Responsa for Ketubot 108:9
[אם רצה להוסיף כו']: רצה לכתוב לה לא קתני אלא רצה להוסיף מסייע ליה לר' איבו אמר רבי ינאי דאמר ר' איבו אמר רבי ינאי תנאי כתובה ככתובה דמי
Thus it teaches us that this is not so. If he wishes to add etc. It was not stated, “If he wishes to write,” but rather “if he wishes to add.” This supports [a ruling which] R. Aibu stated in the name of R. Yannai. For R. Aibu stated in the name of R. Yannai: The ketubah conditions are subject to the same regulations as the ketubah. For R. Aibu stated in the name of R. Yannai: The ketubah conditions are subject to the same regulations as the ketubah.
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A wants to emigrate to Palestine, but his wife, L, refuses to accompany him. Is he permitted to divorce her?
A. The Talmud (Ket. 110b) rules that under the circumstances, the husband is permitted to divorce his wife and is not required to pay her the ketubah. Although some scholars believe that this talmudic ruling applied only during the period of the Temple, while Israel dwelt on his land, and that it does not apply at present, we must make no such distinction, for the contradiction between the statement of the Babylonian Talmud (ibid.) and that of the Palestinian Talmud (Ket. end), may be reconciled if we assume that the latter refers to the present. Regarding the payment of the ketubah, however, A is not required to pay L the Ikkar ketubah and the additional jointure, but he is required to pay her whatever she has brought in as her dowry (niksei tson barzel) and whatever is left of her niksei melug (private property of the wife). Moreover, should A subsequently return from Palestine, he would be required to pay L or her heirs the Ikkar ketubah and the additional jointure.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Yekutiel haLevi.
SOURCES: Cr. 199; Am II, 78; Mord. Ket. 280. Cf. Moses Minz, Responsa 96.
A. The Talmud (Ket. 110b) rules that under the circumstances, the husband is permitted to divorce his wife and is not required to pay her the ketubah. Although some scholars believe that this talmudic ruling applied only during the period of the Temple, while Israel dwelt on his land, and that it does not apply at present, we must make no such distinction, for the contradiction between the statement of the Babylonian Talmud (ibid.) and that of the Palestinian Talmud (Ket. end), may be reconciled if we assume that the latter refers to the present. Regarding the payment of the ketubah, however, A is not required to pay L the Ikkar ketubah and the additional jointure, but he is required to pay her whatever she has brought in as her dowry (niksei tson barzel) and whatever is left of her niksei melug (private property of the wife). Moreover, should A subsequently return from Palestine, he would be required to pay L or her heirs the Ikkar ketubah and the additional jointure.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Yekutiel haLevi.
SOURCES: Cr. 199; Am II, 78; Mord. Ket. 280. Cf. Moses Minz, Responsa 96.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A wants to emigrate to Palestine, but his wife, L, refuses to accompany him. Is he permitted to divorce her?
A. The Talmud (Ket. 110b) rules that under the circumstances, the husband is permitted to divorce his wife and is not required to pay her the ketubah. Although some scholars believe that this talmudic ruling applied only during the period of the Temple, while Israel dwelt on his land, and that it does not apply at present, we must make no such distinction, for the contradiction between the statement of the Babylonian Talmud (ibid.) and that of the Palestinian Talmud (Ket. end), may be reconciled if we assume that the latter refers to the present. Regarding the payment of the ketubah, however, A is not required to pay L the Ikkar ketubah and the additional jointure, but he is required to pay her whatever she has brought in as her dowry (niksei tson barzel) and whatever is left of her niksei melug (private property of the wife). Moreover, should A subsequently return from Palestine, he would be required to pay L or her heirs the Ikkar ketubah and the additional jointure.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Yekutiel haLevi.
SOURCES: Cr. 199; Am II, 78; Mord. Ket. 280. Cf. Moses Minz, Responsa 96.
A. The Talmud (Ket. 110b) rules that under the circumstances, the husband is permitted to divorce his wife and is not required to pay her the ketubah. Although some scholars believe that this talmudic ruling applied only during the period of the Temple, while Israel dwelt on his land, and that it does not apply at present, we must make no such distinction, for the contradiction between the statement of the Babylonian Talmud (ibid.) and that of the Palestinian Talmud (Ket. end), may be reconciled if we assume that the latter refers to the present. Regarding the payment of the ketubah, however, A is not required to pay L the Ikkar ketubah and the additional jointure, but he is required to pay her whatever she has brought in as her dowry (niksei tson barzel) and whatever is left of her niksei melug (private property of the wife). Moreover, should A subsequently return from Palestine, he would be required to pay L or her heirs the Ikkar ketubah and the additional jointure.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Yekutiel haLevi.
SOURCES: Cr. 199; Am II, 78; Mord. Ket. 280. Cf. Moses Minz, Responsa 96.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A has been dripping blood for the past four years. During that period he refrained from sexual intercourse with his wife on the ground that his doctors forbade him to have intercourse as it endangered his life. Is A to be considered a rebellious husband and hence should three denars per week be added to his wife's ketubah for the period of his abstention?
A. Since A was forced by illness to refrain from intercourse with his wife, he is not to be considered a rebellious husband. A rebellious husband is one who refuses to live with his wife because he is angry with her or because he hates her. A person who is physically unable to live with his wife, however, is not considered a rebellious husband. A, however, must divorce his wife and must pay her the ketubah, since he is in the same category as a leper for whom coitus is harmful (Ket. 77b). Although A's sickness does not disable him permanently and is curable, we do not compel his wife to wait indefinitely in the hope that he might be cured. Thus Maimonides (M. T. Ishut 14, 7) rules that under such circumstances a woman must wait only six months. Although we have compared A to a leper for whom coitus is harmful, nevertheless we should not force A by flagellation to divorce his wife, but should only resort to persuasion. We should merely tell him the law requires him to divorce his wife and pay her the ketubah; should he refuse to do so, he would be called "transgressor". Whether A divorces her or not, however, we force him to pay his wife the Ikkar ketubah and her dowry, but we do not force him to pay her the additional jointure since some authorities hold the opinion that under the circumstances she is not entitled to the additional jointure. Should A's wife aver that she does not believe that A's doctors told him to refrain from sexual intercourse, and insist that he is a rebellious husband, he would have to take an oath in support of his assertions. Should A refuse to take the oath, we would have to add to his wife's ketubah three Tyrian denars per week for the entire period of his abstention. I have sufficient proof to support my view that the three denars prescribed by the Mishnah (Ket. 5, 7) mean Tyrian denars. Should A admit that he had refrained from sexual intercourse with his wife because he was angry with her and that he had lied about both his sickness and the advice of his doctors, and should he declare that he now desires to resume marital relations with her, the aforementioned amount would be added to her ketubah and she would be required to resume her marital duties. Regardless of what happened in the past, A may now claim that he is well and that he is able to live normally with his wife, since the truth of his claim is bound eventually to be proven or disproven.
This Responsum is addressed to: "Rabbi Isaac, my relatives Rabbi Joel and Rabbi Ephraim".
SOURCES: Sinai V (1941) pp. 203–6; ibid. pp. 294–5; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 159c; Pr. 574.
A. Since A was forced by illness to refrain from intercourse with his wife, he is not to be considered a rebellious husband. A rebellious husband is one who refuses to live with his wife because he is angry with her or because he hates her. A person who is physically unable to live with his wife, however, is not considered a rebellious husband. A, however, must divorce his wife and must pay her the ketubah, since he is in the same category as a leper for whom coitus is harmful (Ket. 77b). Although A's sickness does not disable him permanently and is curable, we do not compel his wife to wait indefinitely in the hope that he might be cured. Thus Maimonides (M. T. Ishut 14, 7) rules that under such circumstances a woman must wait only six months. Although we have compared A to a leper for whom coitus is harmful, nevertheless we should not force A by flagellation to divorce his wife, but should only resort to persuasion. We should merely tell him the law requires him to divorce his wife and pay her the ketubah; should he refuse to do so, he would be called "transgressor". Whether A divorces her or not, however, we force him to pay his wife the Ikkar ketubah and her dowry, but we do not force him to pay her the additional jointure since some authorities hold the opinion that under the circumstances she is not entitled to the additional jointure. Should A's wife aver that she does not believe that A's doctors told him to refrain from sexual intercourse, and insist that he is a rebellious husband, he would have to take an oath in support of his assertions. Should A refuse to take the oath, we would have to add to his wife's ketubah three Tyrian denars per week for the entire period of his abstention. I have sufficient proof to support my view that the three denars prescribed by the Mishnah (Ket. 5, 7) mean Tyrian denars. Should A admit that he had refrained from sexual intercourse with his wife because he was angry with her and that he had lied about both his sickness and the advice of his doctors, and should he declare that he now desires to resume marital relations with her, the aforementioned amount would be added to her ketubah and she would be required to resume her marital duties. Regardless of what happened in the past, A may now claim that he is well and that he is able to live normally with his wife, since the truth of his claim is bound eventually to be proven or disproven.
This Responsum is addressed to: "Rabbi Isaac, my relatives Rabbi Joel and Rabbi Ephraim".
SOURCES: Sinai V (1941) pp. 203–6; ibid. pp. 294–5; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 159c; Pr. 574.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy