Responsa for Ketubot 95:6
ואמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא מי שנשתטה בית דין יורדין לנכסיו וזנין ומפרנסין את אשתו ובניו ובנותיו ודבר אחר א"ל רבינא לרב אשי מ"ש מהא דתניא מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות בית דין יורדין לנכסיו וזנין ומפרנסין את אשתו אבל לא בניו ובנותיו ולא דבר אחר
Hisda further stated in the name of Mar Ukba: If a man became insane the court takes possession of his estate and provides food and clothing for his wife, sons and daughters, and something else. Ravina said to R. Ashi: Why should this be different from that concerning which it was taught: If a man went to a country beyond the sea and his wife demanded maintenance, the court takes possession of his estate and provides food and clothing for his wife, but not for his sons and daughters or for something else?
Teshuvot Maharam
a) Q. A married L in Mayence, or in another locality, where the ketubah is valued at two hundred marks. They then removed to a different locality where the ketubah is valued at much less. They lived in the latter place until A's death. How much money is L entitled to as her ketubah?
A. The opinion of R. Simon b. Gamaliel (Ket. 110b) is accepted that a woman is entitled to the ketubah current in the locality where her marriage took place.
b) Q. After A died L took over, and managed, his estate. Why, then, did you write that the estate was considered, nevertheless, to be in the possession of the orphans?
A. R. Hananel decided that the estate managed by the widow is considered to be in the possession of the orphans. The widow is merely a managing trustee. Therefore, all the profit accruing because of her management, belongs to the orphans and she can not collect her ketubah therefrom. When the widow demands her ketubah she loses her right to receive her sustenance from the estate. She must, then, take an oath while holding the Scroll of the Law; and whatever she thus states under oath to have given away, or to have retained for herself, to have given to her daughter, or to have given to charity, is deducted from her ketubah.
c) Q. L lent some of the money to lords and "men of violence", and it is doubtful whether the latter will pay their debts.
A. L is responsible for these bad investments. Ordinarily when heirs pay the ketubah to a widow, they may give her in payment any kind of property, or any object even bran; but they cannot pay her by transferring to her money due them from others, since the collection of debts often involves litigations to which a woman is not accustomed. However, in our case, the orphans may transfer to L the money she has invested with the lords and the "men of violence", in payment of her ketubah, since she had no right to make such unsafe investments.
d) Q. While L managed the estate she gave presents to certain persons thinking she had the right to do so. Are the orphans entitled to take back the presents?
A. The recipients are entitled to retain these presents since they may claim that L gave them out of her own property, and since it appears that the market ordinance (takkanat hashuk) was to apply to property given away as presents.
e) Q. Do we put forth the claim for the benefit of the orphans that L may have been a widow when she married A, or that A may have paid her one Mina.?
A. We surely put forth the above claims for the benefit of the orphans. However, if a report circulates that L was a virgin when she married A, she is entitled to the ketubah of a virgin, since the majority of women are married while virgins. [The principle of "a majority of cases" presumes that what is true in most instances, is also true in our case.] Although in litigation over money matters the principle of "a majority of cases" is not a factor, it is so when the claimant is in actual possession of the litigated money. In our case, L is in actual possession of the money; therefore, the combination of a "majority" and a "report" in her favor, is conclusive.
SOURCES: Cr. 127–8–9–30–31; L. 480–1–2–3.
A. The opinion of R. Simon b. Gamaliel (Ket. 110b) is accepted that a woman is entitled to the ketubah current in the locality where her marriage took place.
b) Q. After A died L took over, and managed, his estate. Why, then, did you write that the estate was considered, nevertheless, to be in the possession of the orphans?
A. R. Hananel decided that the estate managed by the widow is considered to be in the possession of the orphans. The widow is merely a managing trustee. Therefore, all the profit accruing because of her management, belongs to the orphans and she can not collect her ketubah therefrom. When the widow demands her ketubah she loses her right to receive her sustenance from the estate. She must, then, take an oath while holding the Scroll of the Law; and whatever she thus states under oath to have given away, or to have retained for herself, to have given to her daughter, or to have given to charity, is deducted from her ketubah.
c) Q. L lent some of the money to lords and "men of violence", and it is doubtful whether the latter will pay their debts.
A. L is responsible for these bad investments. Ordinarily when heirs pay the ketubah to a widow, they may give her in payment any kind of property, or any object even bran; but they cannot pay her by transferring to her money due them from others, since the collection of debts often involves litigations to which a woman is not accustomed. However, in our case, the orphans may transfer to L the money she has invested with the lords and the "men of violence", in payment of her ketubah, since she had no right to make such unsafe investments.
d) Q. While L managed the estate she gave presents to certain persons thinking she had the right to do so. Are the orphans entitled to take back the presents?
A. The recipients are entitled to retain these presents since they may claim that L gave them out of her own property, and since it appears that the market ordinance (takkanat hashuk) was to apply to property given away as presents.
e) Q. Do we put forth the claim for the benefit of the orphans that L may have been a widow when she married A, or that A may have paid her one Mina.?
A. We surely put forth the above claims for the benefit of the orphans. However, if a report circulates that L was a virgin when she married A, she is entitled to the ketubah of a virgin, since the majority of women are married while virgins. [The principle of "a majority of cases" presumes that what is true in most instances, is also true in our case.] Although in litigation over money matters the principle of "a majority of cases" is not a factor, it is so when the claimant is in actual possession of the litigated money. In our case, L is in actual possession of the money; therefore, the combination of a "majority" and a "report" in her favor, is conclusive.
SOURCES: Cr. 127–8–9–30–31; L. 480–1–2–3.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy