רRambam, Clearly
Aa
Hilchos Ishus · Perek 23Ishus · Ch. 23
18 left0% read18 halachos left

·

Waivers and marriage commitments

Waivers of marital property rights, reimbursement for improvements, commitments, and support promised to a wife’s daughter.

פרק כג18 halachosSaturday, September 19, 2026ח׳ בתשרי תשפ״ז◷ Estimated study time: 70–95 min

אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.

Chapter progress 0 of 18 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
Halachah 10% through
הלכה א

Waiving a Husband’s Marital Property Rights

-

When a woman makes an agreement with her husband that he will relinquish one of the rights a husband acquires through marriage: if he put the agreement in writing while she was still an , before ,

Here, refers to a woman after but before , the second stage that completes the marriage.

it is not necessary to formalize his waiver through a ,

A is a formal legal act used to give binding force to an agreement. At this stage, the couple is already legally connected through , but the husband has not yet acquired the property rights that arise through . He can therefore relinquish those future rights without an additional act of acquisition.

rather, everything he wrote for her is binding.

-

But if he wrote the agreement for her after , it must be formalized through a .

Once has taken place, the husband has already acquired the marital rights in question. Merely declaring that he gives them up is therefore insufficient; a formal legal act is needed to relinquish rights that are already his. This distinction concerns rights that can be relinquished through a formal legal act. Inheritance has a separate limitation: after , the waiver described in 6–7 does not prevent the husband from inheriting her.

Synopsis

After but before , a husband can waive future marital property rights in writing without a . After , relinquishing rights already acquired requires a formal ; inheritance is subject to the separate limitation explained in 6–7.

הלכה ב

What Is Included When a Husband Waives Rights to His Wife’s Property?

If he stipulated with her that he would have no claim or involvement in her property,

A husband ordinarily has three distinct rights relating to his wife’s property: the right to receive its produce, the right to prevent certain sales or gifts, and the right to inherit the property if she dies. Because the wording here is general rather than specific, it is interpreted as relinquishing the least significant of these rights.

-

if she sold the property or gave it away as a gift, her sale is valid and her gift is valid,

His general waiver is therefore understood first as giving up his power to prevent her from disposing of the property.

If she sells the property, his waiver also prevents him from claiming a right to the proceeds she receives from the sale. His remaining right to “produce,” discussed next, applies while the property itself remains in her possession.

but he continues to receive the produce of the property for as long as it remains in her possession.

“Produce” includes the ongoing income or benefit generated by the property. Thus, although he has surrendered his power to invalidate her sale or gift, he has not surrendered his separate right to benefit from the property while she still owns it.

-

But if a was made from him while she was still an , confirming that he would have no claim or involvement in her property, he is considered to have removed himself from the property itself,

Before , no was needed merely to ensure that her future sale or gift would be valid. His decision to perform this additional formal act therefore indicates that he intended a broader waiver than simply surrendering his veto power.

and he no longer has any right to the produce of her property.

-

Even if he challenges the meaning of his and says, “I never intended that this should deprive me of the produce, but only that if she sells the property, her sale should be valid, since a man does not marry a woman without property,”

His argument is that he never intended to surrender the economic benefit of her property entirely; he meant only to give her greater freedom to sell it.

his claim is not accepted.

Rather, he has already removed himself from the property itself.

The formal , performed when it was unnecessary merely to validate her future sale, is treated as evidence that he made the broader waiver.

Synopsis

A general waiver of involvement in the wife’s property allows her to sell or give it away while leaving the husband’s right to its produce intact. If he formalized that waiver with a before , the waiver is broader and removes his right to the produce as well.

🔎Dig DeeperWhat Is Included When a Husband Waives Rights to His Wife’s Property?

What Is Included When a Husband Waives Rights to His Wife’s Property?

The explains why the additional changes the scope of the husband’s waiver. Before , the wife does not need such a merely to preserve the validity of a sale or gift she might make. Since the husband nevertheless chose to strengthen his declaration through a formal act, that additional step is understood as showing that he intended to relinquish a more fundamental interest in the property.

The and understand the underlying passage differently. The , 92:3, records both approaches, while its presentation appears to give greater weight to the ’s interpretation.

Sources: Maggid Mishneh on 23:1; , 92:3.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ג

Waiving Produce but Retaining Income from Its Reinvestment

-

If he stipulated with her that he would not receive the produce of her property, he may not receive that produce.

His wording expressly removes his right to the income generated by the property she presently owns.

Instead, the produce is sold, and land is purchased with the proceeds, and he may receive the produce generated by that new land,

The original produce itself is covered by his waiver. The new property purchased with its proceeds, however, is a separate asset, and its later produce is not included unless he waived that right as well. For example, fruit from her orchard is sold and the proceeds purchase another field. The husband has waived the orchard’s produce, but he retains the right to the produce of the newly purchased field.

because he removed himself only from the produce of these particular properties.

His words are interpreted precisely. He surrendered the first level of produce, not every future benefit that might ultimately develop from it.

Synopsis

When a husband waives only the produce of his wife’s existing property, he cannot take that produce itself, but he may benefit from new property purchased with its proceeds.

🔎Dig DeeperWaiving Produce but Retaining Income from Its Reinvestment

Waiving Produce but Retaining Income from Its Reinvestment

The ’s wording indicates that the first produce is not simply left for the wife to spend as she wishes. It is sold, new property is purchased with the proceeds, and the husband may then receive the produce of that replacement property.

and other authorities disagree. In their view, the wife may use the original produce as she chooses. Only if she herself uses it to purchase new property does the husband become entitled to the income generated by that new asset.

The , 92:4, cites the Rambam’s approach, while the follows Rabbenu Asher.

Sources: and Rama, 92:4.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ד

How Far a Waiver of Future Produce Extends

-

If he stipulated with her that he would not receive the produce of her property, nor the produce that results from that produce,

The second phrase expands the waiver one additional level beyond the original income.

the original produce is taken and used to purchase land, then the produce of that land is taken and used to purchase a second property;

Because he waived both the first produce and the next level generated from it, neither of those may be taken by him personally.

but he may receive the produce of this second property, because these are the produce of the produce of the produce.

In other words, the produce of her original property is the first level. Property purchased with that produce generates the second level, . If those proceeds are again invested in property, the income from that new property is the third level, . His waiver covers only the levels he expressly included.

The same principle continues at every successive level, until he stipulates with her that he will have no right either to the produce or to any successive produce derived from it, forever.

A limited waiver is read literally. To surrender every later generation of benefit, he must make that continuing scope explicit.

Once he does so, he has no right to any produce during her lifetime, but if she dies, he inherits the entire estate.

His right to inherit her property is legally distinct from his right to receive its produce during her lifetime. Waiving all levels of produce therefore does not, by itself, waive inheritance.

Synopsis

A husband’s waiver extends only as far as his wording specifies. Even a waiver of all present and future produce does not automatically remove his separate right to inherit his wife’s estate.

הלכה ה

Waiving the Right to Inherit a Wife’s Estate

-

If he stipulated with her that he would not inherit her, he does not inherit her estate,

This ruling depends on when the condition was made. As the next explains, the husband can waive this future inheritance right after but before ; once has taken place, such a waiver is no longer effective.

but he may still receive the produce of her property during her lifetime.

Inheritance and the right to present income are separate marital rights. Waiving one does not automatically waive the other.

-

Similarly, if he stipulated with her that he would inherit only part of her property, or if he stipulated with her that if she died without children, her property would return to her father’s household, all of these provisions are valid.

The husband may therefore define his future inheritance more narrowly: he may waive it completely, accept only part of the estate, or agree that the property will return to her family under the stated condition.

Synopsis

Before , a husband may give up all or part of his future inheritance rights without surrendering his separate right to the property’s produce during his wife’s lifetime.

הלכה ו

When a Husband May Waive His Future Inheritance Rights

When does the preceding rule apply?

This refers to the previous , which allows a husband to waive all or part of his future right to inherit his wife.

When he made the condition with her before ,

The effective window is after but before . Before there is not yet a legal relationship between them that would give significance to his statement about her property. After , however, there is already a marital bond, while his eventual inheritance right has not yet taken effect.

because an inheritance that is destined to come to a person from someone who is not a member of his family may be made subject to a condition that he will not inherit it, provided the condition is made before the inheritance becomes legally available to him.

At this point, he is not giving up property or an inheritance right that he already possesses. He is declining a future right before it has vested.

-

But if he made the condition with her after , his condition is void, and he inherits her estate, as we have explained.

Once has taken place, his marital right of inheritance has already attached. He can no longer eliminate that right through this type of condition.

Synopsis

A husband may waive his future inheritance right after but before , while that right is still only prospective. Once has taken place, such a condition no longer prevents him from inheriting his wife.

הלכה ז

A Broad Waiver of Rights to the Wife’s Property

If, after , he made a condition with her

Because the marital property rights have already taken effect, this condition must be formalized through a for it to be binding.

that he would have no claim or involvement in her property, and no right to any successive produce derived from it, forever,

This is broader than merely waiving one generation of produce. His words remove his right to the property’s ongoing benefits throughout her lifetime.

-

during her lifetime and after her death—

Even though his condition speaks broadly about her property “during her lifetime and after her death,” it cannot eliminate his inheritance right at this stage. As the previous established, once has taken place, his marital right of inheritance can no longer be waived through such a condition.

he may not receive any produce at all;

His waiver also removes his power to prevent her from disposing of the property.

but if she dies, he inherits her estate, as we have explained.

The waiver can remove his lifetime economic rights in the property, but it does not undo the inheritance right that has already become part of the marriage.

Synopsis

After , a formally binding waiver can remove the husband’s rights to his wife’s property and all of its produce during her lifetime, but it does not eliminate his established right to inherit her estate.

הלכה ח

Expenses on When the Husband Has Already Benefited

If a husband spent money improving his wife’s ,

are assets whose remains the wife’s property while the husband ordinarily has the right to their produce or ongoing benefit. These rules address reimbursement when the husband divorces her; halachah 10 explains the exceptions.

whether he spent a small amount and received a great deal of produce, or spent a large amount and received only a small amount of produce, even if he consumed only a single dried fig in a respectable manner,

“Respectable manner” means that he ate it in the normal manner of enjoying produce from the property, such as at home at his table.

or consumed produce worth one even in a manner that was not considered respectable,

A very small benefit counts when it was enjoyed in the ordinary, established manner. If the benefit was taken in a less regular manner, it must reach the more substantial value of a .

-

and even if, from the property’s produce, he did not take anything corresponding to what he had spent, but took only a bundle of branches—

The bundle must itself be worth at least a . The point is not that his benefit must equal his expenses, but that he received a legally significant benefit from the property.

what he spent remains spent, and what he consumed remains his.

Once he has received the required measure of benefit, there is no later accounting between them merely because his expenses and his benefit were unequal. He does not seek reimbursement for his investment, and she does not demand repayment for the produce he enjoyed.

Synopsis

When a husband invests in his wife’s and then receives a legally significant amount of benefit from them, each side keeps what has already occurred: he is not reimbursed for his expenses, and he does not repay the benefit he received.

הלכה ט

Reimbursement When the Husband Has Not Received Enough Benefit

-

The same principle applies if money came into her possession in a distant place, and he incurred expenses in bringing the money to her, or in recovering it from the person who was holding it, and he purchased land with the money, and received the required measure of produce from that land—

This is the same threshold described in the previous . Once he has received that legally significant amount of benefit, the usual rule applies.

what he spent remains spent, and what he consumed remains his.

He receives no reimbursement for the expenses involved in obtaining and investing her money, but neither must he account for the benefit he already received.

-

If he incurred expenses but received no produce, or he received less than the required amount,

the previous rule no longer applies. Since he has not yet received enough benefit to treat his expenditure as settled, his investment must be evaluated.

we assess how much the property increased in value, and ask him how much he spent.

Two figures therefore matter: the amount he claims to have spent and the actual increase in the property’s value.

-

If the increase in value is greater than the amount he spent, he takes an oath while holding a sacred object as to how much he spent,

This is a formal judicial oath used to substantiate his claim.

and he receives reimbursement for his expenses.

Because the property gained at least as much as he claims to have spent, he can recover the full amount of his proven expenditure.

-

But if his expenses were greater than the increase in value, he receives from his expenses only an amount equal to the increase in value,

He cannot recover more than the benefit his spending actually added to her property.

and this too is collected only with an oath.

For example, if he spent 100 and increased the property’s value by 150, he receives 100. If he spent 150 but increased its value by only 100, he receives 100. The required oath still applies.

Synopsis

If the husband has not yet received the required amount of benefit from property he improved, he may recover his expenses, but never more than the value his work added to the property, and his claim must be supported by an oath.

🔎Dig DeeperReimbursement When the Husband Has Not Received Enough Benefit

Reimbursement When the Husband Has Not Received Enough Benefit

The , 88:7, adds an important qualification when the wife disputes the amount the husband claims to have spent. If she states with certainty that his actual expenditure was lower, her assertion can be accepted if she supports it with an oath.

The discusses this qualification in explaining the rules governing the parties’ competing claims about the amount spent.

Sources: Rama, 88:7; Beit Shmuel 88:17.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה י

Reimbursement in Cases of Rebellion or

When do the preceding rules apply?

When the husband divorces her.

The ordinary rules of the previous assume that the marriage ends through a regular divorce rather than through the wife’s rebellion or refusal described below.

-

But if the wife rebelled against her husband or refused him marital relations,

Here, refers to a wife who rebels against the marital relationship. The word in this first clause describes her refusal of that relationship; it is not the formal procedure of discussed later in this , which applies to certain minor girls whose marriages are rabbinic.

even if he received a great deal of produce, we assess the value of what he received, and deduct that amount from what he would otherwise be entitled to receive for his expenses,

Unlike an ordinary divorce, receiving produce does not automatically cause him to lose his right to reimbursement. Instead, the value of what he consumed is credited against what is owed to him.

According to the ’s , this applies when the increase in the property’s value exceeds his expenses. If his expenses exceeded the increase, he cannot recover more than the amount by which the property actually improved. Other authorities disagree with this limitation.

after he takes an oath, and he collects the remaining amount; because he did not invest in her property with the intention that she should take the benefit of his investment and leave him of her own accord.

This is why the ordinary rule changes. In a regular divorce, the benefit he already enjoyed can settle the matter even though his investment remains in her property. Here, where she brings about the separation in the manner described, his investment is not treated as something he willingly left for her without reimbursement.

-

Similarly, if a husband incurred expenses improving the property of his wife while she was a minor, and she subsequently exercised against him,

is the special right of certain minor girls whose marriages were established rabbinically to reject that marriage while still minors.

we determine how much benefit he received, how much he spent, and how much the property increased in value, and he is compensated like a sharecropper,

A sharecropper receives a customary share in return for working and improving another person’s land. Here, the husband is treated as someone who worked the property with legitimate authorization and is therefore entitled to compensation for his work.

because he entered the property and worked it with permission.

This treatment also protects the property itself. If a husband knew that he would receive nothing for maintaining or improving the land should the minor later exercise , he could be tempted to seek only immediate benefit rather than preserve its long-term value. Compensating him like a sharecropper gives him reason to maintain the property responsibly.

Synopsis

When the marriage ends through the wife’s rebellion or refusal of the marital relationship, the husband’s prior benefit is deducted from the reimbursement due for his investment rather than automatically eliminating his claim. If a minor wife later exercises formal , he is compensated like an authorized sharecropper for his work on her property.

🔎Dig DeeperReimbursement in Cases of Rebellion or

Reimbursement in Cases of Rebellion or

The , 88:10, allows the husband to choose reimbursement of his expenses, up to the increase in the property’s value, instead of compensation as a sharecropper. If he spent little but received substantial benefit, he retains what he received.

Sources: , 88:10.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה יא

How Local Custom Determines the Amount

-

There are many different customs concerning the .

A is property or money that the wife brings into the marriage as part of the financial arrangements between the families.

In some places, the custom is to record in the a amount greater than its actual value, increasing it by a third, a fifth, or one half.

For example, the actual might be worth one hundred, while the states that she brought him one hundred and fifty, in order to present the as more substantial in the eyes of others.

The larger written figure does not necessarily represent the amount she actually contributed. It reflects the accepted local convention for how the is recorded.

When she later comes to collect what is due to her, she collects only the actual one hundred.

Because everyone understands the local convention, the inflated figure is not treated as a promise that she will later collect the larger amount.

In other places, the custom is to record a lower amount than the actual value, so that if she agreed to bring him utensils valued at one hundred, she actually provides goods worth one hundred and twenty or one hundred and fifty, while the records that she brought him only one hundred.

In this type of custom, the written amount is intentionally lower than the value actually contributed. When she later collects her obligation, she collects according to the greater actual value she contributed.

And in some places, the custom is to record the actual value exactly as it is.

In some places, the custom is for the husband to give a sum of money proportionate to the , a fixed amount for the bride to use in adorning herself and purchasing perfumes and similar items.

And in some places, the custom is for the husband to contribute an additional amount of his own for the wife, which is added to her so that she may use it for her adornment.

Synopsis

arrangements can differ significantly from place to place. The written figure may be higher than, lower than, or equal to the actual value, and other customary additions may also be included. The controlling factor is the accepted local practice.

הלכה יב

Local Custom Governs Unspecified Marriage Agreements

When a man marries a woman without specifying particular financial terms, he writes and gives according to the local custom.

Where the couple did not expressly agree otherwise, accepted local practice fills in the terms of their financial arrangements.

Similarly, if she agreed to bring property into the marriage, she provides it according to the local custom.

And when she later comes to collect what is due under her , the amount written in her is collected for her in accordance with the local custom.

This means that the words and numbers in the are understood through the established convention of that place. A stated amount may therefore be interpreted differently in communities that follow different accepted practices.

In all these matters and others like them, the custom of the locale is a major governing principle, and legal decisions are made accordingly.

This applies only when that custom is broadly established throughout the locale.

A private practice or occasional convention does not automatically acquire this legal force. The custom must be sufficiently widespread and recognized that parties entering an agreement can reasonably be understood as acting against that background.

Synopsis

When marriage-related financial terms are left unspecified, established local custom determines what each party must provide and how the is interpreted, provided that the custom is broadly accepted in that locale.

הלכה יג

Marriage Commitments That Become Binding Through Speech Alone

-

When a man and a woman have entered into ,

is the arrangement to marry; it does not itself establish a marriage. creates the legal marriage bond, while completes the marriage.

and he said to her, “How much are you bringing into the marriage for me?”

and she answered, “Such-and-such an amount,”

and she said to him, “How much will you give me?”

or, “How much will you write for me?”

and he answered, “Such-and-such an amount,”

and similarly, when a father makes a financial commitment on behalf of his son or daughter,

and is asked, “How much will you give for your son?” and he answers, “Such-and-such an amount,”

or, “How much will you give for your daughter?” and he answers, “Such-and-such an amount,”

-

and the couple then proceeds with —

those commitments become binding through the words alone,

even though no formal was made between them.

Ordinarily, a financial commitment requires a formal . Here, the closeness and seriousness created by the marriage arrangement cause the parties to make a fully resolved commitment, so their words alone can become binding.

These are the commitments that are acquired through speech alone.

Synopsis

Financial commitments made by the couple, or by a father for his son or daughter, in connection with the marriage can become binding through speech alone when the couple then proceeds to , even without a formal .

🔎Dig DeeperMarriage Commitments That Become Binding Through Speech Alone

Marriage Commitments That Become Binding Through Speech Alone

The explains elsewhere that this special rule has several important limits. First, the person making the commitment must already own what he promises; he cannot transfer an item that does not yet exist.

Second, a commitment that becomes binding through speech does not automatically have the force of a formal deed against people who later purchase the promisor’s property. Even if the commitment is subsequently written down, that alone does not allow collection from purchasers. For that stronger effect, a formal deed of transfer is required.

The explains this distinction: writing down an obligation that originally became binding through speech does not transform it into the type of formal transaction that creates a claim against subsequently transferred property.

Even though the commitment becomes binding through speech, the promised property is not actually acquired immediately. As the Rambam explains elsewhere, the transfer takes effect only when takes place. Halachah 15 below develops this distinction more explicitly.

Sources: 6:17; Maggid Mishneh there.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה יד

Which Family Commitments Become Binding Without a

When does the preceding rule apply?

When a father made the commitment for his daughter, whether she was an adult or a minor, or when a father made the commitment for his son, and the commitment concerned a first marriage;

The special rule allowing the father’s words alone to create a binding commitment applies specifically in this setting.

because a parent feels a particular closeness and commitment toward his child, and because of his great joy at the child’s first marriage, he fully resolves to grant the commitment through his words alone.

The law treats the father’s statement as a settled commitment because the closeness to his child and the joy of the first marriage give his words unusual legal seriousness.

-

But if a brother made a commitment for his sister, or a woman made a commitment for her daughter, or another relative made such a commitment, or a father made a commitment for his son or daughter in connection with a second marriage— those words alone do not create a binding obligation, until a formal is made from the person who promised to give the stated amount.

The exception is therefore narrow. Where the special circumstances identified by the are absent, the commitment follows the ordinary rule and requires a formal act to make it binding.

A person making a commitment for his or her own marriage is different. Such a personal commitment can be binding without a even when it concerns a second marriage.

Synopsis

A father’s verbal commitment for his child is binding without a when it concerns the child’s first marriage. Similar commitments by other relatives, or by a father for a second marriage, require a formal ; a person’s own marriage commitment follows a different rule.

הלכה טו

When the Promised Marriage Gift Is Actually Acquired

When a father made a financial commitment for his daughter, the daughter does not acquire the promised gift until her husband completes with her.

Although the commitment may already be legally binding, actual acquisition of the promised gift is postponed until the marriage reaches .

Similarly, a son does not acquire the gift promised for him until he completes .

For whenever someone makes such a commitment, he makes it only on the understanding that will actually take place.

The promise is therefore tied not merely to or , but to the intended completed marriage.

-

Therefore, if a father promised money to his prospective son-in-law, and the son-in-law died before took place, so that the daughter became subject to the laws of with his brother,

is the institution under which, when a man dies childless leaving a woman to whom he was married through , she becomes subject to the laws of with his surviving brother and may instead be released through .

the father may say to the prospective , “It was your brother whom I wished to give this money to, but I do not wish to give it to you.”

The original promise was made with the first prospective husband in mind. Since the marriage with him was never completed through , the father is not required to transfer the promised gift to the brother merely because the laws of now apply.

This is true even if the first brother was an unlearned man, while the second brother is a scholar, and even if the daughter herself wishes to marry him.

The relative qualities of the two brothers do not determine the father’s obligation. The financial commitment was his, not the daughter’s, and it was made specifically in anticipation of her marriage to the first man.

Synopsis

A marriage-related gift promised by a father is not actually acquired until takes place. If the intended husband dies beforehand, the father is not required to transfer that commitment to the brother who may perform , even if the daughter prefers him or the second brother is more learned.

הלכה טז

When a Commitment Cannot Be Fulfilled

-

If a father promised money to his prospective son-in-law, and the father then went away to another country,

The father made the financial commitment, but he is now unavailable to fulfill it.

the woman may say to her prospective husband, “I did not make this commitment on my own behalf.

What can I do?

Either complete with me without the , or release me with a .”

Because the financial obligation was undertaken by her father rather than by her, the husband cannot leave her indefinitely bound by while refusing to proceed with . He must either marry her without the promised or give her a so that she is free to marry someone else.

-

But if she herself made the financial commitment, and she is unable to obtain the amount she promised, she must remain in this state until she obtains what she committed to provide, or until she dies.

Here the obstacle comes from her own commitment. She therefore cannot compel him to proceed with without receiving what she promised, nor can she require him to release her merely because she cannot presently fulfill that obligation. This does not prevent a voluntary resolution; her inability to fulfill her own commitment does not, by itself, entitle her to compel him to marry or divorce her.

Why can she not free herself from this situation by becoming a ?

A here is an who refuses to proceed with the marital relationship even though her husband wishes to complete .

-

Because when an is a , the husband wishes to proceed with , while she does not wish to do so.

In this case, however, it is the husband who does not wish to proceed with her until she provides the she promised, while she does wish to marry him, as shown by her saying to him, “Either complete with me or release me.”

The legal situation is therefore the reverse of an ordinary case of a . She is not refusing the marriage; she wants him either to complete it or to release her.

When does this rule apply?

When she is an adult.

-

But if a minor made the financial commitment on her own behalf, we compel him to give her a , or to complete with her without a .

A minor is not left indefinitely bound because of a financial commitment she made for herself. The husband must either proceed without the or release her.

Synopsis

If the father, rather than the woman, promised the and cannot fulfill it, the husband must either proceed with without it or give her a . If an adult woman herself made the commitment, she cannot demand release merely because she cannot fulfill it; a minor who made such a commitment is treated more leniently.

🔎Dig DeeperWhen a Commitment Cannot Be Fulfilled

When a Commitment Cannot Be Fulfilled

The , 52:1, records the rule that when the father made the commitment and then failed to provide it, the husband cannot leave the woman indefinitely in the intermediate state of without either marrying or divorcing her.

The adds an important qualification: if the woman herself has the financial ability to satisfy the commitment, she must do so rather than insist that the husband proceed without the promised .

Sources: and Rama, 52:1.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה יז

Supporting a Wife’s Daughter After Marriage

-

If a man marries a woman and she stipulated with him that he would support her daughter for a specified number of years, he is obligated to support her for all the years he accepted upon himself.

Ordinarily, a commitment to provide ongoing support for a period of years would not become binding in this way, because its total financial amount is not fixed. When the obligation is accepted as part of the arrangements, however, it receives the special legal force given to marriage commitments made at that time.

This applies when they made the condition at the time of .

The marriage setting gives this otherwise open-ended commitment binding force.

-

But if the condition was not made at the time of , it is not binding unless a formal is made from him or he records the obligation in a formal document or the equivalent, as will be explained in .

This is a special rule concerning support promised to a wife’s daughter. It does not mean that a makes every obligation of unspecified value binding. The offers several explanations: one places the formal commitment within the continuing marriage arrangements; another distinguishes this undertaking for the wife’s daughter from an ordinary promise to support someone.

-

If the woman was divorced during the years in which he had undertaken to support her daughter, and she married another man, and she stipulated with the second husband that he too would support the daughter for a specified number of years, the first husband may not say, “If she comes to my home, I will support her.”

His obligation is to provide support for the daughter, not merely to offer her food on condition that she live with him.

Rather, he must bring her support to the place where she is living with her mother.

The divorce does not cancel the financial obligation he previously accepted.

Similarly, the two husbands may not say, “We will provide her support together.”

Rather, one of them provides her actual support, and the other gives her the monetary value of that support.

Each husband undertook a separate obligation. They therefore cannot combine the two commitments into a single shared provision of food and thereby reduce what she is entitled to receive.

Synopsis

A husband who undertakes at the time of to support his wife’s daughter for a set period remains bound by that promise even after divorce. If a second husband accepts the same obligation, one must provide her actual support and the other must pay her its monetary value.

🔎Dig DeeperSupporting a Wife’s Daughter After Marriage

Supporting a Wife’s Daughter After Marriage

The special force of this obligation is significant because its total value is not fixed in advance. Ordinarily, such an open-ended undertaking would not become binding in this manner, but a commitment made as part of the arrangements is treated differently.

If the mother later divorces and remarries, the first husband still cannot insist that the daughter come to his home to receive her support. The and , 114:6, discuss whether he must provide the full amount she presently requires or only the amount it would have cost him to support her in his own household. The underlying obligation itself, however, remains in force.

Sources: and Rama, 114:6.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה יח

Collecting Support After Marriage or from Encumbered Property

If the daughter marries during the period in which the support obligations remain in effect, her own husband is obligated to support her, while both of her mother’s husbands must each give her the monetary value of the support they promised.

Her own marriage does not erase the earlier financial commitments made to her. Since her husband now provides her actual support, each of the earlier obligations is fulfilled by paying her its monetary value.

-

If the men who undertook to support her die, if their commitments had been formalized through a , or the obligation was formally undertaken in a written deed, the daughter is treated, with respect to that obligation, like a creditor whose claim is supported by a written deed,

Each obligation is evaluated according to the manner in which that particular man formalized his commitment.

and she may collect the value of her support from property that became encumbered to the obligation, until the end of the period for which they committed themselves.

“Encumbered property” includes property that the obligor later transferred to purchasers. A sufficiently formal obligation can support collection not only from property still held by the debtor or his estate, but also from property that was subsequently transferred, subject to the applicable laws governing such liens.

-

But if the support commitment was made at the time of , and no formal was made, it is an obligation of the type that was not given the legal status of a written deed,

This does not mean that the commitment may not literally be written down. Rather, although the promise is personally binding because of the special legal force of commitments made at , it does not automatically acquire the stronger status of a formal deed that creates collection rights against purchasers.

and she may not collect her support from property that was later transferred to purchasers.

The distinction is therefore between a valid personal obligation and an obligation carrying a lien strong enough to follow property into the hands of later purchasers.

Synopsis

If the daughter marries, her own husband provides her actual support while each earlier obligor pays her the monetary value of his commitment. If an obligation was formalized through a or deed, she may collect it from encumbered property; a commitment binding only because it was made at does not create that stronger right against purchasers.

🔎Dig DeeperCollecting Support After Marriage or from Encumbered Property

Collecting Support After Marriage or from Encumbered Property

This highlights the distinction between an obligation that is personally binding and one that also creates collection rights against property later transferred to others.

The , in discussing the parallel rule in , explains that merely recording a marriage commitment that became binding through speech does not give it the legal force of a formal deed against purchasers. A true formal act of transfer or obligation is required for that additional effect.

Sources: Maggid Mishneh on 6:17.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
Sources & editorial method

Hebrew text: Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Ishus, Chapter 23. The Hebrew is preserved as the primary text and divided into short learning units.

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 23 at a glance

Rights, conditions, and commitments

The chapter explains which rights can be waived and when marriage-related financial commitments become binding.

  • After but before , a husband can waive future marital property rights in writing without a . After , relinquishing rights already acquired requires a formal ; inheritance is subject to the separate limitation explained in 6–7.
  • After , a formally binding waiver can remove the husband’s rights to his wife’s property and all of its produce during her lifetime, but it does not eliminate his established right to inherit her estate.
  • When the marriage ends through the wife’s rebellion or refusal of the marital relationship, the husband’s prior benefit is deducted from the reimbursement due for his investment rather than automatically eliminating his claim. If a minor wife later exercises formal , he is compensated like an authorized sharecropper for his work on her property.
  • Financial commitments made by the couple, or by a father for his son or daughter, in connection with the marriage can become binding through speech alone when the couple then proceeds to , even without a formal .
  • If the daughter marries, her own husband provides her actual support while each earlier obligor pays her the monetary value of his commitment. If an obligation was formalized through a or deed, she may collect it from encumbered property; a commitment binding only because it was made at does not create that stronger right against purchasers.
פרק כג

End of chapter.

You have reached the end of all eighteen halachos.