סוגיה 24- תנאי כתובה: תקנת האלמנות

בעולם העתיק לא התאפשר לנשים לפרנס את עצמן, והן נתמכו או על-ידי בני משפחתן (האב והאחים) או, כשנישאו, על-ידי הבעל. יש לזכור כי על-פי המשפט העברי נשים אינן יורשות, ולכן עם מותו של הבעל למעשה לא הייתה לאישה כל דרך להתפרנס. תקנת האלמנות באה לפתור את המצב הזה: הבעל מתחייב בכתובה כי עם מותו תמשיך אלמנתו לשבת בביתו ולהיות ניזונה מנכסיו.

משנה כתובות ד׳:י״ב

אַתְּ תְּהֵא יָתְבָא בְּבֵיתִי וּמִתְּזָנָא מִנִּכְסַי

[את תהיי יושבת בביתי וניזונה מנכסיי, כל ימי משך אלמנותך בביתי]

כָּל יְמֵי מִגַּד אַלְמְנוּתִיךְ בְּבֵיתִי,

חַיָּב- שֶׁהוּא תְנַאי בֵּית דִּין.

כָּךְ הָיוּ אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם כּוֹתְבִין.

אַנְשֵׁי גָלִיל הָיוּ כוֹתְבִין כְּאַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלָיִם.

אַנְשֵׁי יְהוּדָה הָיוּ כוֹתְבִין, עַד שֶׁיִּרְצוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁים לִתֵּן לִיךְ כְּתֻבְּתִיךְ.

לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָצוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין, נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ וּפוֹטְרִין אוֹתָהּ:

Mishnah Ketubot 4:12

(12) [If he did not write in her ketubah], "You shall live in my house, and be fed out of my property, as long as you remain a widow in my house," he is, [nonetheless], obligated is [nevertheless] in force, as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court. [The above] is what the men of Jerusalem would write [in their ketubot]. The men of the Galilee would write like the men of Jerusalem. [however,] the men of Judea would write "[You shall live in my house, and be fed out of my property] until the heirs want to give you [the amount of] your ketubah." Therefore, if the heirs want, they [may] give her [the amount of] her ketubah, and dismiss her.

עיון ודיון:
1. אנשי ירושלים והגליל נהגו לכתוב: "את תהא יתבא בביתי ומתזנא מנכסי כל ימי מיגד
אלמנותיך בביתי".
באיזו שפה נכתב תנאי זה? מדוע דווקא בשפה זאת?
הסבירו בלשונכם את כוונת הדברים.
2. מהו "תנאי בית דין"? הסבירו!
3. מה נהגו לכתוב אנשי יהודה?
במה התנאי שכתבו שונה מזה של אנשי ירושלים והגליל?
3. איזה משני הנוסחים מיטיב יותר עם האלמנה? נמקו!

אבן העזר צ״ג:ג׳

אלמנה ניזונית מנכסי יורשין כל זמן אלמנותה

אפילו אם לא נכתב בכתובה

ואפילו אם צוה בשעת מיתה אל תיזון אלמנותי מנכסי אין שומעין לו

ואין היורשים יכולין לפרוע לה כתובתה ולסלקה מהמזונות

אלא היא ניזונית על כרחם כל זמן שלא תתבע כתובתה אלא אם כן התנו כן בפירוש שלא תזון אלמנתו מנכסיו או שהיה מנהג המקום כן

Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 93:3

(3) A widow is provided food from the property of the inheritors the entire time of her widowhood, even if it wasn't written in her marriage contract, and even if he commanded at the time of death, "Don't provide food from my property for my widow," we don't listen to him. And the inheritors are able to pay off to her the marriage contract and remove her from the food, but she is provided food against their will as long as she doesn't claim her marriage contract, unless they explicitly stipulated that his widow will not be provided food from his property, or the custom in the place is such. Rama: And the [Jewish] Court is able to decree in their place that the orphans can remove her when they want (Beit Yosef and Riva"sh Siman 107).

http://www.victoriana.com/VictorianPeriod/images/victorianclothing-4.JPG

פותחים סוגרים

חוקי אשור התיכונה, סעיף 46
אם אשה אשר בעלה מת, אינה רוצה את הבית לעזוב עם מותו של בעלה, ואם בעלה לא כתב לה מאומה,
היא בבית בניה באשר תבחר תגור. בני בעלה יכלכלוה.
הם אתה חוזה יכתבו, על אוכלה ומשקהה, ככלה אשר אהבו...

חוקי אשור התיכונה - חוקים עתיקים של האימפריה האשורית (באיזור עיראק), שנכתבו בערך במאות ה- 14- 10 לפני הספירה.

פותחים סוגרים

תקנת הבנים:
בנוסף להתחייבויות הישירות כלפי האישה, מציינת המשנה שני "תנאי בית דין" המתייחסים להבטחת עתידם הכלכלי של בניה או בנותיה.
לפי הדין העברי, הבעל יורש את אשתו לפני כל שאר היורשים. אם לאחר מכן מת גם הבעל, יורשים ילדיו (מכל נשותיו) את רכושו, הכולל גם אותו חלק שירש הבעל מאשתו. (ילדיה של אישה אחת יירשו את רכוש האישה האחרת של אביהם). התוצאה הייתה אפוא, שהרכוש שהביאה האישה עמה מבית אביה בשעת נישואיה לא ניתן לילדיה בלבד, אלא עבר למשפחה אחרת (על ידי שחולק גם לילדי האב מאשה אחרת). כדי לתקן את המצב וכדי להבטיח שרכוש האישה יישאר במשפחתה, הותקנה תקנת "כתובת בנין דכרין" (בנים זכרים).

משנה כתובות ד׳:י׳

לֹא כָתַב לָהּ, "בְּנִין דִּכְרִין דְּיֶהֱווֹן לִיכִי מִנַּאי אִנּוּן יִרְתוּן כְּסַף כְּתֻבְּתִיךְ יָתֵר עַל חוּלְקֵיהוֹן דְּעִם אֲחוּהוֹן"

חַיָּב- שֶׁהוּא תְנַאי בֵּית דִּין:

Mishnah Ketubot 4:10

(10) If he did not write [in her ketubah], "The male children that you will have with me shall inherit the amount of your ketubah over and above their equal shares [of inheritance] with their brethren," he is, [nonetheless], obligated [in that condition], as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court.

כתובות נ״ב ב:ט׳-י״ב

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי:

מפני מה התקינו כתובת בנין דכרין?

כדי שיקפוץ אדם ויכתוב לבתו כבנו.

ומי איכא מידי, דרחמנא אמר ברא – לירות, ברתא - לא תירות,

ואתו רבנן ומתקני דתירות ברתא?

הא נמי דאורייתא הוא,

דכתיב: "קְחוּ נָשִׁים וְהוֹלִידוּ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת וּקְחוּ לִבְנֵיכֶם נָשִׁים וְאֶת בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם תְּנוּ לַאֲנָשִׁים" (ירמיהו כ"ט 6).

בשלמא בנים - בידיה קיימי, אלא בנתיה מי קיימן בידיה?

הא קא משמע לן: דנלבשה, וניכסה, וניתיב לה מידי,

כי היכי דקפצי עלה ואתו נסבי לה.

ועד כמה?

אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו: עד לעישור נכסי.

Ketubot 52b:9-12

One does not redeem captives at more than their value. This policy is for the betterment of the world, because if captives are ransomed at exorbitant prices, this will encourage their captors to kidnap more people. The Gemara notes: This implies that if the captors seek a ransom in accordance with their actual value one does redeem captives, even though this includes a case where a woman’s redemption is more than her marriage contract. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita, which states: If she was taken captive and the captors were seeking from her husband a ransom of up to ten times the value of her marriage contract, on the first occasion he must redeem her. From this point forward, if he wants to he redeems her, but if he does not want to redeem her, he does not have to redeem her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the price of her ransom was equal to her marriage contract he redeems her. If not, i.e., the price of her ransom was greater than the sum of money guaranteed to her in her marriage contract upon divorce or the death of her husband, he does not have to redeem her. He can suffice with paying her marriage contract. The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is of the opinion that there are two leniencies with regard to the halakhot of redemption. First, he maintains that one does not pay more than the general ransom given for such a captive, and second, a husband does not have to pay more than the sum of his wife’s marriage contract. § The mishna taught (51a) that if a woman was struck with illness, her husband is obligated to heal her, i.e., to pay for her medical expenses. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a widow who is sustained from the property of the orphans and who requires medical treatment, her medical needs are like her sustenance, and the orphans must bear the costs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: With regard to treatment that has a fixed cost, she is healed from her marriage contract, i.e., the amount is subtracted from her marriage contract. If it is a treatment that does not have a fixed cost, it is considered like sustenance. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Sages established that in Eretz Yisrael, bloodletting is considered like a treatment that does not have a fixed cost, and therefore the heirs must pay for that treatment. The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yoḥanan had to take care of the wife of their father, who required treatment every day, and therefore her medical expenses were high. They came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask him what to do. He said to them: Go and fix a lump sum with the doctor for his services. The treatment would then be considered as having a fixed cost, which is deducted from the marriage contract. Later Rabbi Yoḥanan said in regret: We have made ourselves like legal advisors, who help people with their legal claims. The Gemara asks: At the outset, what did he hold and ultimately, what did he hold? The Gemara explains: At the outset he held that one should act in accordance with the verse “and that you do not hide yourself from your own flesh” (Isaiah 58:7), which indicates that one must help his relatives. And ultimately he held that an important person is different. If a man of stature offers assistance to his family in a manner that causes a loss to another individual, it appears as though he were unfairly favoring his relatives. MISHNA: If the husband did not write for her in her marriage contract: Any male children you will have from me will inherit the money of your marriage contract in addition to their portion of the inheritance that they receive together with their brothers, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court and therefore takes effect even if it is not explicitly stated. Likewise, if he omitted from the marriage contract the sentence: Any female children you will have from me will sit in my house and be sustained from my property until they are taken by men, i.e., until they are married, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it too is a stipulation of the court. Similarly, if he omitted from the marriage contract the clause: You will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days you live as a widow in my house, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court. The mishna comments: The residents of Jerusalem would write in this manner, that a widow may remain in her husband’s house throughout her widowhood, and the residents of the Galilee would write in this manner as well, like the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In contrast, the residents of Judea would write: Until the heirs want to give you your marriage contract. Consequently, if the heirs wish, they may give her marriage contract to her and release her, and she must find her own living arrangements and provide for herself. GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: For what reason did the Sages enact the marriage document concerning male children? It was enacted so that a man will be willing to take the initiative and write an agreement to give his daughter a dowry as large as the portion of his possessions that his son will receive as an inheritance. The marriage document concerning male children ensures that even if one’s daughter dies and her husband inherits her possessions, the dowry will eventually be inherited by her sons when her husband dies. Since the father of the bride knows that his grandchildren will inherit the dowry, he will give a larger dowry. The Gemara asks: And is there anything that justifies a situation where the Merciful One says that the son inherits and the daughter does not inherit, and yet the Sages came and enacted that the daughter should inherit? The practical effect of their decree is that daughters receive a significant portion of their father’s estate, just like sons. The Gemara answers: This also applies by Torah law, as it is written: “Take wives for yourselves and bear sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands” (Jeremiah 29:6). This verse requires clarification. Granted, sons are in his hands, i.e., a father can select wives for them, but daughters, are they in his power that he can select husbands for them? It is not the manner of a woman or her family to court a man. Rather, the verse teaches us this, that the father should dress her and cover her and give her something, i.e., property, so that men will take the initiative with her and come to marry her. When the verse instructs fathers to marry off their daughters, it means that they must make efforts to ensure this outcome, including bestowing a dowry. The Gemara asks: And up to how much must a father give his daughters? Abaye and Rava both say: Up to one-tenth of one’s property should be handed over to his daughter for her dowry. The Gemara asks: But if this is the reason for the institution of the marriage document concerning male children, say that it is only the portion the bride’s father gave as a dowry that her sons should inherit, but the money the husband guarantees to pay his wife, they should not inherit. The Gemara answers: If so, the bride’s father will also refrain from writing a large dowry. If his daughter’s sons will not inherit the husband’s portion of the marriage contract, her father will be reluctant to give generously himself. The Gemara continues to ask: But if the concern is that the father will not give, say that in a case where the father wrote a large dowry for his daughter, let the husband also write the stipulation in the marriage document concerning male children, and when the father did not write a large dowry, let the husband not write this stipulation. The Gemara replies: The Sages did not distinguish between these cases. Although the main purpose of their enactment was to encourage fathers to provide their daughters with generous dowries, the Sages applied their decree equally to all women, even when the father failed to do so. The Gemara poses another question: If the aim is to ensure that the money of the marriage contract will remain with the woman’s descendants, in a case when one has a daughter from one woman among his sons from another woman, the daughter should likewise inherit her mother’s dowry. Why do only male children inherit their mother’s dowry? The Gemara responds: The Sages established this enactment as similar to the halakha of inheritance: Just as a regular inheritance belongs to sons and not daughters, the same applies to the marriage document concerning male children. The Gemara continues to inquire: Why shouldn’t one at least say that a daughter among daughters should inherit? If he had a daughter from this wife, and his other children are also daughters, in which case all the daughters divide the inheritance, the daughters of each wife should receive the portion her maternal grandfather gave to her mother. The Gemara again answers: The Sages did not distinguish between these cases when establishing their decree. The Gemara further asks: And let the marriage document concerning male children be collected even from movable property, if that is all the father possesses. The Gemara replies: The Sages established this enactment as similar to a regular marriage contract, which can be collected only from land. The Gemara poses yet another question: Let it be collected even from liened property, i.e., property the father sold after he wrote the marriage contract. The Gemara answers that we learned in the mishna: Will inherit, and one’s heirs do not inherit property that he has sold. The Gemara asks: But if this is the reason for this enactment, say that it should apply even though there is no more than a dinar beyond the value of the marriage contract that the father left over in his estate. The Sages stated that if no property is left for the inheritance, all the sons share the inheritance equally, in accordance with Torah law. The Gemara answers: In a case where their decree would entirely uproot the halakha of inheritance by Torah law, the Sages did not enact the marriage document concerning male children. The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, having arranged for his son to marry into the family of Abba of Sura, went to supervise the writing of the bride’s marriage contract. Yehuda bar Mareimar heard that Rav Pappa was coming, and came out to present himself before him, in honor of his arrival. When they came to the entrance of Abba of Sura’s house, Yehuda bar Mareimar took his leave of him, as he did not wish to enter. Rav Pappa said to him: Let the Master enter inside with me.

תשובות הגאונים, שערי צדק, חלק ד' שער ד' סימן י"ז
... ודבר זה שצוינו וכתבו לך בזמן שהיינו מגבין כתובת בנין דכרין. אבל היום כמה שנים שבטלה כתובת בנין דכרין מישיבתנו, ואין אנו דנין בה. ...
ולמה בטלה כתובת בנין דכרין? לפי שצריכין לדקדק בה בכמה פנים ...
וצריך הדבר לחקירת בית דין ושומת הזקנים בקיאים בשום כדי שלא להוסיף על הדמים; (החשבון מסובך)
ועוד, עיקר התקנה לא היתה אלא כדי שיקפץ אדם ויתן לבתו כבנו, והיום ולואי שיתן אדם לבנו כבתו!
שרוב בני אדם מניחין את בניהם בלא מחיה ומתקנין את בנותיהם.
וכמה פעמים הוצרך הדבר לנדות כל מי שירבה במתנת בתו ובנדוניא יתר מדאי. וכיון שראו חכמים כן - בטלו כתובת בנין דכרין. ועשו תקנה לבת על מה שפסקו חכמים שנותנין לה עישור נכסים.
והיום כמה שנים שאין ישיבתנו דנה בכתובת דכרין.

תשובות הגאונים - קבצי תשובות של ראשי ישובות בבל בתקופה שלאחר חתימת התלמוד (מאות 6-10) .

תקנת "בנין דכרין" הייתה בתוקף עוד מאות שנים אחרי חתימת התלמוד, אבל המשמעות המעשית שלה הלכה ופחתה, עד שהיא בוטלה לחלוטין.

פותחים סוגרים

תקנת הבנות: לפי האמור בפרשת הנחלות שבתורה (במדבר י"ז 8 + במשנה, בבא בתרא פ"ב מ"ב), במקום שיש בן אין הבת יורשת. במקרה שהאב מת -ובעיקר אם היו לו ילדים משתי נשים- עלול להיווצר מצב שבו האחים שזכו בירושה לא ירצו לזון ולפרנס את אחיותיהם. כדי לדאוג לקיומה של הבת במות האב, התקינו חכמים תקנה מיוחדת זו:

משנה כתובות ד׳:י״א

בְּנָן נֻקְבִין דְּיֶהֶוְיָן לִיכִי מִנַּאי, יֶהֶוְיָן יָתְבָן בְּבֵיתִי וּמִתְּזָנָן מִנִּכְסַי עַד דְּתִנַּסְּבָן לְגֻבְרִין,

חַיָּב- שֶׁהוּא תְנַאי בֵּית דִּין.

Mishnah Ketubot 4:11

(11) If he did not write [in her ketubah], "The female children that you will have with me shall live in my house, and be fed out of my property, until they are betrothed by men," he is, [nonetheless] obligated, as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court.

אבן העזר קי״ב:א׳

מתנאי כתובה שתהיינה הבנות נזונות מנכסי אביהם אחר מותו עד שיתארסו או עד שיבגרו:

הגה אפילו לא נכתב בכתובה או אפילו אין לה כתובה

Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 112:1

(1) Among the [automatic] conditions of the ketuba is that daughters shall be fed from the estate of the father after his death, until they are engaged (with kiddushin) or until they reach the age of majority. Note: [This rule holds] even if it was not explicitly written in the ketuba, or even if there is no ketuba, as in a place where ketubot are not written (Tur). Some say that even in a place where ketubot are written and they do not have the ketuba document, and even if the mother explicitly relinquished her financial rights in the ketuba, the daughters still receive food (Ra"avad to Hilchot Ishut Chapter 19). Similarly, if the mother was divorced, even so the father is required to feed the daughters.

https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/04/02/23/04/philippines-2197093_960_720.jpg

יאיר טיקטין