Chapter 12 explains the obligations and rights of marriage, a wife’s support, support for children, and the consequences of vows that restrict married life.
פרק יב24 halachosTuesday, September 8, 2026כ״ו באלול תשפ״ו◷ Estimated study time: 65–85 min
אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.
Chapter progress 0 of 24 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
When a man marries a woman, whether she is a virgin or has previously had intercourse, whether she has reached adulthood or is a minor,
-
whether she is Jewish by birth, a convert, or a freed bondwoman—
,.
he becomes obligated to her in ten matters and acquires four rights.
The distinctions listed here do not change this basic framework of marriage. The following identify these obligations and rights; their details are developed throughout this chapter and the subsequent chapters, through Chapter 23.
Synopsis
Marriage creates ten obligations for the husband and grants him four rights across the categories of women listed here.
The Ten Obligations: Duties and Marriage Provisions
-,:״״(,).
Of these ten obligations, three are required by the : “her sustenance, her clothing, and her marital intimacy” (Exodus 21:10).
The verse prohibits a husband from depriving his wife of these three necessities. They are binding duties of marriage, rather than benefits he may choose whether to provide.
״״,;״״,;
“Her sustenance” refers to her food; “her clothing” bears its ordinary meaning;
״״,.
“Her marital intimacy” means having marital relations with her in the customary manner.
,.
The other seven obligations were established by the Sages, and all are .
,;
One of them is the basic obligation;
◇A helpful concept
The is the marriage document that records the husband’s financial obligations. Here, the “basic obligation” means the payment due to the wife upon divorce or her husband’s death.
,:
the remaining obligations are called the conditions of the . They are:
Together with the basic obligation, the following six provisions make up the seven rabbinic obligations. A widow’s support and continued residence are counted together as one provision.
,,,
to provide for her medical care if she becomes ill, to ransom her if she is taken captive, and to provide for her burial when she dies;
,
that she receive support from his estate and continue living in his home after his death throughout her widowhood;
This provision extends her protection beyond her husband’s lifetime: her support and residence are provided from the estate he leaves behind.
,
that her daughters by him receive support after his death until they become ;
◇A helpful concept
, or consecration, establishes the binding marital relationship and precedes the completion of marriage. The endpoint stated here is the daughters’ consecration, rather than their later entry into the completed marriage.
.
and that her sons by him inherit her in addition to their share of the inheritance that they divide with their brothers born to another wife.
This provision concerns a wife who dies before her husband. When he later dies, her sons receive the amount of their mother’s in addition to their ordinary share of their father’s estate. The brothers mentioned here are the father’s sons by another wife.
Synopsis
A husband owes his wife food, clothing, and marital intimacy by law. The Sages added the basic payment and six further provisions protecting her and her children.
🔎Dig DeeperThe Ten Obligations: Duties and Marriage Provisions
The Ten Obligations: Duties and Marriage Provisions
The , in his commentary to Exodus 21:10, understands the verse differently. He interprets its references to sustenance and clothing as also addressing aspects of marital intimacy, and regards the obligations to provide food and clothing as rabbinic.
The disagreement concerns the legal source of these obligations, rather than whether the husband must fulfill them. Under the ’s interpretation, food and clothing are themselves duties; according to the Ramban, those duties were established by the Sages. Most authorities follow the Rambam’s understanding.
Sources: Ramban, commentary to Exodus 21:10; Rambam, 12:2
The four rights he acquires were all established by the Sages. They are:
,,
that her earnings belong to him, and that what she finds belongs to him;
The latter right concerns a found object that she is legally entitled to keep.
,
that he receive the during her lifetime;
,.
and that, if she dies during his lifetime, he inherit her, taking precedence over every other person in the inheritance.
His right during her lifetime is to the property’s yield. If she dies before him, his right of inheritance extends to the property itself, ahead of anyone else who would otherwise inherit her.
Synopsis
The Sages granted a husband rights to his wife’s earnings, her finds, the yield of her property, and her estate if she dies before him.
A Wife’s Choice to Keep Her Earnings and Forgo Support
,
The Sages further ordained that a wife’s earnings correspond to her husband’s obligation to support her,
The arrangement was instituted for her benefit, ensuring that she receives support even when her earnings are insufficient. Her husband receives her earnings in connection with that responsibility.
,.
his obligation to ransom her corresponds to his right to enjoy the yield of her property, and his obligation to bury her corresponds to his inheritance of her .
Here, “” refers to her —the property she brought into the marriage and whose value was recorded in the marriage settlement. His inheritance of that property is paired with his responsibility for her burial.
״״-,.
Therefore, if the wife says, “I will receive no support, and I will not work for you,” her choice is accepted, and she is not compelled.
She may give up her claim to support and keep her own earnings. Since the arrangement was established for her benefit, she may decline it—for example, when her earnings exceed what she needs for support. This concerns her obligation to work for her husband’s financial benefit. The explains that her household responsibilities remain.
״״-,
But if the husband says, “I will not support you, and I will take none of your earnings,” his proposal is not accepted,
.
because her earnings might not be enough to support her.
The choice belongs to her because the protection is hers. He cannot withdraw that protection on his own and leave her to bear the risk of insufficient income.
.
For this reason, support is counted among the conditions of the .
Although her right to support originates in law, its connection to her earnings was established by the Sages. That rabbinic arrangement accounts for its inclusion among the conditions of the .
Synopsis
A wife may forgo her husband’s support and keep her earnings, but he may not unilaterally withdraw support in exchange for relinquishing those earnings.
🔎Dig DeeperA Wife’s Choice to Keep Her Earnings and Forgo Support
A Wife’s Choice to Keep Her Earnings and Forgo Support
The and ( 69:5) limit how far her choice extends. She cannot similarly cancel the arrangements linking ransom to the yield of her property, or burial to inheritance. The Sages preserved those obligations to ensure that she would be redeemed from captivity and receive burial. The three pairings therefore do not all carry the same right to withdraw.
Marriage Obligations Apply Even Without Being Written
-,
All these provisions apply even if they were not written in her document,
,-
and even if no has yet been written and he simply married her without specifying any terms—
,,,
once the marriage takes place, the husband acquires his four rights and the wife acquires her ten rights,
.
and they need not state them expressly.
These rights arise from the laws governing marriage, rather than from an individually negotiated agreement. Omitting them from the document, or failing to mention them when marrying, does not prevent them from taking effect.
The ruling establishes that these obligations already exist even before the document is written; it does not grant permission to dispense with the required .
Synopsis
The husband’s four rights and the wife’s ten rights take effect through marriage itself, even if they were neither stated nor written.
If the husband stipulates that he will be exempt from one of his obligations,
-;
or the wife stipulates that the husband will not acquire one of his rights, the condition is valid;
This refers to a condition accepted by the other spouse. In Halachah 4, the husband attempted to withdraw support on his own; here, the wife agrees to waive her entitlement. Her consent is what makes the difference.
◇A helpful concept
A financial right may generally be waived even when the itself grants it. As explains, a person may relinquish money or a financial entitlement that belongs to that person. Thus, a wife may agree to forgo even her rights to food or clothing.
,,,.
There are, however, three matters concerning which such a condition has no effect; anyone who makes a condition concerning them has made an invalid condition.
:,,.
They are her right to marital intimacy, her basic entitlement, and his inheritance of her estate.
These exceptions do not all rest on the same reason. The following explain why each is protected and, concerning inheritance, why the timing of the condition matters. An invalid condition leaves the underlying obligation or right in force.
Synopsis
An agreed condition may generally waive a spouse’s financial rights, but special restrictions protect marital intimacy, the basic entitlement, and the husband’s inheritance.
A Condition Cannot Cancel the Obligation of Marital Intimacy
?,
How does this apply? If he stipulates with the woman that she will have no claim upon him for marital intimacy,
-
his condition is invalid, and he remains obligated to fulfill her right to marital intimacy—
,.
because he has stipulated against a requirement written in the , and this is not a financial condition.
The permission to waive financial rights does not apply here. Marital intimacy is a personal, bodily entitlement; explains that depriving a wife of it causes physical suffering. Consequently, her agreement to this condition does not release him from the ’s obligation.
Synopsis
A condition excluding the wife’s right to marital intimacy is invalid because it attempts to cancel a obligation that is not financial.
If he stipulates with her that her basic entitlement will be reduced,
,
or he writes for her a basic of two hundred or one hundred,
The amounts are stated in , the monetary unit used for the basic obligation.
,-.
and she writes him an acknowledgment that she has received a specified portion of that amount, although she has not received that sum, his condition is invalid.
The acknowledgment functions as a receipt: it makes part of the debt appear to have been paid and therefore no longer collectible. Here it is being used to reduce her entitlement without any actual payment.
Although the is a financial obligation, the Sages did not permit this reduction of its basic amount. They made that minimum a binding protection within marriage.
,
For whenever someone reduces a virgin’s below two hundred, or a widow’s below one ,
◇A helpful concept
A equals one hundred . The two thresholds stated here are therefore two hundred for a virgin and one hundred for a widow.
.
such relations are regarded as promiscuous intercourse.
The attempted reduction does not cancel her legal entitlement to the full basic amount. Nevertheless, the arrangement is prohibited, and the applies this severe description to their relations. The Dig Deeper below explains why the condition’s invalidity does not resolve the problem.
Synopsis
A condition or fictitious receipt cannot reduce the basic below its required amount; marital relations under such an arrangement are treated as promiscuous.
🔎Dig DeeperThe Basic Amount Cannot Be Reduced by a Condition
The Basic Amount Cannot Be Reduced by a Condition
The ( 66:9) addresses an apparent difficulty: if the reduction is legally invalid and the wife remains entitled to the full amount, why are their relations still regarded as promiscuous?
The wife may not know that the condition is invalid. She may therefore believe that she lacks the full financial protection due to her. The legal survival of the debt does not by itself correct her understanding of the marriage arrangement.
Why a Husband Cannot Renounce His Inheritance after Marriage
,,-,
If, after he has married her, she stipulates with him that he will not inherit her, her condition is invalid,
The timing is essential. This ruling concerns a condition made after the marriage has been completed. A different rule applies during the earlier stage, after has established the binding marital bond but before the marriage is completed, as discussed in Chapter 23, Halachah 6.
,,
and although the husband’s inheritance was established by the Sages, they gave their enactment the strength of law,
,
and any condition concerning inheritance is invalid, even though it concerns money,
״״(,).
for the describes inheritance as “a statute of judgment” (Numbers 27:11).
Here, a “condition concerning inheritance” means an agreement attempting to displace the legally established right of inheritance. Although financial claims can generally be waived, inheritance follows a prescribed legal order. The Sages protected the husband’s inheritance against this kind of condition just as inheritance is protected.
,-
In the other matters, his condition is valid—
,
for example, if he stipulates with her that she will have no entitlement to food and clothing,
,
or makes a condition that he will not enjoy the yield of her property,
-.
and in all comparable cases, his condition is valid.
These examples concern ordinary financial entitlements: her claims to food and clothing, and his claim to the income from her property. With the entitled spouse’s agreement, such rights may be waived. They do not receive the special protection given to inheritance.
Synopsis
After marriage, an agreement excluding the husband from inheriting his wife is invalid. Other financial rights, such as support, clothing, and the yield of property, may be waived by agreement.
The Food and Personal Allowance Included in a Wife’s Support
?
How much food is allotted to a wife?
The following allowance describes the provision required of a poor husband. As the next explains, a husband with greater means must provide support appropriate to his wealth.
,
She is allotted enough bread for two meals each day,
.
each being an average meal for an ordinary person in that town who is neither ill nor excessively given to eating.
The amount is measured by a normal local appetite. Neither the reduced consumption of an ill person nor unusually large meals determine the allowance.
,,,
It is to be supplied from the food customary among the people of that town: wheat where wheat is customary, and barley where barley is customary,
,.
and likewise rice, millet, or other varieties that they customarily eat.
The obligation follows the community’s usual staple food. It does not impose one particular grain on every place.
,.
She is also allotted food to accompany the bread, such as legumes, vegetables, and similar foods.
,,,
She is provided with oil for eating, oil for lighting the lamp, and fruit,
,.
as well as a little wine to drink, if women customarily drink wine in that locality.
,.
For , she is allotted three meals, together with meat or fish according to local custom.
The additional meal reflects her obligation to eat three meals on , which applies to women as it does to men.
,
Each week, he gives her a silver for her personal needs,
◇A helpful concept
A is a monetary denomination equal to one-sixth of a . This is a weekly allowance for personal expenses in addition to the provisions already listed.
,.
such as laundering, using the bathhouse, and similar needs.
Synopsis
A wife’s support includes ordinary daily meals and their accompaniments, lighting oil, appropriate provisions, and a weekly allowance for personal needs, with food and quantities determined by local norms.
When does the preceding allowance apply? To a poor Jewish husband.
,.
If he is wealthy, however, everything is determined according to his wealth.
The provisions listed in the previous are not a ceiling that every husband may impose. A husband with greater resources must provide a correspondingly higher standard of support.
,
Even if his means are sufficient to provide her with several meat dishes each day,
.
he is compelled to do so, and her support is assessed according to his resources.
,-
If he is so impoverished that he cannot provide even the bread she needs—
,
he is compelled to divorce her,
The concern is her inability to obtain basic support within the marriage. Divorce gives her the opportunity to marry someone who can provide for her.
.
and her remains a debt that he owes until he acquires the means to pay it.
His inability to pay immediately does not erase the obligation. She is released from the marriage, while her financial claim remains outstanding.
Synopsis
A husband must support his wife according to his means. If he cannot provide even her necessary bread, he is compelled to divorce her, and the unpaid remains his debt.
Providing Separate Meals while Sharing Friday Night
,
If a husband wishes to provide his wife with the support appropriate to her,
,-;
while she eats and drinks separately and he eats and drinks separately, he may do so;
This arrangement changes how they take their meals. It does not reduce the support to which she is entitled. As the clarifies in his , it also cannot interfere with his obligation of marital intimacy.
,.
provided that he eats with her every Friday night.
Synopsis
A husband may provide his wife with her proper support while they eat separately, but he must share the Friday-night meal with her.
🔎Dig DeeperProviding Separate Meals while Sharing Friday Night
Providing Separate Meals while Sharing Friday Night
In his ( 5:9), the explains that this arrangement can extend even to separate dwellings.
The ( 70:2) disagrees with allowing the husband to establish this arrangement on his own. In his view, separate meals require the wife’s consent. The practical difference is whether providing all her material needs is sufficient to authorize the arrangement, or whether she must also agree to it.
If food has been allotted to a wife and some remains unused, the surplus belongs to her husband.
The commentaries distinguish between spending less to obtain her food and depriving herself of food. The latter can leave the remainder belonging to her, as explained in Dig Deeper.
-,
If her husband is a , he may not supply all her food as ,
;
because it places a substantial burden upon her to protect the provisions from anything that would render them ritually impure, so that she can eat them in purity;
that becomes ritually impure may not be eaten. Even when it remains pure, she cannot eat it while she herself is ritually impure. Making her entire food supply dependent on these requirements would impose an excessive burden.
.
Instead, he gives her half ordinary food and half .
Ordinary food is not subject to these special restrictions of , so she is not required to maintain her entire food supply under the same conditions.
Synopsis
A surplus from the food allowance generally belongs to the husband, with a qualification for savings through self-deprivation. A must provide half his wife’s food as ordinary food to ease the burden of maintaining ritual purity.
🔎Dig DeeperUnused Food Allowances and a ’s Provision of
Unused Food Allowances and a ’s Provision of
The and the ( 70) distinguish between two reasons an allowance might have a surplus.
If the wife obtains the necessary food more cheaply than anticipated, the savings belong to her husband. But if she deprives herself of food and eats less than the amount allotted to her, the remainder belongs to her. The husband receives savings in the cost of providing her meals; he does not receive the benefit of her going hungry.
so he is obligated to support his young sons and daughters until they reach six years of age.
,.
From that point onward, he is to feed them until they reach adulthood, in accordance with an enactment of the Sages.
Turning six does not end the father’s responsibility to provide food. The Sages require continued support, but the means of enforcement differ. The following instructions describe the pressure applied when he refuses; the next explains when his financial means permit compulsory collection.
-,,.
If he is unwilling, he is rebuked, put to shame, and pressed to provide support.
-:
If he remains unwilling, a public announcement is made about him, declaring:
,
“This man is cruel and refuses to feed his children;
.
he is beneath even a bird, which feeds its young.”
.
But he is not compelled to support them after age six.
Here, the court uses rebuke and public pressure rather than compulsory collection. This limitation is qualified in the next : when the father has sufficient means, support can be collected from him under the laws of charity.
Synopsis
A father must support his young children. After age six, the Sages require continued support until adulthood; refusal brings public pressure, with compulsory collection subject to the financial qualification explained next.
Compelling a Father with Means to Support His Children
?;
When does the preceding limitation apply? When a man is not known to have sufficient means, and it is uncertain whether he can afford to give charity;
The limitation concerns compulsory support for children after age six. It does not release a father from the obligation to support his younger children.
-
but if he is assessed as having enough money to give charity sufficient for their needs—
,
funds are collected from him against his will as charity,
◇A helpful concept
Charity is a binding obligation, and the court may enforce an appropriate assessment upon someone who has the means to give. Supporting children in this older age group falls within that obligation. Calling the payment “charity” therefore does not make it optional.
.
and the children are supported until they reach adulthood.
This compulsory collection applies when the father is present. As Halachah 17 explains, the court does not collect from an absent father’s property for this purpose merely because he is known to have sufficient means.
Synopsis
When a father is present and has sufficient means, the court compels him, under the laws of charity, to support his children after age six until adulthood.
If a man travels to another country and his wife comes before the court to claim support—
,;
the court does not award her support for the first three months following his departure;
,.
for it is presumed that a person does not leave his household without provisions.
◇A helpful concept
A legal presumption allows the court to proceed on the basis of what people ordinarily do, even without direct evidence of what happened in this particular case. Here, the court presumes that the husband provided for his household before leaving, so it does not immediately collect additional support from his property.
The ( 70:5) cites opinions limiting this presumption to a husband who left on peaceful terms. If he departed in anger toward his wife, there is reason to question whether he provided for her.
,.
After that period, the court awards her support.
If she waits longer than three months before approaching the court, the support award begins with her claim rather than automatically covering the preceding period, as the explains. A debt she incurred by borrowing for necessary support is a separate matter, addressed in Halachah 19.
-,.
If he has property, the court takes possession of it and sells what is needed for her support.
,;
The court does not settle accounts with her concerning her earnings until her husband returns;
When fixing her support, the court does not deduct what she could earn through her work. The accounting for her earnings is deferred until her husband returns; the next clause preserves his claim to earnings that he finds she actually produced.
,.
if he finds that she has earned anything, it belongs to him.
,-;
Similarly, if she did not bring the matter before the court but sold property herself for her support, her sale is valid;
The property being sold is her husband’s. Her existing claim to support allows the sale to stand even though she did not first obtain a court award.
,-
and she requires neither a public announcement nor an oath—
◇A helpful concept
A court sale of property ordinarily requires advance publicity to attract buyers and obtain a fair price. Here, that delay is not required, because she needs the proceeds for her support.
The exemption from an oath applies at this stage. The following clauses explain when an oath can subsequently be required.
,
until her husband returns and raises a claim,
He may claim that he had already left sufficient provisions for her. Until he raises that objection, she need not swear that he left her without support.
,
or until she comes to collect her after his death,
.
when she is also required to swear that she sold only for the support she needed.
◇A helpful concept
means extending an already-required oath to cover an additional claim. When she must swear in order to collect her from her husband’s heirs, that oath is extended to include her earlier sale of his property for support.
Synopsis
After the initial three-month presumption of advance provision, a wife may obtain support from her absent husband’s property through the court or by selling it herself. An oath is deferred until a later claim or collection of her .
Supporting a Family from an Absent or Incapacitated Husband’s Property
,
Just as the court sells property to support a wife whose husband has gone away,
;
so it sells property to support his sons and daughters who are six years old or younger;
,,.
but children older than six are not supported from his property in his absence, even if he is known to have sufficient means.
For the older children, compulsory collection would rest on the obligation of charity. The court does not make that collection from an absent father’s property, because he may already be giving charity where he is staying. This differs from collecting the directly enforceable support owed to his wife and young children.
-,
Similarly, if a man loses his mental capacity, the court takes possession of his property and sells from it,
,.
providing food for his wife and his sons and daughters who are six or younger, and supplying their other needs.
His inability to manage his affairs does not leave these dependents without support. The court administers his property to provide for them.
Synopsis
The court sells an absent or mentally incapacitated husband’s property to provide for his wife and young children. It does not collect from an absent father’s property for children older than six merely because he has sufficient means.
🔎Dig DeeperSupporting a Family from an Absent or Incapacitated Husband’s Property
Supporting a Family from an Absent or Incapacitated Husband’s Property
The examines whether the restriction concerning older children also applies when their father has lost his mental capacity. Although this expressly mentions only the younger children, 11:11 allows the court to assess charity against the property of a person with means who has become mentally incapacitated. The Maggid Mishneh therefore suggests that the older children should also receive support when the father’s resources justify a charity assessment.
The ( 71) goes further. He allows the court to provide for the older children even when the estate is not large enough to warrant compulsory charity. His reasoning is that most fathers want to support their children, and the court may act on that presumed wish when the father can no longer express it. The (71:6) understands the to follow this approach.
One of the ruled that support is not awarded to a woman whose husband has gone away or died,
,
unless she produces her document,
◇A helpful concept
The were the leading rabbinic authorities of the Babylonian academies in the period following the completion of the . Here, the presents differing rulings transmitted by these earlier authorities.
-,
and if she does not produce the document, she receives no support,
,
because she may have collected her from her husband or waived it in his favor,
,.
in which case she has no entitlement to support, as will be explained.
Under this view, producing the helps establish that it has not already been collected or waived. That matters because the ruling treats collection or waiver as grounds for losing the associated support entitlement.
,
Another authority ruled that support is awarded on the presumption that she has neither collected nor waived her ,
.
and she is not required to produce it.
The disagreement concerns what the court should presume when the document is unavailable. The second view preserves her existing entitlement unless there is evidence that she has given it up or received payment.
,.
My judgment inclines toward this latter view when her husband has gone away, since her entitlement to support is required by the .
-,,
But if her husband has died, she receives no support until she produces her ,
.
because her support is provided by an enactment of the Sages.
The distinction is between support during marriage, which the regards as a obligation, and support during widowhood, which continues through a rabbinic condition of the .
,,.
Furthermore, she is being supported from property belonging to the heirs, and the court always advances claims on an heir’s behalf.
◇A helpful concept
An heir may not know which debts the deceased paid or which claims were waived. The court therefore raises legally relevant defenses for the heir, even when the heir cannot personally identify them. Here, it takes account of the possibility that the was already paid or waived and requires the widow to produce the document.
Synopsis
The allows a wife whose husband is away to claim support without producing her . A widow must produce it, because her support is rabbinic and is collected from heirs whose interests the court protects.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen a Wife Must Produce Her to Claim Support
When a Wife Must Produce Her to Claim Support
challenges the distinction between an absent husband and his heirs: the husband, too, is unavailable to defend his property, so why should the court not raise possible defenses for him?
In the , Rabbi Yosef Caro explains that the husband can return and present his own account of what happened. An heir may never possess that knowledge. The court therefore gives the heir a form of protection that is not required in the same way for an absent husband. The ( 70:5) records the ’s ruling.
If her husband goes away and she borrows money to obtain food, he must repay it when he returns.
The loan must be for support she was entitled to receive from her husband. The ( 70:8) explains the order of the claims: the lender claims repayment from the wife, and she in turn claims the amount from her husband.
,-
If someone independently undertakes to feed her from his own resources—
,,,
when the husband returns, he is not obligated to reimburse that person, who has forfeited his money,
,.
because the husband did not instruct him to support her, and she did not borrow from him.
Paying another person’s obligation without being asked does not, by itself, create a right to reimbursement. Here, neither an instruction from the husband nor a loan to the wife established a repayment obligation. The fact that the husband benefited from the assistance is not enough to make him liable.
Synopsis
A husband must repay borrowing used for his wife’s support during his absence. Someone who supports her independently, without his instruction or a loan to her, cannot demand reimbursement from him.
Accepting Earnings in Place of Support before a Husband’s Departure
״״-
If, as he departs, a husband tells his wife, “Keep your earnings for your support”—
,
she has no claim to support,
This concerns her acceptance of the arrangement described below. It does not give the husband a general right to withdraw support unilaterally.
,
for if she had not agreed to this arrangement and had not relied upon it,
״״.
she should have demanded support from him or told him, “My earnings are not enough for me.”
Her failure to object before he leaves is treated as acceptance: she allows him to depart on the understanding that she will retain her earnings and use them for her needs.
In a responsum, the qualifies this inference. If it is unreasonable to expect her earnings to cover her support, silence alone does not establish a waiver; she must expressly agree. The presumed acceptance therefore depends on whether the proposed arrangement could reasonably provide for her.
Synopsis
A wife who accepts an arrangement to retain her earnings for support cannot also claim support from her absent husband. When her earnings cannot reasonably suffice, her silence alone does not establish acceptance.
If she brought her claim before the court, which awarded her support, sold property, and gave her the proceeds,
,
or she sold property herself,
The sale here concerns her husband’s landed property. The next addresses a sale of movable property, for which a different form of oath is required.
״״-
and the husband returns and claims, “I left provisions for her”—
.
she must swear, while holding a sacred object, that he did not leave provisions for her.
She has already obtained support through the sale, and her husband now challenges her entitlement to those funds. Her oath upholds her account, so she is not required to reimburse him.
,,
If she neither brought a claim nor sold property, but waited until he returned,
״״,״,״-
and he says, “I left provisions,” while she says, “You left none; I borrowed from this person and supported myself”—
,
he takes a that he left provisions for her and is exempt from payment,
◇A helpful concept
A is a rabbinically instituted oath that is less stringent than the oath taken while holding a sacred object. Here, the wife is seeking payment she has not yet collected from her husband. He denies owing that payment, and his oath releases him from her claim.
.
and the debt remains her responsibility.
The husband’s oath releases him from her claim, but it does not cancel her debt to the lender. In the circumstances described, his rights over her property and earnings prevent her from paying independently during the marriage; the debt remains payable when she is divorced or widowed.
Synopsis
If support was already obtained through a sale of landed property, the wife swears to uphold her entitlement. If she instead borrowed and now seeks payment, the husband may swear that he left provisions and be exempt, while her debt remains.
Movable Property Sales and Support Earned through Extra Work
״״,
If she sold movable property and says, “I sold it for my support,”
״״-
while he claims, “I left provisions”—
.
she takes a that he left none.
Although she has already used the proceeds for support, she takes the less stringent oath because the sale involved movable property. Had she wished to deny responsibility for those objects dishonestly, she could have claimed that they were lost or stolen. This alternative claim gives her account greater credibility and reduces the oath required, unlike the sale of landed property in the preceding .
,,
If she neither brought a claim, borrowed, nor sold property,
,-.
but instead strained herself by day and night, working to provide her own food, she has no claim to payment.
Having supported herself through this additional effort without claiming support, borrowing, or selling his property, she cannot later demand the difference between what she lived on and her ordinary support allowance, as the (70:41) explains. If those earnings exceeded her support needs, the ( 70:11) rules that the surplus belongs to her. This qualification concerns the exceptional effort described here; it does not mean that a wife always retains earnings above her expenses.
Synopsis
A wife who sold movable property for support takes a if her husband claims that he left provisions. If she instead supported herself through strenuous work without claiming support, borrowing, or selling his property, she cannot later demand reimbursement.
A Vow Preventing a Wife from Benefiting from Her Husband
-
If a husband prohibits his wife by a vow from deriving benefit from him—
,-
whether he specifies an end date or makes the vow without specifying a duration—
:
he is given thirty days:
The vow creates an obstacle to her receiving benefit from him or his property. The extent to which such a vow can take effect despite his existing obligation to support her is discussed in Dig Deeper below.
,-;
if the term of his vow expires, or it has not expired but he obtains release from the vow, the matter is resolved;
◇A helpful concept
Obtaining release from a vow means having it dissolved through the procedure for releasing vows. The husband cannot remove its prohibition merely by deciding that he no longer wishes to keep it.
-,.
otherwise, he must divorce her and pay her .
In his ( 7:1), the explains that after thirty days the situation becomes publicly known and exposes the wife to humiliation. She therefore cannot be required to continue living under this arrangement indefinitely.
,,
During those thirty days, she works and supports herself from her earnings,
,
and one of his friends provides whatever she needs beyond what her earnings cover,
.
if her earnings do not suffice for everything.
The friend must provide the support independently, rather than act as the husband’s agent. The husband may announce that whoever supports his wife will not suffer a loss, allowing someone to undertake the assistance without a direct appointment. The ( 71a) distinguishes this arrangement from appointing an agent, whose provision of support on the husband’s behalf would violate the vow.
Synopsis
The husband has thirty days to resolve the prohibition. During that time, his wife is supported through her earnings and independent assistance for any shortfall. If the prohibition remains, he must divorce her and pay her .
🔎Dig DeeperA Vow Preventing a Wife from Benefiting from Her Husband
A Vow Preventing a Wife from Benefiting from Her Husband
and question how the husband’s vow can prevent his wife from receiving support that he already owes her. His declaration cannot ordinarily override her existing right. They therefore limit the vow’s effectiveness to particular circumstances in which that obligation does not prevent it from taking effect.
follows this approach in his Kessef Mishneh and in the ( 235:2). On this understanding, the thirty-day arrangement does not grant a husband a general power to suspend his support obligation by taking a vow. The ruling must be read within the circumstances in which the vow can validly create the prohibition.
Food Restrictions and Vows the Husband Allows to Stand
-
If a husband, through a vow, prohibits his wife from tasting a particular kind of produce—
The explains that he cannot simply make a binding vow restricting another person’s actions. Rather, he makes benefit from his property conditional on her avoiding that food: if she eats it, she becomes forbidden to benefit from his property. This is how his vow creates the restriction described here.
;
he is given thirty days;
,.
if the restriction continues beyond that, he must divorce her and pay her .
,
Even if he prohibited her from tasting an undesirable food,
-
and even if he prohibited a kind she has never eaten—
,.
after thirty days he must divorce her and pay her .
The ruling does not depend on whether she previously enjoyed that food or regularly included it in her diet. He cannot prolong the restriction on the ground that the particular food should be unimportant to her.
,,
If she herself vows not to eat a particular kind of produce and he upholds her vow,
,-
or she takes a vow to become a and he does not annul it—
◇A helpful concept
For the vows under discussion, the gives the husband the power to annul his wife’s vow or allow it to stand. This power concerns her vow and differs from the procedure by which he obtains release from his own vow in the preceding .
,-;
if he wishes her to remain married to him while abstaining from that produce or remaining a , she may remain;
Here the wife undertook the restriction herself. According to the , the husband’s allowing her vow to stand does not itself require the marriage to end.
״״-
but if he says, “I do not want a wife who takes vows”—
,
he must divorce her and pay her ,
.
because he had the power to annul the vow, yet willingly allowed it to stand.
He cannot use the vow as a reason to deprive her of her when he himself had the opportunity to annul it and chose to let it remain binding.
Synopsis
A food restriction imposed through the husband’s vow cannot continue beyond thirty days without divorce and payment of the . When the wife herself takes a vow and he allows it to stand, the permits the marriage to continue; if he chooses to divorce her because of that vow, he must pay her .
Translation and elucidation: Independently prepared for Rambam, Clearly in contemporary English. Translation follows the Rambam’s words; elucidation supplies only the context needed to understand them.
Word cards and glossary: Hebrew word cards distinguish a word’s basic meaning from its meaning in the particular phrase. Shared glossary entries explain recurring terms; biography entries identify the cited authorities.
Explain and Background: Explain provides context needed for the ruling. Optional Background panels provide additional context that can be skipped without losing the essential explanation.
Synopsis: A short summary follows each halachah. It is a guide to the central ruling, not a replacement for the full text and its qualifications.
Dig Deeper: Based on the classic commentaries named inside each panel. Editorial explanations are not presented as quotations.
Live It: Where present, these panels connect a particular halachah to a suggested personal reflection and an action to try. Original applications are labeled as suggested reflections. They are distinct from the ruling and are not attributed to the Rebbe merely because his guidance supports seeking a practical lesson.
Measurements: Modern equivalents draw on Chabad.org’s measurement glossary and cited halachic calculations. They show a range when major accepted calculations differ. Monetary equivalents fluctuate with the price of silver.
The Rebbe’s teachings and guidance: Source links accompany the completion teachings and the guidance inside Dig Deeper and Live It. Quotations, translations, and adaptations are identified; the general guidance is separate from the sources for a panel’s particular discussion.
Editorial responsibility: Created and prepared for this project by Levi Gelb. Corrections and suggestions can be submitted below. This presentation supports learning; practical halachic questions should be brought to a qualified rav.
Chapter 12 at a glance
Marriage obligations, support, and vows
The chapter begins with ten obligations and four rights, then explains support and the limits of conditions and vows.
Marriage creates ten obligations for the husband and grants him four rights across the categories of women listed here.
A wife may forgo her husband’s support and keep her earnings, but he may not unilaterally withdraw support in exchange for relinquishing those earnings.
An agreed condition may generally waive a spouse’s financial rights, but special restrictions protect marital intimacy, the basic entitlement, and the husband’s inheritance.
When a father is present and has sufficient means, the court compels him, under the laws of charity, to support his children after age six until adulthood.
After the initial three-month presumption of advance provision, a wife may obtain support from her absent husband’s property through the court or by selling it herself. An oath is deferred until a later claim or collection of her .
A food restriction imposed through the husband’s vow cannot continue beyond thirty days without divorce and payment of the . When the wife herself takes a vow and he allows it to stand, the permits the marriage to continue; if he chooses to divorce her because of that vow, he must pay her .
פרק יב
End of chapter.
You have reached the end of all twenty-four halachos.