Responsa for Bava Batra 263:3

We were obliged to try the case of a betrothed, L, who demanded that her bridegroom, A (Jacob), come to her father's house and marry her there. A's father, B (Moses), representing his son, brought forth the following claims: a) When he (B) had arranged the match with L's father, C (Judah), he had promised C to send his son to live in C's house; b) he kept his promise, and, after A betrothed L through a messenger, he sent A to C; c) at the time the match was arranged C promised to clothe A suitably, to support him, and to hire a capable teacher for him; d) after A stayed in C's house for one year, he was sent back to his father and C took no further notice of him; A was forced to interrupt his studies and he, B, with very limited means, had to support him for five difficult years; and, f) he asked many persons to urge C to keep his promise of support to A, but C refused. The undersigned (R. Meir) also, sent many letters to C, asking him to have pity on his son-in-law who suffered poverty and privation — all to no avail. Moreover, we have learned (from a letter) that C does not at all desire the consummation of the marriage, but has set his heart on a divorce since A displeased him. Thus, B claims that he has fulfilled his promise and sent his son to C; but, that the latter put A to shame and now he, B, can no longer force A to return to C's house; that A is afraid to return to C's place of residence since many persons have warned him that C's servants were threatening to do him injury unless he agree to divorce L; that though A cannot, and will not, return to C, he is nevertheless ready to marry L whenever she will come to his place of residence.
Taking the above into consideration, we have decided that A cannot be compelled to settle in C's town, marry L, and live with her there; nor can he be forced to divorce L. Our decision is based on irrefutable proof: Thus, the majority of our leading authorities agree that a man living in one country who betrothed a woman living in another country, may force the woman to come and live with him in his country. Although the Tosephta (Ket. 13, 2) and the Palestinian Talmud, (Ket. 13, 10) seem to disagree on this score, we believe that our interpretation of the statements in these two sources removes the discrepancy and shows that both agree regarding this law. Moreover, when the man betrothed the woman through a messenger, there is not a shadow of a doubt that according to both sources given above, the woman ought to be forced to move to her husband's place of residence. This opinion is shared by Rashi, Maimonides and other leading authorities. R. Tam, however, believes that these sources deal with cases in which we force the husband to change his place of residence to that of his wife. Therefore, in view of this difference of opinion (although I do not agree with the view of R. Tam) we must accept the strictures of each opinion. Thus, we are forced to decide that neither the husband nor the wife can force a change in the other's place of residence. We cannot compel the husband to change his place of residence because of the opinion of Rashi, Maimonides, and the other leading authorities; but neither can we compel the wife to change her place of residence, because of the opinion of R. Tam. Although B had agreed at the time of the betrothal that A would settle in C's town, B had no right to bind A to such terms and we can find no evidence that A had voluntarily agreed to change his place of residence. The fact that A went to visit C is no evidence of such voluntary agreement. Moreover, he went on this visit after the betrothal, while we are concerned with his intentions at the time of the betrothal. Therefore, this agreement between B and C is void. Furthermore, had A himself voluntarily agreed at the time of the betrothal to move to C's place of residence, we should not be able to force A to keep his part of the agreement since C, on his part, had made many promises at that time which he later failed to keep.
Some Rabbis wrote their opinion that A should be compelled to move to L's place of residence since it was not dignified for a woman to move from place to place, as expressed by the verse: "All glorious is the king's daughter within the palace" (Ps. 45,11; cf. Git. 12a). Moreover, it is humiliating for a woman to pursue her husband into a distant place. However, I regard this manner of reasoning as very strange indeed; for in the talmudic period women were more honorable and discreet than today, and yet talmudic law required them to move to their husband's place of residence. The aforementioned Rabbis also wrote that since, according to the Talmud, a woman's station may be elevated through marriage but not lowered, L should not be forced to move to A's town. For L was brought up in great luxury and abundance, and were she to move to A's house she would have to share his poverty and privation. However, L would not have to suffer privation. C had promised A a large sum of money as a dowry; with that money A should be able to support L in a manner befitting her station, and on a standard equal to that of the other women of her family. Although she would miss some of the extravagances of her father's house, she would have to bear with such minor inconvenience. In conclusion, since A is ready to marry L whenever she will come to live in his town, we cannot compel A to move to L's town or to divorce her. This decision is required by talmudic law and the Rabbis made no distinction between a poor woman and a rich woman. Signed: R. Meir b. Baruch.
SOURCES: L. 386; Tesh. Maim. to Nashim, 28; Hayyim Or Zarua, Responsa 147. Cf. Hagahot Asheri Ket. 12, 3; Asheri Ket. 13, 17; Tur Eben Haezer 75.
The following Responsa by R. Samuel b. Salomo, R. Jacob B. Joseph, R. Yehiel b. Jacob ha Levi, and R. Eliezer B. Ephraim, refer to the same case:
This letter is written regarding the youth of Rothenburg who betrothed, through a messenger, the daughter of R. Judah of Düren. At the time the match was concluded the youth's father had agreed that his son would take up his permanent abode with his father-in-law. After the betrothal the bridegroom came to stay with R. Judah who hired a teacher for him and treated him honorably for a long time. A year later the youth became sick and R. Judah, thinking that this was a result of the change of climate, sent him home accompanied by his teacher, and expended large sums of money on him. Subsequently, R. Judah sent for the youth to come to his house and marry his daughter. The youth, however, changed his mind on the matter of residence, and refused to come to Düren, stating however that he was ready to marry his bride if and when she came to live in Rothenburg. Thus it is apparent that the youth was intending to exact money from R. Judah. Therefore, it is my opinion that the youth be forced either to marry his bride on her terms, or divorce her. First, it is obvious that at the time of her betrothal the bridegroom had intended to settle in Düren. Secondly, his father had explicitly agreed with R. Judah to the youth's change of abode. Therefore, we assume that the youth also had agreed to it, since a young son does not dare to oppose his father and usually subscribes to the father's arrangement of his affairs. Again in agreements arising between the various parties interested in a marriage, the conditions apparently implied, though not expressly stated, are presumed to form part of such agreements (see Git. 65b; Ket. 54b; 79a; B. B. 132a). Thus, in our case, it is apparent that R. Judah did not intend to have his daughter leave him and her mother and remove from the country of her birth, and suffer privation in Rothenburg with her poverty stricken husband; that he did not intend to spend the large sum of money required to finance the safe conduct of one who was the daughter of a magnate whose name was known throughout the countries. Thus, the overlord of Rothenburg acting on the mere rumor [that R. Judah's daughter was coming to settle in Rothenburg] already sought ways of subjugating R. Judah to his will [using his daughter as a hostage]. Finally, according to the Talmud (Ket. 110b) a husband cannot force his wife to move from a humble to a more sumptuous dwelling since she can hold that such change of abode, even though it was for the better, would cause her many inconveniences. Any woman who gives plausible reasons against the change of abode demanded by her husband, therefore, cannot be forced to undertake such a change. In our case the bride's reasons against a change of abode are numerous and reasonable. Therefore, the youth ought to be forced by flagellation or the use of the ban either to marry his bride or to divorce her. This case was already brought before us last year, and we decided in the bride's favor. Because of these reasons, I have agreed to ban and chastise the bridegroom until he either marry his bride on her terms or divorce her. If he refuses to comply with our order he shall bear his sin and those who support him shall likewise suffer. None is excluded from our ban, excepting, of course, our honored teacher Rabbi Meir. Rabbenu Gershom requires that a husband be coerced into divorcing his rebellious wife lest the latter turn to mischief. Although many authorities disagree with Rabbenu Gershom and we do not follow his decision, in cases similar to the one at hand, however, we must protect the daughters of Israel lest unscrupulous youths use the inability and unwillingness of daughters of rich men to change their place of residence, as a means of extorting money from their fathers. Signed: Samuel b. Salomo (Pr. 250).