1. A widow is entitled to receive support from the estate [inherited by her husband's] heirs as long as she remains a widow, unless she collects [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.¹Rashi (Gittin 35a) states that as long as the widow does not contemplate remarriage, she is showing honor to her deceased husband, and therefore our Sages ordained that she should receive her subsistence from his estate. However, by demanding payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, she indicates that she is seeking to remarry. From that time onward, her deceased husband's estate is no longer obligated to support her.

The option whether to continue receiving her subsistence or to demand payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah is hers. The heirs cannot compel her to receive the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and cease giving her support (Ketubot 95b; Maggid Mishneh). From the time she demands payment for her ketubah in court, however, she is no longer entitled to receive her subsistence.²The Beit Shmuel 93:13 explains that if the woman asks for payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, and the heirs refuse to pay her or are unable to do so, she is still entitled to support.

Similarly, if she sold [the rights to] her entire ketubah, gave them as security [for a loan] or made her ketubah an ipotiki for another person - i.e., she told him "Collect your debt from here" - she is not entitled to receive her subsistence from the heirs.³In all these instances, it is considered as if she has already collected the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. [The above applies] whether these exchanges were made in a court of expert judges or outside a court, or whether they were made in her husband's lifetime or after his death.

If, however, she sold [the rights to] only a portion of her ketubah, she is entitled to receive her subsistence.⁴In this instance, however, the heirs have the right to pay her the remainder of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, and thus prevent her from continuing to collect her subsistence from the estate. If this provision were not granted, every widow would collect all the money due her by virtue of her ketubah except for the final p'rutah, and continue to receive support (Rabbenu Asher, quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 93:10.). When a widow becomes consecrated⁵In the present age, this law applies even when the woman has merely become engaged to a new husband (Beit Yosef, Even HaEzer 93, as quoted by the Ramah, Even HaEzer 93:7). [to a new husband], she forfeits [her rights to receive] subsistence [from her deceased husband's estate].⁶Even if she has not collected the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.

2. Just as the woman receives her subsistence from her husband's estate after his death, so, too, is she granted a wardrobe, household utensils and [the right to continue] living in the dwelling she lived in during her husband's lifetime.⁷Nevertheless, the dwelling becomes the property of the heirs, and they are also entitled to live there. The widow is, however, granted a place of dignity in the household (Maggid Mishneh; Ramah, Even HaEzer 94:1). She may continue to make use of the pillows, spreads, servants and maidservants that she made use of during her husband's lifetime.

If the dwelling falls, the heirs are not required to rebuild it.⁸Nor are they required to give her a room in it if they rebuild it themselves. Instead, they may rent her a different dwelling, as stated in the following halachah. [Even] if the widow asked, "Allow me to rebuild it at my own expense," she is not granted this option. Similarly, she may not repair it, nor have the walls sealed [and painted].

She must [continue to] dwell in it in the condition it [was in her husband's passing], or she must leave [and find other accommodations]. Should the heirs sell the dwelling in which a widow is living, their deed is of no consequence.

3. If the dwelling [in which she was living fell] or her husband had been renting a dwelling, [the estate must] provide her with a dwelling appropriate to her social standing. Similarly, her subsistence and the wardrobe given her are granted according to her social standing.

If her husband's social standing exceeded her own, she is granted the above according to his social standing. For a woman's [social standing] ascends according to [her husband's] social standing, but does not descend [according to his]. [This applies] even after his death.

4. [The widow is given her subsistence as a member of] the household at large. What is the intent of [the latter term]? When five people who would each require a kav of food when they eat alone [live] in the same house and eat together [their needs are reduced]. Four kabbim will be sufficient for them. The same applies with regard to other necessary household [supplies].

Therefore, if a widow says: "I will not leave my father's house. Ascertain the amount of support I deserve for my subsistence and give it to me there," the heirs have the right to tell her: "If you desire to dwell with us, you will receive [a full measure of] support. If not, we will give you only your share as a member of the household at large."

If she explains [that she desires not to live with them] because she is young, and they are young [and the situation would be immodest, her claim is accepted]. [The heirs are required] to provide her with support sufficient for her as she lives alone, while she lives in her father's home.

[Any money] remaining from [the funds granted for] the support of a widow or from her wardrobe belongs to the heirs.⁹The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that these funds are granted to the widow, but the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 95:5) follows the Rambam's ruling.

5. [The following laws apply when] a widow becomes sick. If she requires medical treatment that is of an undefined nature, it is considered as support for her subsistence, and the heirs must provide her with it.¹⁰The heirs may, however, fix a price with the physician for the widow's treatment, and then she becomes responsible for the financial burden (Ketubot 52b; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 79:2). If, however, she requires medical treatment of a limited nature, the treatment [should be paid for by deducting it] from [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.

If she is taken captive, the heirs are not required to redeem her. [This applies] even if she is a yevamah [and it is a mitzvah for her late husband's brother to marry her]. [Indeed,] even when she was taken captive during her husband's lifetime [and he was thus obligated to redeem her], if he dies while she is in captivity, there is no obligation to redeem her from his estate. Instead, she must be redeemed from her private funds, or she must collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah and redeem herself.

6. When a widow dies, her late husband's heirs are responsible for her burial. If, however, she had already taken the oath required of a widow [before collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah], her heirs inherit her ketubah, and they are required to bury her, and not her late husband's heirs.¹¹The rationale is, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 4, that the burial of the woman was granted her in return for the husband's right to inherit her ketubah. If her heirs can collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, they are required to bury her. If not, since the money for her ketubah remains within the husband's estate, his heirs are responsible for her burial.

Although this is the Rambam's view, the Ra'avad and Rabbenu Nissim do not accept it. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 89:4) mentions the Rambam's view and states that it was not accepted by the other authorities.

[Her late husband's] heirs are entitled to the income [from the work] of the widow. If the heirs tell the widow, "Take the income you generate in exchange for [receiving] your subsistence," their words are of no substance. If, however, she desires such an arrangement, she is given this prerogative.¹²The same laws apply with regard to her husband during his lifetime, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 4.

7. All the household tasks that a wife performs on behalf of her husband, a widow must perform on behalf of his heirs, with the exception of pouring them drinks, making their beds and washing their face, hands and feet.¹³These tasks are acts of endearment, appropriate only for a wife to her husband.

8. An ownerless article discovered by a widow and the benefit that accrues from the property that the woman brought to her husband's household belong to the woman herself; the heirs [to her husband's estate] have no right to them at all.¹⁴Although a husband is granted these rights (Chapter 12, Halachah 3), his heirs are not. The husband is granted the rights to the objects his wife finds so that strife will not arise between them. That rationale is not considered with regard to his heirs (Ketubot 96a).

With regard to the rights to her property: as mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachah 4, our Sages associated the rights to a woman's property with her redemption from captivity. Since the heirs are not obligated to redeem her, they are not entitled to this privilege.

9. The property that [a woman brought to the household as] her nedunyah may be taken by the woman without her having to take an oath.¹⁵The property that a woman brings to her household belongs to her. Her husband has merely the right to derive benefit from it; he is not the owner. With regard to this property, she is treated like any of the other creditors of the estate, and no oath is required of her. The heirs to her husband's estate have no claim with regard to it, except if the nichsei tzon barzel have increased in value during her husband's lifetime. [In this instance,] the increase belongs to the husband¹⁶Nichsei tzon barzel is property that the husband has had evaluated, and it is the value of the article for which he obligates himself or his estate. Nevertheless, if the property itself exists, it is given to the woman. If the property has increased in value, however, the husband - and therefore his heirs - are entitled to the increase.

The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 96:1) state that this law refers only in an instance where the property that the woman brought to the household - or an article exchanged for it - is still intact. Otherwise, she is required to take an oath before collecting the money paid in lieu of the property. [and is given to his heirs].

[Even] if a widow dies without taking the oath [required of her], her heirs inherit her nedunyah, even if it is nichsei tzon barzel. If, however, it has increased in value, the increase must go to her husband's heirs.

10. When a woman seizes movable property [belonging to her husband's estate, so that she can sell it and use the money] for her subsistence, the property should not be removed from her possession.¹⁷Although the movable property in her husband's estate is not under lien for her subsistence, it is not taken away from her if she takes possession of it. As the Kessef Mishneh emphasizes, the above applies with regard to the Talmudic era. As stated in the following halachah, it is customary at present to consider movable property as under lien to all a husband's obligations.

There are some Rishonim who differ with the Rambam and equate the provisions for the widow's subsistence with the collection of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. (See the following halachah.) The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 93:20) follows the Rambam's view. [This applies regardless of] whether she took possession of the movable property during her husband's lifetime or afterwards. Even if she takes possession of a talent of gold¹⁸I.e., a sum that will last far longer than thirty days - the length of time for which the court sells property to provide her with her subsistence - or perhaps more than the worth of the woman's entire ketubah. [it is not removed from her possession].

Instead, the court documents what she has taken into her possession and defines the amount she should be given for her subsistence. Calculations are made, and she is allowed to derive her subsistence from [the property] in her possession until she dies or until she is no longer entitled to support for her subsistence. [At that time,] the heirs are granted the remainder.

11. Similarly, if she took possession of movable property during her husband's lifetime [to provide] for [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, she may collect [the money due her] from this [property after he dies]. If, however, she took possession of it after her husband's death [to provide] for [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, she may not collect [her due] from it.¹⁹Instead, it must be returned to the heirs.

Tosafot (Ketubot 96a) explains the distinction between a woman's taking possession of movable property to collect for her subsistence and the collection of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah as follows. Our Sages ordained that a woman may collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from property that had belonged to her husband and was sold. Therefore, it is likely that the woman will ultimately receive her due. As such, she is required to return the movable property. With regard to her subsistence, however, no such provision was made. Hence, she is given an alternative, to take possession of movable property.

As explained in the following note, according to the Kessef Mishneh and others this law describes the practices of the Talmudic age and not those of the present era.

12. ²⁰K'nesset HaGedolah explains that, contrary to the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah, Halachah 12 begins here. This is not a continuation of the previous halachah, because there is a difference with regard to the laws governing movable property between the practices of the Talmudic age and those of the present era.The geonim ordained that a woman may collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah and every obligation due her as a stipulation of her ketubah from the movable property [in her husband's estate]. Based on this [provision], a woman may receive her subsistence from [the sale of] movable property [from her husband's estate].

Nevertheless, if her husband left movable property and she did not take possession of it, the heirs take possession of it, and they must provide her with her subsistence. She has no right to prevent them from taking possession, by saying: "Have the movable property held in the court [so that] I can derive my subsistence from it, lest it become depleted,²¹For if the heirs sell it, the woman has no claim to the proceeds of the sale, nor may she expropriate the property from the purchasers. Similarly, if the heirs destroy the movable property, she has no claim against them. From an ethical perspective, however, the heirs are enjoined not to sell this movable property. and I will have no means of support." Even if an explicit stipulation was made [by her husband at the time her ketubah was composed] that she could derive her subsistence from this movable property, she cannot prevent [the heirs] from taking possession of it.²²The Chelkat Mechokek 93:36 states that if a specific clause was included in the ketubah regarding this matter, although the widow cannot nullify the sale she has a right to receive her subsistence from its proceeds. This is the ruling that is universally followed in all courts.

13. If, however, her husband left landed property, she has the right to prevent the heirs from selling it. If they do sell it, however, she does not have the right to expropriate [the property] from the purchasers. A widow and a man's daughters may derive their subsistence only from the property that remains in his estate. [In this regard, they have no claim to property that was sold.]²³The Rashba states that if a clause was added to the ketubah specifically stating that the woman has the right to collect her subsistence from movable property after her husband's death, then she is allowed to expropriate the landed property from the purchasers (Maggid Mishneh; Ramah, Even HaEzer 93:21).

14. If the deceased left many wives, they all have equal rights to receive their subsistence. [This applies] even when he married them one after the other. For the concept of a prior claim does not exist with regard to a claim for support.²⁴Our translation is based on manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed texts substitute "movable property" for "claim for support." Apparently, this version reached the Ra'avad who objects, and states - as is the halachah - that the principle applies with regard to landed property as well.

15. [The following rules apply with regard to] a widow who has an obligation to marry a yavam.²⁵I.e., her husband died childless, and he had a brother who is commanded to marry his widow. During the first three months,²⁶This time period is granted in order to determine whether the woman was made pregnant by her husband before he died. If three months pass without pregnancy becoming noticeable, we can assume that a child was not conceived. she derives her subsistence from her deceased husband's estate.²⁷Until she gives birth or miscarries, she is not entitled to remarry, lest she become bound by the obligation of yibbum. Since it is because of her husband that she may not remarry, his estate is required to provide for her (Rashi, Yevamot 41b). If it can be determined that she is pregnant, or if it was known that she was pregnant when her husband died, she continues to derive her support [from his estate] until she gives birth. If she bears a viable child, she may continue to derive her subsistence throughout her widowhood as other women do.

If after three months have passed, it is [either] not evident that she is pregnant or she miscarries, she is not entitled to support from either her husband's estate or from her yavam. Instead, she must file a suit against her yavam either to marry her or [to free her of her obligation through] chalitzah.

16. If she filed a suit against her yavam either to marry her or [to free her of her obligation through] chalitzah, he appeared in court and then fled or became ill, or if the yavam lives overseas,²⁸The Maggid Mishneh states that the latter two clauses - that the yavam became sick or that he lived overseas - apply also only if the yavam had previously appeared in court. If, however, he has never appeared in court, he is not under any obligation.

The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 160:1) follows the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, who states that the yavam is obligated to support her in the latter instances only when he consented to marry her. If he desired to perform chalitzah, he is under no obligation to her. the woman is entitled to derive her support from the property of the yavam without taking any oath at all.²⁹There is no need for her to take an oath that the yavam had not given her property. For since they have not established a relationship, such suspicions are unfounded (Ketubot 107b).

17. If the yavam she was obligated to marry is a minor,³⁰Who should not perform the mitzvah of yibbum until he attains majority. she is not entitled to receive her support from him until he comes of age and resembles other yevamim.³¹Since he is forbidden to marry her, he is not required to support her. Nor is she entitled to support from her husband's estate. Yevamot 41b says that it is as if she is penalized from heaven.

18. Should a person designate a portion of land to be used for support of his wife after his death, by saying: "This particular place will be for [my wife's] support,"³²The Rambam is referring to statements made by a dying man with regard to the allocation of his property. If these statements are observed by witnesses, they are binding. This practice, referred to as a matnat sh'chiv me'ra (the oral will of a dying man) is described in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 8:2). he has granted her additional rights with regard to her support.

If the income [from this land] is less than the support due her, she is entitled [to collect] the remainder from the other portions of his estate. If the income [from those portions of land] is more than the support due her, she is entitled to the entire amount.

If, however, he told her, "Your support will come from this particular place," and she remained silent,³³I.e., since it is possible that the woman will suffer a loss, she has the right to protest. If, however, she remained silent, we assume that she accepted her husband's decision. her sole source of support is the income from that particular place. [Her husband] has specificied [the source for] her support.

19. There are those who have ruled that when a widow comes to the court to ask for support she should be allotted support without requiring her to take an oath.³⁴The reference is to Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, who ruled this way in a responsum. His opinion is favored also by the Ra'avad, the Ramban, the Rashba and Rabbenu Asher. Ketubot 105a states that the woman should take an oath "at the end and not at the beginning." They explain that this refers to a woman whose husband has died. The woman should take the oath when she comes to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, and not when she comes asking for support. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 93:19) appears to favor this view, and the Ramah states that it should be followed. This ruling should not be followed; they have misunderstood [the situation, erroneously associating it with that of] a woman whose husband left on an overseas journey.³⁵See Chapter 12, Halachah 16.

My teachers³⁶Rav Yosef Migash. ruled that she should not be allotted support until she takes an oath in court.³⁷They interpret Ketubot (loc. cit.) to be referring to a woman whose husband traveled overseas. She should not take an oath at the outset - i.e., when she comes to collect her subsistence - but rather at the end, if her husband comes and requires this of her. See Chapter 12, Halachah 21.

The dissenting authorities refute this interpretation, explaining that it is far more reasonable to require an oath of a woman when her husband is alive than after his death, for after his death it is very likely that the woman will soon take an oath to collect her ketubah. For she is coming to collect from property in the possession of heirs, and anyone who collects property in the possession of heirs may do so only after an oath has been taken. My own conception [also] follows [this approach], and it is proper to rule accordingly.

20. When a woman comes to the court to collect support for her subsistence, an oath is administered to her at the outset. The property is then sold without being publicized, and an allotment is made for her subsistence.³⁸In contrast to the sale of property so that the woman can collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah (Chapter 17, Halachah 13), in this instance the sale need not be publicized. The rationale is that the woman needs the money for her subsistence immediately and should not be required to wait.

Similarly, she is entitled to sell property for her subsistence without involving a court of expert judges; three trustworthy individuals are sufficient, and the sale need not be publicized. Similarly, if she sells property by herself for its appropriate value to provide for her subsistence, the sale is binding.³⁹Rabbenu Chanan'el and the Ramban differ with the Rambam on this point. Although their opinion is also mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 93:25), it appears that the Rambam's opinion is favored. When the heirs come and require her to take an oath, she must take the oath.

21. How much property is sold to provide for her subsistence? Enough to provide for her support for six months,⁴⁰In this manner, a large amount of property is sold. If a smaller amount were sold, the parcel of land would be too small to fetch a proper price. but not for longer than that. The sale is made on the condition that the purchaser give the widow an allotment for food every thirty days.⁴¹I.e., the purchaser gives the widow only enough money to support herself for thirty days at a time. The rationale is that if she remarries or seeks to collect her ketubah, she is no longer entitled to receive support for her subsistence. Since there is the possibility that this will happen at any given time, she is given support for only a limited period of time. In the event that she remarries, the remainder of the money left from the sale is given to the heirs (Rashi, Ketubot 97a). Afterwards, another parcel of property is sold for another six months.

The property should continue to be sold in this manner until all that remains from the estate is [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. She should collect this sum and complete her dealings with the court.⁴²The Maggid Mishneh explains that this is simply proper advice for the woman. For she can sell all the land necessary to provide her with the money due her by virtue of her ketubah at one time, while to collect her subsistence she must sell the land in small parcels. If she chooses, however, she may take the latter alternative.

22. When the court allots a widow support for her subsistence, they do not reckon the money she earns until the heirs come and demand it. [If such a demand is made,] and the woman has earned money, they are entitled to it. If not, they have no further claim against her.

I maintain [however] that if the heirs are below majority, the court should make a reckoning with the widow with regard to [her income].⁴³Since the heirs are orphans, the court is obligated to look after their interests. Therefore, it is obligated to ensure that the woman's earnings are given to them. Just as she is allotted a subsistence, the court declares that her income [should be given to the orphans].

23. When a widow does not manifest possession of her ketubah, she is not granted money for her subsistence. [The rationale is that] perhaps she waived her ketubah [in favor of her husband] or sold it or gave it as security [for a loan].⁴⁴In all these cases, the widow is no longer entitled to receive support from her deceased's husband's estate, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 18.

Even when the heir[s] do not issue such a claim against her, the court makes this claim on their behalf and tells her: "Bring your ketubah, take the required oath and collect [the money for] your subsistence." [This law applies] unless it is not customary [in a particular locale] to compose a document recording the ketubah.⁴⁵In this instance, since the probability is that the woman would not have been given a document recording her ketubah, the fact that she does not have such a document in her possession is not considered detrimental to her position.

24. [The following laws apply when] a woman and her husband traveled overseas, and she returned, claiming [her husband] died. If she desires, she is entitled to receive her subsistence from her husband's estate, as are other widows. If she desires, she may collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.⁴⁶See Chapter 16, Halachah 31.

If she claims, "My husband divorced me," her word is not accepted.⁴⁷See Hilchot Gerushin 12:1. She is, however, entitled to derive her subsistence from his estate until she receives a sum equal to [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. [The rationale is] that if she is still his wife, she is entitled to receive her subsistence [from his holdings]. If he divorced her, she is entitled to receive [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, [provided] she manifests possession of her ketubah. Therefore, she may collect the support for her subsistence until she receives [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. [From this point on,] she has completed her dealings with the court.

25. [The following laws apply when] there is doubt whether a woman was divorced, and her husband died [afterwards]. She is not entitled to receive her subsistence from his estate, for property cannot be expropriated from an heir on the basis of a doubtful claim.⁴⁸Since her status is questionable, she is not entitled to support. For this is granted only to a man's wife and not to his divorcee. During her husband's lifetime, by contrast, she is entitled to her subsistence until she is divorced in a complete and binding manner.⁴⁹Since divorce is dependent on the husband's initiative, as long as a woman's status is in question - and for that reason she may not marry another person - he is required to continue to support her (Rashi, Ketubot 97b).

26. If a poor⁵⁰Ketubot 96a mentions two years and three years, stating that the difference is between a rich widow (who can afford to wait) and a poor one; alternatively, between a brash widow (who is not embarrassed to appear in court) and a modest one (who will hesitate before coming). The Rambam does not mention the second opinion at all (although generally, when the Talmud mentions two opinions, he rules according to the second opinion), nor does the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 93:14). Rabbenu Asher and the Chelkat Mechokek 93:26, however, do mention the latter opinion. widow waits two years before she sues for support - or if a rich widow waits three years - it can be assumed that she has waived her claim to support for the previous years.⁵¹The Rashba maintains that if, however, the woman took property as security, or if she borrowed money to be repaid with the money she will receive for her support, she is still entitled to receive the money retroactively. This opinion is cited by the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (op. cit.). Therefore, she is not granted support for that period. From the time she issues a claim onward, however, she is entitled to support.

If, however, she waited even one day less [before presenting her claim], she is not considered to have waived her claim, and she may collect her support for the previous years.

27. [The following rules apply when] a widow demands support for her subsistence from the heirs, and they claim to have paid her, while she claims that she did not receive payment. Until she remarries, the burden of proof is on the orphans. [If they do not support their claim], the widow is entitled to take a rabbinical oath and collect the money due her.⁵²As long as she has not remarried, the property of her husband's estate is considered under lien to her and in her possession. Hence, she is given this privilege. If she has already remarried, the burden of proof is upon her. [If she does not support her claim,] the heirs are entitled to take a rabbinic oath that they paid her [and are freed of obligation].⁵³For once she remarries, the property is considered to be in the possession of the heirs. Hence, they are given this privilege.

28. The laws governing the extra sum added by the husband to the ketubah are the same as those governing the fundamental requirement of the ketubah. Therefore, if a widow demands payment of this additional amount - or sells it, waives payment of it [in favor of her husband] or gives it as security - together with the fundamental requirement of the ketubah, she is not entitled to support for her subsistence.

If she demanded payment for a portion and left a portion uncollected,⁵⁴The same law applies if the widow demanded payment of the fundamental requirement of the ketubah, but did not demand payment for the additional amount. it is as if she demanded payment for a portion of the fundamental requirement of the ketubah and left a portion uncollected.⁵⁵See Halachah 1.

Whenever a woman sells or waives payment of her ketubah without making any further specification, she is considered to have sold or waived this additional amount together with the fundamental requirement of the ketubah. For the term ketubah is universally used to refer to both these items.