹנוֹת. וְכֵן אִם מָחֲלָה לַיְתוֹמִים אִבְּדָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ (הָרַ"ן פֶּרֶק נַעֲרָה בְּשֵׁם יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, וְכֵן כָּתַב הַבֵּית יוֹסֵף):

9 She forgives her ketubah to her husband, she loses her [right to] food [he must feed her] after he dies, but while he is alive, she has food. There are those who say that even when he is alive, she loses her right to food. If so, if she forgives to the orphans, she loses [the right] to food (Ron chapter 4, like it says in the Beis Yoseif).

י בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, כְּשֶׁמָּכְרָה אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנָה אוֹ מָחֲלָה כָּל הַכְּתֻבָּה, עִקָּר וְתוֹסֶפֶת. אֲבָל אִם שִׁיְּרָה מִקְצָת, נִזּוֹנֵית, אֲפִלּוּ לֹא שִׁיְּרָה אֶלָּא הַתּוֹסֶפֶת אוֹ מִקְצָתוֹ. וּמִיהוּ, אִם יִרְצוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁים, יִפְרְעוּ לָהּ מַה שֶּׁשִּׁיְּרָה וְיִפָּטְרוּ מִמְּזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. וְכָל הַמּוֹכֶרֶת אוֹ מוֹחֶלֶת סְתָם, מָכְרָה וּמָחֲלָה הַתּוֹסֶפֶת עִם הָעִקָּר:

10 What are the circumstances? When she sold, or collateralized or forgave the entire ketuba, both the basic amount and any additional amount. But if she retained a portion [for herself], she still receives sustenance support, even is she retained only the additional amount or a portion thereof. However, the heirs may pay off the amount that she retained, and will thereby be absolved of paying her sustenance. Any woman who sells or forgives her ketuba per se [without mentioning specific details] is considered to have sold or forgiven the additional amount along with the basic ketuba.

יא תָּבְעָה נְדוּנְיָתָא וְנִפְרְעָה מִמֶּנָּה, לֹא הִפְסִידָה מְזוֹנוֹת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשִּׁיְּרָה עִקָּר אוֹ תּוֹסֶפֶת אוֹ מִקְצָת:

11 If she claimed [return of] her dowry and was reimbursed, she does not thereby lose sustenance support, because she still retains the basic ketuba, additional amounts listed in the ketuba, or a portion thereof.

יב תָּבְעָה עִקָּר וְתוֹסֶפֶת בִּלְבַד, אֲפִלּוּ נְדוּנְיָתָהּ מֵאָה מָנֶה, הִפְסִידָה מְזוֹנוֹת. הַגָּה: וְכֵן אִם תָּבְעָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ סְתָם, אִבְּדָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, וְלֹא אָמְרִינָן דְּלָא תָּבְעָה הַתּוֹסֶפֶת (טוּר):

12 If she claimed only the basic and additional amounts listed in the ketuba, even if her dowry was 100 maneh (1 maneh = 100 dinar = 25 mishnaic sela; and the heirs still need to repay the dowry), she loses sustenance support. Rema: Similarly if she claimed her ketuba per se (without additional qualifications), she loses her support, and we do not say that she did not claim the additional amounts (Tur).

יג יֵשׁ מִי שֶׁכָּתַב, שֶׁאִם אֵין בְּפֵרוֹת נִכְסֵי הַמֵּת כְּדֵי מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא עַד כְּדֵי כְּתֻבָּתָהּ; וְחָלְקוּ עָלָיו, דִּלְעוֹלָם הִיא נִזּוֹנֵית וְהוֹלֶכֶת עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁאֵר בַּנְּכָסִים אֶלָּא כְּדֵי כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, וְאָז נוֹטַלְתָּן בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ:

13 There is one authority who writes that if the income from the deceased's estate are insufficient for her [the widow's] sustenance, her rights to sustenance support are limited to the amount of her ketuba. But they disagree with him, for she always receives sustenance until the estate has dwindled to the value of her ketuba, and she then receives this [remainder of the estate] as [payment of] her ketuba.

יד אַלְמָנָה עֲנִיָּה שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וְלֹא תָּבְעָה מְזוֹנוֹת, אוֹ עֲשִׁירָה שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים וְלֹא תָּבְעָה, וִתְּרָה וְאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת מִשָּׁנִים שֶׁעָבְרוּ. וְאִם שָׁהֲתָה פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד, לֹא וִתְּרָה. וְאִם הָיָה בְּיָדָהּ מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּתוֹךְ אוֹתָם שָׁנִים, אוֹ שֶׁלָּוְתָה, לֹא וִתְּרָה:

14 A poor widow who stayed two years and did not demand alimony, or a rich [widow] who stayed for three years and did not demand [alimony], relinquished and has no alimony from previous years. And if she stayed less than this, even one day, she did not relinquish. And if she had in her hand a pawn during those years, or if she borrowed, she did not relinquish.

טו אַלְמָנָה שֶׁתָּבְעָה מְזוֹנוֹת מֵהַיּוֹרְשִׁים, וְהֵם אָמְרוּ שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לָהּ וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא נָטְלָה, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת עַל הַיְתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ תִּשָּׁבַע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵת וְתִטֹּל; מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת, עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הַיּוֹרֵשׁ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵת שֶׁנְּתָנָם לָהּ:

15 A widow who claimed [past] sustenance support from the heirs; they say that they gave her the support, and she says that she did not take the support, as long as she has not remarried, the onus is upon the heirs (lit. orphans) to bring proof [that they paid], or she may take a "heset"oath (a lesser severity, Rabbinic-level oath) and take the support. Once she has remarried, the onus is upon her to bring proof, or the heir may swear a "heset" oath that he paid her.

טז מִי שֶׁיִּחֵד קַרְקַע לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נִזּוֹנֵית מִמֶּנּוּ, אִם אָמַר: יְהֵא קַרְקַע פְּלוֹנִי לִמְזוֹנוֹתַיִךְ, הֲרֵי רִבָּה לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת; וְאִם הָיָה שְׂכָרוֹ פָּחוֹת מִמְּזוֹנוֹת הָרְאוּיִים לָהּ נוֹטֶלֶת הַשְּׁאָר מִשְּׁאָר נְכָסִים, וְאִם הָיָה שְׂכָרוֹ יוֹתֵר מֵהָרָאוּי לָהּ נוֹטֶלֶת הַכֹּל. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לָהּ: יְהֵא קַרְקַע פְּלוֹנִי בִּמְזוֹנוֹת, וְשָׁתְקָה, אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא פֵּרוֹת אוֹתוֹ קַרְקַע בִּלְבַד:

16 One who designated land for his wife when he was dying, with the purpose that she would be provided for from it. If he said: Such and such piece of land will be your sustenance, behold he has increased her sustenance. And if it earns less than the sustenance due to her, she gets the rest from other funds, and if it earns more than what she deserves, she takes it all. But if he said to her: Such and such piece of land will be for sustenance, and she was silent, she gets only the produce from that land.

יז אִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלְכָה הִיא וּבַעֲלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וּבָאָה וְאָמְרָה: מֵת בַּעֲלִי, רָצְתָה נִזּוֹנֵית, רָצְתָה נוֹטֶלֶת כְּתֻבָּה. אֲבָל אִם אָמְרָה: גֵּרְשַׁנִי בַּעֲלִי, אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת, וְנִזּוֹנֵית מִנְּכָסָיו עַד כְּדֵי כְּתֻבָּתָהּ:

17 A woman who went abroad with her husband and she returned and said: My husband died. If she wants, she may receive sustenance, and if she wants she may take her ketubah. But if she said: My husband divorced me, she is not believed. And she is sustained from his property up to the value of her ketubah.

יח אַלְמָנָה שֶׁאֵין שְׁטַר כְּתֻבָּה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ, אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, שֶׁמָּא מָחֲלָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ אוֹ מָכְרָה אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנָה אוֹתָהּ; וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין:

18 A widow who doesn't have her ketubah documentation, she does not receive sustenance, for perhaps she forgave her ketubah or sold it or used it as a pledge. But there are those who disagree.

יט אַלְמָנָה נִזּוֹנֵית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבְּעָה, וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִים. וְהַסְּבָרָא רִאשׁוֹנָה עִקָּר:

19 A widow is sustained, even though she didn't swear [that she didn't receive her ketubah]. But there are those who disagree. And the first reasoning, is the prominent one.

כ אֵין אַלְמָנָה נִזּוֹנֵית אֶלָּא מִקַּרְקְעוֹת בְּנֵי חוֹרִין, וְלֹא מֵהַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִים. לָא מִבַּעְיָא אִם מָכַר אוֹ נָתַן הַבַּעַל בְּחַיָּיו, אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ מָכְרוּ אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנוּ אוֹ נָתְנוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶם, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לִמְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת. וְדַוְקָא שֶׁנָּתַן הָאָב מַתְּנַת בָּרִיא, אֲבָל אִם נָתַן מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע, נִזּוֹנֵית מִמֶּנָּה אִם אֵין כָּאן בְּנֵי חוֹרִין (רִיבָ"שׁ סִימָן ק"ז). הִקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו הָוֵי כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא (רַ"ן רֵישׁ הַמַּדִּיר). וְאֵינָהּ נִזּוֹנֵית מִמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֲפִלּוּ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וּמִיהוּ, אִם תָּפְסָה מִמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר מִיתָה, לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִנֵּהּ. וְעַכְשָׁו שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁתִּגְבֶּה כְּתֻבָּה וּתְנַאי כְּתֻבָּה מִמִּטַּלְטְלִין, הֲרֵי הִיא נִזּוֹנֵית מִמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֲפִלּוּ לֹא תָּפְסָה. מִיהוּ, אִם נָתַן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין לַאֲחֵרִים, אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע, יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּאֵינָהּ נִזּוֹנֵית מֵהֶן (מָרְדְּכַי פֶּרֶק נַעֲרָה בְּשֵׁם יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים):

20 A widow is not fed only [with money gained] from land that is free but not [from land] that has a lien on it. It is not necessary [to be said, that land with a lien is not used] if the husband sold or gifted the land in his lifetime. Rather even if the inheritors sold, put a lien or gifted the land after their father died, we do not remove [the land] to feed the widow or daughters. Specifically if the father gave [his land] in a regular transaction, but if he gave it via a "matnas schiv mera" they get food from it if there are no free properties. If he sacralized his properties it is like a regular transaction. She is not fed from movable objects. However if she grabed from movable objects, even after his death, we do not take it away from her. And now that the "Gaonim" enacted that she collects her "kesuba" and the extras of the "kesuba" from movable objects, she is fed from movable objects, even if she doesn't grab [them]. However, if the movable objects were given to others even via a "matnas schiv mera", some say she is not fed from them.

כא הִנִּיחַ מִטַּלְטְלִין וְלֹא תָּפְסָה אוֹתָם, הַיּוֹרְשִׁים נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָם וְהֵם מַעֲלִין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְעַכֵּב עֲלֵיהֶם וְלוֹמַר: יִהְיוּ הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מֻנָּחִים בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁאֶזּוֹן מֵהֶם שֶׁמָּא יֹאבְדוּ וְלֹא יִהְיוּ לִי מְזוֹנוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִתְנָה עָלָיו בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁתִּזּוֹן מֵהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵינָהּ מְעַכֶּבֶת. אֲבָל אִם הִנִּיחַ קַרְקַע, יְכוֹלָה הִיא לְעַכֵּב עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יִמְכְּרוּ, וְאִם מָכְרוּ אֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת, וְהִיא נִזּוֹנֵית מִדְּמֵי הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁבְּיָדָם. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁחוֹלֵק וְאוֹמֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִזּוֹנֵית מֵאוֹתָם הַדָּמִים. הַגָּה: הִקְנָה לָהּ בְּקִנְיָן עַל הַמְּזוֹנוֹת, מוֹצִיאָה לִמְזוֹנוֹת מִמְּשֻׁעְבָּדִים. וְדַוְקָא שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ בְּהֶדְיָא מְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלְּאַחַר מִיתָה, אֲבָל בְּלָאו הָכִי, אַף עַל גַּב שֶׁכָּתַב לָהּ בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ, לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן עַל מְזוֹנוֹת רַק מֵחַיָּיו (כָּךְ מַשְׁמַע מֵהַמַּגִּיד מִשְׁנֶה פֶּרֶק י"ח דְּאִשּׁוּת, וְכֵן כָּתַב הַבֵּית יוֹסֵף בְּשֵׁם תְּשׁוּבַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א):

21 If he [her husband] had left movable property and she has not taken physical possession of it, the heirs take it and they must fund her board payments. And she may not prevent them, saying, "Let the movable property be deposited with the court and I will be fed from them, lest they be lost and I will not have food [payments]." And even if he had specified explicitly that she should be fed from that movable property, she may not prevent them from selling it, and if they do sell it she may not claim in back from the hands of the third-party buyers, and she [then receives] board payments from the money coming from land that they hold. And there are those who disagree and say that she does not receive her board payment from that money. Rema: if he committed to her with kinyan about the board, then she may deduct [what she will be owed] for food from the subordinated [property]. And that is the case if he had explicitly specified board payments for after his death; but it is not so, even if he wrote about board payments in her ketubah, and they had bought [the property] from his own hand - he intended those board payments only during his lifetime (that is understood from the Maggid Mishneh, chapter 18 of 'Marriage,' and the Beit Yosef wrote similarly, quoting a responsum of the Rashba).

כב הִנִּיחַ נָשִׁים רַבּוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנְּשָׂאָן זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ, נִזּוֹנוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה, שֶׁאֵין דִּין קְדִימָה בִּמְזוֹנוֹת:

22 If he [died and] left many wives, even though he married them one after the other, they [are entitled to] receive board payments equally, as their is no rule of time precedence in board payments.

כג אַלְמָנָה שֶׁתָּפְסָה מִטַּלְטְלִין כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּזּוֹן מֵהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁתָּפְסָה מֵחַיִּים בֵּין שֶׁתָּפְסָה אַחַר מוֹתוֹ, אֲפִלּוּ תָּפְסָה כִּכַּר זָהָב, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָהּ אֶלָּא כּוֹתְבִים עָלֶיהָ בֵּית דִּין מַה שֶׁתָּפְסָה, וּפוֹסְקִין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, וּמְחַשְּׁבִין עָלֶיהָ וְהִיא נִזּוֹנֵית מִמַּה שֶּׁבְּיָדָהּ עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, וְיִקְּחוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁים אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. הַגָּה: יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּלָא הָוֵי תְּפִיסָה אֶלָּא תְּפִיסָה מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ מִסִּמְטָא, אֲבָל לֹא מֵרְשׁוּת יוֹרְשִׁין (הָרַ"ן פֶּרֶק אַלְמָנָה נִזּוֹנֵית בְּשֵׁם רַשִׁ"י). וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין (כָּךְ מַשְׁמַע מִדִּבְרֵי הָרִיבָ"שׁ סִימָן שס"ד) וּלְכֻלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעִינָן תְּפִיסָה גְּמוּרָה, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁתָּפְסָה מֵאֶחָד מִדַּרְכֵי הַקְּנִיּוֹת, אֲבָל אִם לֹא תָּפְסָה רַק מַפְתְּחוֹת הַחֲדָרִים לָא מִקְּרֵי תְּפִיסָה וְנוֹתְנִין הַכֹּל לַיּוֹרְשִׁין. וְדַוְקָא שֶׁתָּפְסָה בְּעַצְמָהּ, אֲבָל עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ לָא מְהַנֵּי תְּפִיסָתָהּ (בָּרִיבָ"שׁ סִימָן שס"ד וְסִימָן ק"ז):

23 A widow who took possession of movable property in order to fund her board entitlement from them, whether she took possession during [her husband's] life or she took possession after his death, even if she took possession of a block of gold, they do not take it back from her, but rather the court writes about her what she took, and they allocate her board entitlement and they calculate about her, and she is fed from what she is holding until she dies or until has no more food, and then the heir takes the remainder. Rema: some say it is not considered taking possession unless she took it from a public area or from an alleyway, but not from the a place owned by the heir (The R'an, chapter 'A Widow Receives Board,' quoting Rashi). And some disagree (that is understood from the words of the R'ivash, paragraph 384) but everyone agrees in the case of clear possession, that is if she took possession in one of the ways that ownership normally passes, but if she only took the keys of the rooms we don't consider that possession and we give it all to the heirs. And it is specifically if she has taken possession herself, but if she did so by the hand of an agent we do not credit her with possession (in the R'ivash, section 384 and section 107).

כד אִם תָּפְסָה יוֹתֵר מֵהָרָאוּי לְהַגְבּוֹתָהּ בְּבֵית דִּין בְּבַת אַחַת, דְּהַיְנוּ כְּדֵי מְזוֹן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְאַחַר שֶׁכָּלָה מַה שֶּׁתָּפְסָה תָּבוֹא לִתְבֹּעַ מְזוֹנוֹת, מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל:

24 If she took more than is appropriate, she is claimed against in the court all at once, that is for thirty days worth of food, and alfter she finishes what she has in her possession she may come to sue for food, and she is sworn about all these matters.

כה אַלְמָנָה שֶׁבָּאָה לְבֵית דִּין לִתְבֹּעַ מְזוֹנוֹת, מוֹכְרִין בְּלֹא הַכְרָזָה וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. וְכֵן יֵשׁ לָהּ לִמְכֹּר לִמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין מֻמְחִין, אֶלָּא בִּשְׁלשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים נֶאֱמָנִים בְּלֹא הַכְרָזָה. וְכֵן אִם מָכְרָה בֵּינָהּ לְבֵין עַצְמָהּ שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה, מִכְרָהּ קַיָּם; וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין בְּזוֹ:

25 A widow who came to the court to sue for her board payments: they sell [property from the estate] without prior announcement and give her board payments. And similarly she may sell by the order of an expert court, but also by the order of a [lower court of] three reliable [men] without prior announcement. And similarly if she sold it herself for equal value, her sale stands; but there are those who disagree with this.

כו לֹא הִצְרִיכוּהָ בֵּית דִּין הֶדְיוֹטוֹת אֶלָּא לִמְכֹּר, אֲבָל לְמַשְׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה:

26 A court of non-experts may only require her to sell, but she is not required to provide security or mortgage.

כז אִם לָקְחָה הַקַּרְקַע לְעַצְמָהּ בִּסְכוּם יָדוּעַ, אֲפִלּוּ הוּא שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה, אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם אֲפִלּוּ הִכְרִיזָה, וְאִם נִתְיַקֵּר אַחַר כָּךְ צְרִיכָה לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לַיּוֹרְשִׁים, וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִתְיַקֵּר, אִם יִרְצוּ יְבַטְּלוּ הַמִּקָּח:

27 If she takes the land to herself as being worth a particular sum (out of her wedding contract), even if that is the right sum, that is meaningless - even if she declares it. If it becomes more valuable later, she has to return it to the heirs. Even if it doesn't become more valuable, if the heirs want to they can take it back.

כח וְאִם הָיוּ בֵּית דִּין הֶדְיוֹטוֹת שָׁם, מִקָּחָהּ קַיָּם. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁגַּם בָּזוֹ אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁם בֵּית דִּין מֻמְחִין:

28 And if a non-expert court was there, her transaction stands. And some say that even that is [like] nothing, unless an expert court was there.

כט אַלְמָנָה שֶׁמָּכְרָה, הָאַחֲרָיוּת עַל הַיְתוֹמִים; וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן כְּשֶׁבָּאָה לִגְבּוֹת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִטְרֹף מֵהַלָּקוֹחוֹת שֶׁמָּכְרָה לָהֶם:

29 A widow who sold, the obligation falls on the orphans; and nonetheless when she comes to collect her ketubah payment she may not claim back from the third-parties to whom she sold.

ל כַּמָּה מוֹכְרִים לִמְזוֹנוֹת, כְּדֵי לָזוּן מֵהֶם שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְלֹא יוֹתֵר. וְהַמָּעוֹת יִשָּׁאֲרוּ בְּיַד הַלּוֹקֵחַ, שֶׁלֹּא יִתְּנֵם לָהּ הַכֹּל מִיָּד, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי מְזוֹן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְכֵן מִשְּׁלשִׁים יוֹם לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְחוֹזֶרֶת וּמוֹכְרָה שֵׁנִית לְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים; וְכֵן מוֹכֶרֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת לְעוֹלָם, עַד שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר מֵהַנְּכָסִים כְּדֵי כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, גּוֹבָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ מֵהַשְּׁאָר וְהוֹלֶכֶת לָהּ. הַגָּה: יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים הָא דְּמוֹכֶרֶת לְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים, הַיְנוּ דַּוְקָא קַרְקַע, אֲבָל בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּנִזּוֹנֵית מִמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֵין לִמְכֹּר אֶלָּא חֵפֶץ אֶחָד (טוּר בְּשֵׁם בַּעַל הָעִטּוּר):

30 How much is to be sold for board payments? enough for six months and not more. And the money stays in the possesion of the buyer, that it not all be given to her at once, but rather sufficient for thirty days' board, and so on every thirty days. And then she sells again for six months; and so she continues to sell indefinitely, until the remainder of the assets is equal to her ketubah payment entitlement, [at which point] she claims her ketubah payment from the remainder and goes away. Rema: some say that the widow who sells for six months refers specifically to real property, but in our times when board payments are funded out of movable property only one item at a time should be sold. (Tur, quoting the Baal HaAtur).

לא אִם אֵין מוֹצְאִים לִקַּח כְּדֵי מְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁל שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים, מוֹכְרִים בְּיוֹתֵר, לְפִי רְאוֹת עֵינֵי הַדַּיָּנִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת:

31 If they seize [property from unwilling heirs] in order to fund six months board, they may sell more, according to the discretion of the judges, so that she may have food.

לב כְּשֶׁפּוֹסְקִין מְזוֹנוֹת לְאַלְמָנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִזּוֹנֵית עִם הַיְתוֹמִים, אֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ לְפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלשִׁים יוֹם; וְכֵן לְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּצְטָרֵךְ לְהִתְבַּזּוֹת עַל מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ בְּבֵית דִּין בְּכָל יוֹם:

32 When a court decrees maintenance to a widow that isn't covered by maintenance for the orphans, they give her enough to buy food for no less than thirty days. The same is true for a married woman, so she won't have to endure the shame of having her maintenance decreed in the court every day.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter