The estate was required to provide sustenance for the widow. Nevertheless, there was a time limit to which an estate had to provide such sustenance for the widow. Who could determine when the estate had to stop providing substance? Was it the widow herself when she went to court and claimed her ketubah sum or was it the estate who said enough, dayenu “Here’s your ketubah”.
Well the Mishnah on TB Ketubot 52b describes
two opposing traditions. “Similarly, if he omitted from the marriage contract
the clause: You will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all
the days you live as a widow in my house, he is nevertheless obligated
as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court. The
mishna comments: The residents of Jerusalem would write in this manner,
that a widow may remain in her husband’s house throughout her widowhood, and the
residents of the Galilee would write in this manner as well, like the
inhabitants of Jerusalem. In contrast, the residents of Judea would
write: Until the heirs want to give you your marriage contract. Consequently,
if the heirs wish, they may give her marriage contract to her and release her,
and she must find her own living arrangements and provide for herself.” (Sefarias.org translation)
In the course of
discussing this Mishna on today’s daf
TB Ketubot 54 we learn when husband and wife have different traditions, which
tradition do we follow?
“The mishna taught: And
the residents of Jerusalem and of the Galilee would write the
marriage contract in this manner, i.e., that if the woman is widowed,
she may remain in her husband’s house and receive her sustenance from his
property throughout her widowhood. Conversely, the residents of Judea would
write that she may live in his house and be sustained from his estate until the
heirs decide to give her the marriage contract. It was stated that the amora’im
argued over this issue. Rav said that the halakha is in
accordance with the custom of the residents of Judea, and Shmuel said
that the halakha is in accordance with the custom of the
residents of the Galilee and Jerusalem.
“Gemara comments: Babylonia and all
of its surrounding towns [parvadaha] act in accordance with the
opinion of Rav; Neharde’a and all of its towns act in accordance with
the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman
of Meḥoza who was married to a man from Neharde’a. They came before Rav
Naḥman to discuss her marriage contract. He heard from her voice that
she was from Meḥoza, whose residents had a distinctive accent.
“Rav Naḥman said to them: Babylonia
and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Rav.
They said to him: But she is marrying a resident of Neharde’a. He said
to them: If so, Neharde’a and all of its towns act in accordance with
the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara asks: And until where is the
boundary of Neharde’a? Up to any place where the kav measurement
of Neharde’a is used. The entire area that utilizes the system of
Neharde’a measurements is considered part of its surroundings for the purposes
of this halakha.” (Sefaria.org
translation)
The bride was pretty
sharp. She use the knowledge that the tradition follows the husband’s when
there’s a conflict between husband’s tradition and wife’s tradition. Now she
determines when the estate need no longer provide her sustenance.
No comments:
Post a Comment