the woman who married earlier has priority in collecting her .
The case assumes that the earlier marriage also has the earlier-dated . Where chronological priority applies, that earlier obligation establishes the first claim against the property. The women therefore collect in that order, rather than automatically dividing the estate equally.
,.
None of them may collect without taking an oath.
The oath confirms that she has not already received payment that would reduce or eliminate her claim. This protects the other women: an overstated claim by a woman with priority could consume property needed to pay those who follow her.
,,
A later wife receives only what the woman preceding her has left,
.
and she too takes an oath and collects the remainder.
Priority can determine whether a claim is paid at all. An earlier wife collects her entitlement first, even if this leaves a later wife with only partial payment or nothing. Even the last woman in the order of collection must take the required oath.
Even the last wife’s collection can affect an earlier wife. Land collected by an earlier wife might later prove to belong to someone else and be reclaimed by its rightful owner. The earlier wife would then seek payment from the property collected by the last wife. The last wife must therefore also swear that her claim remains unpaid.
:
Similarly, if he owed a debt recorded in a document:
,;
if the debt preceded the , the creditor collects first;
,,.
but if the preceded the debt, the woman collects first, and the remainder is available to the creditor.
The same ordering applies when a marriage obligation competes with a documented loan. Where chronological priority applies, an earlier takes precedence over a later loan, just as an earlier loan takes precedence over a later .
Synopsis
Where chronological priority applies, earlier and loan claims are paid before later ones. Each wife must take an oath before collecting, including the last wife.
🔎Dig DeeperPriority Among Wives and Other Creditors
Priority Among Wives and Other Creditors
In his , the distinguishes the oath protecting the other wives from the ordinary oath required when collecting from heirs. Even when the ordinary oath is not required, a wife collecting ahead of another must still confirm that she has not already received payment.
The distinction concerns whose financial interests are at risk. Exemption from an oath protecting the heirs does not, by itself, remove the protection owed to another wife whose collection depends on what remains.
When he already owned the land from which they seek payment at the time of the marriages and when he borrowed;
.
for the law gives precedence to the holder of the earlier document.
◇A helpful concept
A , or lien, makes property answerable for an obligation. It does not immediately transfer ownership to the creditor. Here, because the husband already owned the land when the obligations arose, the earlier obligation established its claim against that land first.
,
But if he married women successively,
,
and borrowed either before or after the marriages,
-
and purchased land after marrying and borrowing—
,
they all participate together in its division,
,
because all their liens took effect simultaneously,
,.
since, when he acquired it, it became subject to all their claims, and no rule of chronological priority applies here.
The obligations arose at different times, but their claims against this particular land began together. An earlier document therefore does not give its holder an earlier lien on land acquired only after all the obligations already existed.
The debts already existed before he purchased this land. What begins simultaneously is their attachment to this particular property, not the underlying obligations themselves.
This removes priority based on dates. It does not remove the separate preference given to a lender over a claim when the property is insufficient, as 4–5 explain. The method of dividing insufficient property among wives of equal priority is detailed in Halachah 8.
Synopsis
Earlier documents establish priority against land already owned when the obligations arose. When the land was acquired only afterward, the liens attach together, so their different dates confer no priority.
Equal Document Dates and Possession of Movable Property
,
Similarly, if all the and debt documents bear the same date,
-
or the same hour in a place where documents record the hour—
,.
they participate together in the division, because none has an earlier claim.
Priority follows the level of time recorded in the documents. Where only the day is recorded, documents bearing that same date establish no chronological preference among themselves. Where the hour is also recorded, the comparison includes the hour.
As in the preceding , this addresses priority based on time; other rules governing competing claims still apply.
-
Whenever someone first takes possession of movable property up to the amount of the debt or owed to them—
,
it is not taken away from that person,
.
because chronological priority does not apply to movable property.
Movable property means assets other than land, such as money, goods, and household objects. Under the rule stated here, an earlier document does not entitle another claimant to recover such property from someone who has already taken it toward a valid debt.
The distinction is between an earlier obligation and earlier possession. The date of the obligation gives no priority in these assets, but possession already obtained is upheld, up to the amount owed. This ruling protects possession already obtained toward a valid claim. It does not establish the order in which the court distributes assets that have not yet been collected.
Synopsis
Documents bearing the same legally relevant date or hour establish no chronological priority. For movable property, an earlier claim ordinarily does not displace someone who has already taken possession toward an amount owed.
🔎Dig DeeperEqual Document Dates and Possession of Movable Property
Equal Document Dates and Possession of Movable Property
The and qualify the rule concerning movable property when those assets were made subject to a lien together with land through .
is a legal mechanism through which movable property is acquired together with land. In the arrangement discussed here, the movable property is bound as security together with the land, giving the earlier lien significance for those assets as well.
Ordinarily, movable property lacks the public notice associated with a lien on land. The special arrangement links the movable assets to the land, allowing the order in which the liens arose to become significant for them as well.
The cites the that, in this situation, a later wife’s taking possession does not defeat an earlier claim: the property may be recovered from her. Thus, the ordinary protection of prior possession depends on the absence of this special lien arrangement.
Sources: Tur, 102; and Rema, 102:2, citing the Mordechai.
If a man divorced his wife and owed a debt recorded in a document,
,
and the creditor and the woman came to collect,
-
and he had money and land sufficient to cover the debt and the —
,
the creditor receives the money,
.
and the woman collects her from the land.
Both claims can be satisfied; the question is which assets each claimant receives. The lender is given money because money is what he advanced. The woman collects from land, on which she relied as security for her .
,
But if he has only land, insufficient to pay them both,
-
and neither claim has chronological priority against it—
.
the land is assigned to the creditor.
The absence of chronological priority is essential. The lender’s preference here does not overturn an earlier lien of the kind described in Halachah 1. It governs a case where dates do not give either claimant precedence, such as land purchased after both obligations arose.
,,
If anything remains for the woman, she receives it;
,;
otherwise, her claim gives way to the creditor’s;
,
for the creditor has incurred a loss by parting with his money,
-
whereas the woman has not parted with anything—
The comparison concerns the origin of the two financial obligations. The loan represents money the lender actually advanced. The payment is a marriage obligation, rather than repayment of money the wife lent her husband.
Her own property brought into the marriage is a separate matter. Halachah 7 explains that, when the husband owes her the guaranteed value of that property, she has the standing of an ordinary creditor.
,.
for a woman desires marriage more than a man desires to marry.
The Sages’ assessment of a woman’s desire for marriage underlies this limitation on collecting the : the marriage obligation can provide its intended protection even with less favorable collection terms than a loan. Where neither claim has an earlier lien and the assets cannot satisfy both, the lender receives preference because he actually advanced money.
Synopsis
When money and land suffice for both claims, the lender receives money and the divorced wife receives land. If only insufficient land is available and neither claim has chronological priority, the lender collects first.
Similarly, if a man died leaving a wife and a creditor,
-
and land against which neither claim has chronological priority—
,
the woman’s claim gives way to the creditor’s,
.
and he collects his entire debt first.
The lender’s preference applies to collection from the deceased husband’s estate just as it applies after divorce. If the land cannot satisfy both obligations, the creditor is paid first, and the widow collects her from whatever remains.
Here too, the ruling assumes that her claim has no earlier lien giving it priority. The husband’s death does not cancel an existing chronological preference.
Synopsis
When neither claim has chronological priority, a creditor collects from the deceased husband’s land before the widow receives her .
Since the enacted that a woman and a creditor may collect from movable property,
◇A helpful concept
The were the leading rabbinic authorities of the period following the completion of the . Their enactment, discussed in Chapter 16, permits collection of these obligations from movable assets left by the deceased, expanding collection beyond landed property.
-
and it is established that chronological priority does not apply to movable property—
,
if he did not leave enough movable assets to pay both of them,
.
the creditor is paid his entire debt first.
An earlier does not ordinarily give the widow priority in movable assets. When those assets are insufficient, the lender receives the preference explained in Halachah 4: his claim represents money he actually advanced.
This concerns assets awaiting distribution. Halachah 3 separately addresses property already taken in payment and the special case of movable assets bound together with land through .
,-
If anything remains for the woman to collect toward her , she receives it—
.
otherwise, her claim gives way.
The enactment makes additional kinds of property available for collection; it does not place the ahead of a lender’s claim. The widow receives what remains after the creditor is paid, even if that provides only partial payment or nothing.
Synopsis
When movable assets awaiting distribution cannot satisfy both a loan and a , the creditor is paid first, and the widow receives only what remains.
The Wife’s Claim Has the Standing of an Ordinary Debt
,
If her document recorded ,
◇A helpful concept
are assets the wife brought into the marriage whose assessed value the husband undertook to repay. He bears the loss if their value decreases and receives the gain if it increases. His obligation is for the accepted value, as explained in Chapter 16.
Although recorded in the document, this obligation is distinct from the basic payment and the husband’s additional marriage undertaking.
-
and she claims that they were lost or that her husband took them—
,
her claim for her has the same standing as the claims of other creditors,
Here, she seeks repayment for property she actually contributed. The reason for preferring a lender over an ordinary claim therefore does not apply: she too parted with something of value. The fact that her claim appears in a marriage document does not reduce its standing.
The loss of the original assets does not cancel the husband’s undertaking to repay their assessed value. Her present claim is for that outstanding monetary obligation.
,
and she swears that she did not take them, give them away, or waive her claim,
.
and shares with the creditors.
Her oath confirms that she has not already recovered the assets or otherwise relinquished the entitlement she now asserts. After taking it, she participates in collection under the rules governing ordinary debts, rather than being deferred merely because she is the deceased’s wife.
Synopsis
A wife’s claim for the guaranteed value of property she contributed to the marriage has the standing of an ordinary debt. After the required oath, she shares with the other creditors.
Dividing Insufficient Assets Among Wives of Equal Priority
,,
If a man died or divorced his wives, and he had several wives,
,-
and none has priority, while his assets cannot cover all their —
?
how do they divide the assets?
The women have equal standing in collection, but the amounts owed to them may differ. The division must therefore give them equal participation without allowing anyone to receive more than her claim.
:,
We assess the following: if dividing the money by the number of women
-
would give the woman with the smallest claim no more than the amount of her —
.
they divide it equally.
The comparison is between each woman’s proposed share and the smallest , not between the entire estate and that smallest obligation. If even the smallest claim can absorb an equal share, every woman receives the same amount.
-
But if there is more money than this—
,,
they divide enough of it to give the woman with the smallest claim the full amount of her ,
,.
and then divide the remainder among the remaining women by the same method.
They receive equal amounts in stages. Once a woman has received everything owed to her, she no longer participates. The others continue dividing equally, subject to the unpaid balance of each one’s claim.
?,
For example: a man was married to four women,
,,
the first woman’s was four hundred, and the second’s three hundred,
,,,
the third’s two hundred, and the fourth’s one hundred, making one thousand in all,
:
and he divorced all of them or died:
The amounts are in , the monetary unit used here. “First,” “second,” and so forth identify the women in the example; the case assumes that none has collection priority over another.
,;
if he left four hundred or less, all of them divide it equally;
.
and each receives one hundred or less.
-
If he left eight hundred—
,
dividing it equally among all four would give the fourth woman two hundred,
.
although her is only one hundred.
?
How, then, is it done?
,
Four hundred is taken and divided equally among them, one hundred to each,
,.
so the fourth woman has received her full and withdraws from the division.
,
Four hundred now remains,
.
with three women, each of whom already holds one hundred.
The remaining unpaid claims are now three hundred, two hundred, and one hundred. The next division must account for what each woman has already received.
,
If the four hundred were divided equally among these three,
the third woman would receive a total of two hundred thirty-three and one-third,
.
although her is only two hundred.
,
Therefore, three hundred is taken from the remaining four hundred,
,
and divided equally among the three,
,.
so the third woman has received her two hundred and withdraws from the division.
,.
One hundred and two women now remain.
.
The hundred is divided equally between the first and second women.
,.
The first woman thus holds two hundred fifty, and the second holds the same amount.
,.
The third holds two hundred, and the fourth one hundred.
The eight hundred is distributed as follows:
Woman
Amount owed
First division
Second division
Final division
Total received
First
400
100
100
50
250
Second
300
100
100
50
250
Third
200
100
100
—
200
Fourth
100
100
—
—
100
,.
This method of division is always followed, even if there are one hundred women.
Synopsis
Wives of equal priority divide insufficient assets equally in stages. Each stops participating once her claim is fully paid, and the remaining women continue dividing what remains.
🔎Dig DeeperDividing Insufficient Assets Among Wives of Equal Priority
Dividing Insufficient Assets Among Wives of Equal Priority
The favors a different method: dividing the available money in proportion to the amounts owed. Under that approach, a larger debt receives a correspondingly larger share.
The instead gives each claimant an equal share while her claim remains unpaid. For an estate of four hundred and claims totaling one thousand, proportional division would produce shares of 160, 120, 80, and 40. Under the Rambam’s method, each woman receives 100.
The disagreement therefore concerns how equal standing in collection translates into a share of insufficient assets: equal amounts subject to each claim’s limit, or amounts proportionate to the size of the claims.
When a Guarantee Creates an Enforceable Obligation
,
One who guarantees a woman’s ,
-
even if his undertaking was confirmed through a —
,
is not obligated to pay,
◇A helpful concept
An is a guarantor who undertakes to answer for another person’s obligation if that person does not pay. A is a formal legal act used to establish an acquisition or confirm an undertaking. For a guarantor other than the husband’s father, even that formal act does not make the ordinary guarantee described here enforceable. The following clauses distinguish the father’s guarantee and a ’s direct undertaking.
,.
because he acted to facilitate a , and she did not part with anything.
His assurance is understood as encouragement for the couple to marry, rather than a firm intention to assume financial liability. The woman did not advance money in reliance on his guarantee. In this particular setting, even a does not establish the seriousness normally associated with a binding guarantee.
,-
But if he guarantees his son’s , and his undertaking was confirmed through a —
,
he is obligated to pay,
.
because, for his son’s sake, a father binds himself and makes the undertaking with full resolve.
The father’s personal commitment to his son changes how his promise is understood. Together with the required , it establishes a genuine financial undertaking, rather than encouragement alone.
,
A for a is obligated to pay,
.
even without a confirming his undertaking.
?
Who is considered a ?
״,״.
Someone who tells the woman, “Marry this man, and I will provide this payment.”
A assumes a direct payment obligation. His declaration presents him as the person who will provide the payment, rather than merely as someone standing behind the husband’s obligation. This stronger undertaking allows the claimant to seek payment from the directly.
״״,
But if he tells her, “I guarantee this ,”
״״,-
“I will pay this ,” or similar language—
,.
he is exempt, unless he is the husband’s father.
These expressions are classified here as an ordinary guarantee, despite how strong they may sound in English. They do not create the direct undertaking expressed by “Marry this man, and I will provide this payment.”
The exception for the father retains the condition stated above: under the ’s ruling, his ordinary guarantee requires a .
-,
A man who divorces his wife must prohibit himself by a vow from benefiting from her,
;
and only afterward may she collect her from the , or from his father if he was the guarantor;
The explains the vow as prohibiting the husband from benefiting from his former wife ( 10, 74).
The specifies that the vow is made —on the authority of the public—to prevent ordinary release from it ( 102:7). This gives the safeguard practical force.
,
lest he remarry her,
.
and they thereby collude against that person’s property.
Without this safeguard, the couple could arrange a divorce so that she collects from the person responsible for the guarantee, then remarry and enjoy the proceeds together. The vow prevents them from using remarriage to accomplish that scheme.
The vow creates a prohibition against his benefiting from her; it does not invalidate the divorce or itself determine whether a later marriage takes effect. Its purpose is to prevent the couple from divorcing, collecting from the guarantor, and then resuming married life together.
Synopsis
An ordinary guarantee is generally unenforceable. A father’s guarantee confirmed by a , and a ’s direct undertaking even without one, are binding. Collection after divorce requires a vow guarding against collusion.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen a Guarantee Creates an Enforceable Obligation
When a Guarantee Creates an Enforceable Obligation
The distinguishes a guarantee of the ordinary from a guarantee of the wife’s , the property she contributes to the marriage. When she parts with property in reliance on the guarantee, the reason for exempting an ordinary guarantor no longer applies. Such a guarantee can therefore be binding under the rules governing ordinary guarantees.
A separate disagreement concerns the father’s guarantee. The requires a , while the and the hold that the father can be bound even without that formal act. The follows the Rambam’s requirement, and the cites the opposing position.
Similarly, if a man his property and divorced his wife—
,
he must prohibit himself by a vow from benefiting from her,
;
and afterward she may collect from the person who redeemed the property from ;
◇A helpful concept
This case concerns property already subject to her lien before the husband it.
The wife does not collect directly from the property while it belongs to . After redemption, she may enforce her existing lien against it in the redeemer’s possession. The person redeeming it must be informed that it remains subject to her claim.
.
lest they collude against .
The concern resembles the preceding case. The couple might use divorce to make the payable, recover the property through her claim after redemption, and then remarry so that the husband again benefits from it. The vow blocks that planned return to enjoyment of the property.
,-
But when a man divorces his wife and she seeks to recover property from purchasers—
,
he is not required to impose that prohibition by a vow;
.
rather, she takes an oath and recovers the property.
This concerns property the husband sold while it was subject to her lien. As explained in Chapter 16, she turns to purchasers when sufficient property available directly from the husband is lacking. Her oath confirms that the obligation remains unpaid; it is distinct from the husband’s vow discussed above.
,,
If she wishes, she may remarry her husband,
,
because the purchasers already knew that he was obligated by his wife’s ,
.
and brought the loss upon themselves by purchasing property subject to her lien.
The purchasers accepted property already exposed to her claim. The law therefore does not add the special vow required to protect a guarantor or . Once she has satisfied the collection requirements, the possibility of remarriage does not prevent her from recovering the property.
Synopsis
Collection from property redeemed from requires a vow guarding against collusion. Collection from ordinary purchasers requires her oath but no such vow, because they purchased property already subject to her lien.
When a Wife’s Consent Releases Her Claim Against Sold Property
,
If a husband sold his property,
,,
and afterward his wife wrote to the purchaser, “I have no claim or dispute with you,”
,-
and consented to her husband’s action, even if her consent was confirmed through a —
,
she may nevertheless recover the property,
The property was subject to her lien when her husband sold it. Her later consent does not necessarily establish that she freely surrendered her right to collect from it.
The sale itself remains valid until she becomes entitled to enforce her claim under the collection rules discussed earlier. She is not presently canceling the sale merely because the property secures her .
,
because she wrote to the purchaser only to avoid a quarrel with her husband,
״״.
and she may say, “I acted to please my husband.”
Once he had made the sale, she could feel pressured to support it. Her consent can therefore be understood as an effort to preserve peace between them, rather than a genuine decision to release the purchaser from her lien. Even the formal does not, by itself, eliminate that explanation.
The distinguishes a case in which she received money from the purchaser for her agreement: that commitment is binding. This qualification concerns an agreement supported by payment, rather than consent alone.
,
But if a was first made with the woman,
,
establishing that she has no lien on this property,
-
and only afterward her husband sold it—
.
she may not recover it.
The order matters. She released her claim before the husband sold the property, rather than merely approving a transaction he had already completed. She therefore cannot undo that release by saying she acted only to please him.
She has surrendered her right to recover this particular property from the purchaser. She has not thereby canceled the husband’s underlying obligation or her right to collect from other property available under the usual rules.
,,
Similarly, if the husband sold property and asked his wife to write to the purchaser, “I have no claim or dispute with you,”
,
but she did not write it and did not consent to his action,
,
and the sale fell through,
The first transaction did not proceed because she refused to release her claim. Her refusal shows that she was willing to oppose her husband’s wishes when she wanted to preserve her rights.
Her refusal does not automatically invalidate every sale made without her consent. The case here specifies that this particular transaction fell through when she refused to release her lien.
,
and the husband then sold to another person,
,
whether the same field or a different field,
,
and after this sale she consented to his action,
-
and a confirmed that she had no lien on this field—
,
she cannot recover it,
״״,
because she cannot say, “I acted to please my husband,”
.
for on the first occasion, when she did not wish to agree, she did not comply with her husband’s wishes.
Although her second agreement also followed the husband’s sale, her earlier refusal changes how it is understood. She had already demonstrated that she would withhold consent when she wanted to do so. Her later release is therefore treated as a genuine agreement.
Synopsis
A wife’s consent after her husband’s sale may be attributed to a desire to please him and need not release her lien. A release confirmed before the sale, or after an earlier refusal caused another sale to fail, prevents her from recovering the property.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen a Wife’s Consent Releases Her Claim Against Sold Property
When a Wife’s Consent Releases Her Claim Against Sold Property
The questions why the specifies that the first sale fell through. The and record the rule without including that condition.
The , drawing on the Rambam’s , understands the phrase as deliberate: according to the Rambam, the first sale must actually have failed for her later consent to become binding in the manner described here.
The practical distinction is whether her earlier refusal alone suffices, or whether it must also have caused the first transaction to fail. This is why the phrase “and the sale fell through” should not be omitted from the explanation of the Rambam’s ruling.
Sources: Maggid Mishneh and Maaseh Rokeach, 17:11; Rambam, ,10:5; Tur and , 90:17.
A Cycle of Claims Between Two Wives and a Purchaser
,,
If a man had two wives and sold his field,
,
and a was made with the first wife releasing her lien on this field,
,
so that she cannot recover it from the purchaser,
,
and this was an effective , against which she cannot claim, “I acted to please my husband,”
The first wife has the earlier claim. Her agreement with the purchaser was binding under the rules of the preceding . However, the agreement protects this purchaser; it does not surrender her priority against the second wife.
The case assumes that the conditions for collecting from sold property have been met, including the absence of sufficient property available directly from the husband or his estate.
,-
and afterward the husband died or divorced both wives—
,
the second wife recovers the field from the purchaser,
,
because she made no releasing her claim against him,
The second wife never gave up her right to collect from the field. The first wife’s agreement cannot remove the second wife’s independent lien.
,
and the first wife recovers it from the second,
;
because her claim came first, and she removed her lien only as against the purchaser;
Once the second wife holds the field, the first wife can assert her earlier claim against her. The second wife cannot invoke an agreement that was made for the purchaser’s protection.
,
and when the field returns to the first wife,
,
the purchaser in turn recovers it from her,
:
because she made a binding in his favor.
The first wife’s priority defeats the second wife’s claim, but it does not defeat her own binding agreement with the purchaser. He can therefore recover the field once it is in her possession.
,.
The claims continue in a cycle until they reach a compromise.
Each party has a valid claim against one of the others:
Claimant
May recover from
Reason
Second wife
Purchaser
She never released her lien
First wife
Second wife
Her claim has earlier priority
Purchaser
First wife
She entered a binding agreement protecting him
A compromise breaks this cycle by settling or limiting the competing rights. The explains that an agreement between two of the three parties can suffice if it removes one of the claims that keeps the cycle going; all three need not necessarily join one settlement.
Synopsis
When an earlier wife releases her claim only against a purchaser, competing rights can form a cycle: the second wife recovers from the purchaser, the first from the second, and the purchaser from the first. A compromise is needed to end the cycle.
is the first, legally binding stage of marriage, established through . completes the marriage. The ruling includes a woman whose husband died after either stage, when she has a entitlement to collect.
,
takes an oath and sells some of her husband’s land,
,
and receives payment of her ,
,.
whether through a court of expert judges or without such a court.
,.
This requires that the three men be trustworthy and knowledgeable in appraising land.
The widow may use a simpler procedure than a formal judicial sale. Three trustworthy men who understand land values can supervise the valuation, even though they are not expert judges.
The Sages provided this accommodation to spare her the hardship and embarrassment of formal court proceedings. They understood that her husband would have wanted her to collect without that distress. This accommodation does not continue after she remarries; she must then use the ordinary judicial procedure.
.
The heirs’ estate bears responsibility for the sale.
If a creditor of the deceased later lawfully recovers the land from the purchaser, the purchaser’s claim for reimbursement is against the inherited estate. The widow does not become personally responsible merely because she conducted the sale.
,.
A divorced woman, however, may sell only through a court of expert judges.
The special accommodation rests on the deceased husband’s presumed concern for his widow. The same presumption is not applied to an ex-husband when a simpler procedure could compromise his interests. The divorcee therefore follows the formal court process.
,.
Whenever a woman sells through the court, the sale must be preceded by a public announcement.
,.
The procedure for a court sale will be explained in the Laws of Lending.
The announcement publicizes the intended sale so that prospective purchasers can come forward. The referenced rules provide for announcements over a prescribed period, rather than allowing the court to dispose of the land immediately without that process.
-,
But a woman selling without a formal court does not require a public announcement,
.
even though the three men are trustworthy and knowledgeable in valuation.
The presence of three qualified appraisers does not turn the widow’s simpler procedure into a formal court sale. Their participation remains necessary, but the court’s announcement requirement does not apply.
Synopsis
A widow may collect her by selling land with three trustworthy, knowledgeable appraisers, without a formal court or public announcement. A divorcee must use an expert court, and a formal court sale requires an announcement.
A Widow’s Private Sale and Her Attempt to Take the Land Herself
,-
If a widow privately sold land toward payment of her —
,;
if she sold it for its proper value, her sale stands;
This concerns a sale made on her own, without even the three appraisers required by the preceding . It describes the validity of a sale already completed, rather than permission to bypass the prescribed procedure from the outset.
.
and she takes the widow’s oath after the sale.
The sale does not remove the requirement to confirm that her remains due. Although the proper sequence is to take the oath before collecting, the omission can be addressed afterward in this case.
The additionally requires her to swear that she did not sell the property for less than its value. This is distinct from the widow’s oath confirming that her remains unpaid ( 103:4).
,;
This applies when she sold to another person;
-,
but if she appraised the land and took it for herself, her act has no effect,
.
even if she publicly announced it.
Authority to sell the land to someone else does not, by itself, authorize her to transfer it to herself at her own valuation. Publicizing the proposed transaction does not cure that defect. Her claim is against the estate; it does not automatically make her owner of whichever field she selects.
Synopsis
A widow’s completed private sale to another person stands if made at the proper value, subject to her taking the required oath. Her own appraisal and appropriation of the land do not transfer ownership to her.
🔎Dig DeeperA Widow’s Private Sale and Her Attempt to Take the Land Herself
A Widow’s Private Sale and Her Attempt to Take the Land Herself
The and the understand the ’s objection to concern the widow’s taking the property through her own appraisal. If three trustworthy men knowledgeable in land values appraise it, they understand that she may take the land toward her claim.
Other authorities require the appraisal and transfer to be conducted through a proper court. The practical disagreement is whether the three qualified appraisers sufficient for a widow’s sale can also authorize her to receive the land herself.
Selling Above or Below Value and Exceeding the Widow’s Authority
,
If her was two hundred,
and she sold property worth one hundred for two hundred,
-
or property worth two hundred for one hundred—
,
her is considered paid, and she has no further claim,
The two cases reach the same result for different reasons.
When she sells property worth one hundred for two hundred, she has received the full amount owed. She cannot treat the extra hundred as her personal profit and demand another hundred from the estate. In making the sale, she acts on behalf of the heirs, so the gain belongs to the estate and is applied toward her payment.
When she sells property worth two hundred for only one hundred, she must bear the loss. She disposed of estate property worth her entire , so she cannot require the heirs to make up the shortfall caused by her sale.
.
provided that she takes the widow’s oath.
The calculation of what she has collected does not replace the oath establishing that she was entitled to collect the obligation.
,
If her was one hundred,
-
and she sold property worth one hundred and a for one hundred—
,
her sale is void,
The amounts here are expressed in ; a is one additional unit in this calculation. She has therefore sold property worth 101 to satisfy a claim of only 100.
This differs from the preceding case, where the property’s value did not exceed the amount owed to her. Here, she disposed of an additional portion of the heirs’ property beyond what her claim authorized her to sell.
״״-
Even if she says, “I will return the to the heirs”—
.
her sale remains void.
Her willingness to reimburse the difference does not supply the authority she lacked when making the sale. The defect is not merely a financial shortfall that she can repair; she sold property beyond the scope of her right to collect.
Synopsis
A widow must apply a sale’s gain toward her and bear a loss caused by selling below value. If she sells property worth more than her claim authorizes, the sale is void even if she offers to reimburse the excess.
A Defective Final Sale Does Not Invalidate Earlier Sales
,
If her was four hundred ,
,
and she sold to one person for a , to another for a , and to a third for a , each sale at the property’s proper value,
A is one hundred . The three sales therefore provided three hundred toward her claim of four hundred. Each sale disposed of property at its full value and remained within the amount she was entitled to collect.
–
and to the final purchaser she sold property worth one hundred and a for one hundred—
,.
the final purchaser’s sale is void, while all the others stand.
After the first three sales, only one hundred remained due. By selling property worth 101 in the last transaction, she exceeded the authority arising from her remaining claim, as explained in Halachah 15.
That defect belongs to the final sale. It does not undo the three earlier transactions, each of which was properly made within her authority.
Synopsis
When separate sales properly satisfy part of a widow’s , a later sale exceeding her remaining claim is void without invalidating the earlier sales.
A woman may sell her right to collect her or give it as a gift.
She transfers the financial claim, not the marriage itself. The purchaser or recipient acquires the right to receive payment if the obligation becomes collectible, subject to the same limitations that govern her entitlement.
This does not defeat the purpose of the . The husband still faces the financial obligation upon divorce, even though payment would go to someone other than his wife.
-
If the husband dies or divorces her—
;
the purchaser or recipient may come and collect;
The transfer does not make the obligation payable earlier. The husband’s death or the divorce brings it due, and the person who acquired the claim may then collect.
The wife must still take any oath required of her for collection. Transferring the claim does not allow the purchaser or recipient to bypass that requirement.
,
but if she dies during her husband’s lifetime,
-
or before taking the required oath—
.
the purchaser or recipient receives nothing.
The first case concerns a wife who dies before her husband: the event that would have entitled her to the payment never occurred.
The second concerns a widow who survives her husband but dies before taking the oath required to collect. As explained in Chapter 16, that outstanding oath prevents the claim from being collected after her death. Someone who acquired her claim has no greater right than she could pass on.
Synopsis
A woman may transfer her claim by sale or gift, but collection remains subject to its original conditions. The recipient receives nothing if she dies before her husband or, after being widowed, before taking the required oath.
Selling or giving away part of the claim transfers that portion to someone else. Pledging it makes that portion security for her own debt. None of these actions, by itself, disposes of the portion she retained.
,
she may sell some of her husband’s land and collect the remainder,
.
either through a court of expert judges or through three trustworthy men.
This continues the rules governing a widow’s collection. Transferring or pledging part of her claim does not deprive her of the simpler procedure available for collecting the portion that remains hers.
The distinction established in Halachah 13 still applies: a divorcee must use an expert court.
,
She may sell toward her even through numerous separate transactions,
.
whether through the court or through three trustworthy men knowledgeable in appraising land.
She need not collect the entire outstanding amount through one sale. She may sell in stages, using the permitted procedure each time. Each transaction must remain within the unpaid balance of her claim, as the preceding illustrate.
Synopsis
A widow who transfers or pledges part of her may still use the permitted collection procedure for the portion she retains. She may collect through several separate sales rather than one transaction.
Selling a and Waiving It Have Different Consequences
,-
A woman who sells her claim, whether to others or to her husband—
.
does not thereby lose the other conditions of the .
The financial payment and the other obligations accompanying marriage are distinct rights. Selling the payment claim does not, by itself, amount to relinquishing all the other protections established through the .
The next clause gives a specific example of a condition that survives the sale.
,
If she has a son,
he inherits from his father’s estate an amount corresponding to this sold , in addition to his ordinary share,
.
in accordance with the rules of this condition.
◇A helpful concept
It applies when the mother dies before the father and the other requirements of the condition are met. Those requirements are discussed in Chapter 19. Here, the point is that her sale of the does not, by itself, cancel this benefit for her son.
,
But a woman who waives her in favor of her husband
,
loses all the conditions of her ,
,.
and she has no claim against him even for maintenance.
A sale exchanges the payment claim for consideration. A waiver relinquishes the claim without that exchange. The gives the waiver broader consequences: it removes the accompanying conditions as well.
The extent of the maintenance consequence is discussed below. Separately, as noted in Chapter 10, a husband whose wife waived her must provide her with a new ; the waiver is not a way to continue married life indefinitely without the required obligation.
-
Waiving her requires neither a nor —
,,
just as other waivers require neither nor a ,
.
but take effect through words alone.
A is a formal legal act used to establish an acquisition or undertaking. A waiver releases an existing claim and does not require that additional act.
The absence of does not prevent a genuine waiver from taking effect. It can, however, create a question of proof if the parties later dispute whether she waived the claim. The validity of the act and the ability to establish that it occurred are separate matters.
,,
This applies when her words are such that they can reasonably be relied upon,
,
rather than words of joking, mockery, or astonishment,
.
and are spoken with settled intent.
Words alone suffice only when they express an actual decision to relinquish the claim. A joke or an incredulous response is not transformed into a binding waiver merely because it contains language that, taken out of context, could sound like agreement.
Synopsis
Selling a does not itself surrender its other conditions, while waiving it carries broader consequences. A waiver requires no or , but it must express a serious and deliberate intention to relinquish the claim.
🔎Dig DeeperSelling a and Waiving It Have Different Consequences
Selling a and Waiving It Have Different Consequences
The ’s wording indicates that the loss of maintenance applies even during the husband’s lifetime, while they remain married. The records this position.
, the , and the distinguish maintenance during marriage from the rights lost through waiver of the . They maintain that the husband remains obligated to support her during his lifetime. The appears to favor this distinction.
The disagreement therefore affects an immediate obligation within an ongoing marriage, not only what the wife may receive after the husband’s death. The translation above preserves the Rambam’s ruling; this discussion identifies the qualification advanced by Rashi, the Ramban, and the Rashba.
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 17 at a glance
Collecting the
The chapter sets out priority between claims, the limits of guarantees, and how a wife may collect, transfer, or waive her .
Where chronological priority applies, earlier and loan claims are paid before later ones. Each wife must take an oath before collecting, including the last wife.
Wives of equal priority divide insufficient assets equally in stages. Each stops participating once her claim is fully paid, and the remaining women continue dividing what remains.
An ordinary guarantee is generally unenforceable. A father’s guarantee confirmed by a , and a ’s direct undertaking even without one, are binding. Collection after divorce requires a vow guarding against collusion.
A widow may collect her by selling land with three trustworthy, knowledgeable appraisers, without a formal court or public announcement. A divorcee must use an expert court, and a formal court sale requires an announcement.
Selling a does not itself surrender its other conditions, while waiving it carries broader consequences. A waiver requires no or , but it must express a serious and deliberate intention to relinquish the claim.
פרק יז
End of chapter.
You have reached the end of all nineteen halachos.