1

Why is there no kesubah payment when the wife dies first. Is it because it does not apply or is it because the husband is the only heir of his wife and he, therefore, inherits all her assets including her kesubah liens. In other words, he was holding the kesubah money for her as a debt and now that the debtor has died he owes it to himself

Morris Sheinwexler
  • 11
  • 1

4 Answers4

3

The kesubah is an agreement made, see here,

“which details the husband's obligations to his wife, showing that marriage is more than a physical-spiritual union; it is a legal and moral commitment. The ketubah states the principal obligations of the groom to provide his wife with food, clothing and affection along with other contractual obligations.”

This site also refers to the kesubah and says

“The ketubah spells out the husband's obligations to the wife during marriage, conditions of inheritance upon his death, and obligations regarding the support of children of the marriage. It also provides for the wife's support in the event of divorce.”

So we see that the kesubah lists the obligations of the husband to the wife. The kesubah is payable on the death of the husband or upon divorce. These obligations cease upon her death. So the kesubah ceases to have force after her death or as you put it “it does not apply”.

Avrohom Yitzchok
  • 47,518
  • 8
  • 47
  • 131
  • Essentially, the ketubah obligates the husband to pay monetary compensation. There are no obligations on the wife. – DanF Jun 20 '17 at 14:55
2

There's a lien created for the kesubah from when they're married which seems to suggest that he's already incurred an obligation albeit not payable until he ends the marriage (either via divorce or death).

It is possibly payment for her besulim (see here) which she holds as a debt until he dissolves the marriage.

According to the foregoing even when she predeceases him he's obligated to pay it but it happens to be that he inherits it back as her yoresh.

Before a husband inherited a wife (if one holds that yerushas habaal is mdrabanan) it would have been payable to her yorshim.

Even nowadays there are ways to opt out of yerushas habaal (Rambam, Ishut 23) with her yorshim inheriting.

This question now takes on real world significance: if one assumes that the husband isn't obligated unless he ends the marriage then he would not be obligated in her kesubah if the marriage ends with her death, whereas if he's obligated in all cases it is just that he inherits her then he would indeed be required to pay the kesubah to her heirs.

Should someone have a source regarding the halacha in this scenario it would speak to the core question as well.

I would just like to clarify with regard to the discussion between Ethan and Meir that there is an explicit disagreement amongst the tannaim (e.g. bavli kesubos 10a) regarding if the kesubah is biblical (a "mohar" payment) or rabbinic with the stated rabbinic reason as Ethan wrote. The fact that a lien is created from nissuin and that the kesubah is payable even when the husband dies would seem to come down on the side of it being biblical and yet the fact is that even those that hold that it is rabbinic agree with those halachos. Bpashtus the question should be dependent on if it is min hatorah or not. What I wrote works much better with kesubah being min hatorah.

Nahum
  • 2,265
  • 2
  • 15
  • 1
    Welcome to MiYodeya Nahum and thanks for this first answer. Great to have you learn with us! – mbloch Dec 15 '23 at 03:41
  • Just by the way, the discussion between Ethan and me has nothing to do with whether the kesubah is biblical or rabbinic; either mamon or knas can be either deoraisa or derabanan. – Meir Dec 21 '23 at 00:36
  • Meir, you are of course correct if you're using those terms in the halachic sense (with say the implications of modeh bknas patur or ein dannin dinei knasos bbavel), it seemed to me that Ethan was using it in the sense of it not being compensatory but rather there to discourage certain behavior. That, to me, turns on if it is deoraisa (compensation for besulim) vs if it is rabbinic and an externally imposed "fine" regardless of how it is defined for halachic purposes. – Nahum Dec 21 '23 at 00:54
2

The gemara contains the concept of כתובת בנין דוכרין, where in the case of the wife dying before the husband, the kesuba payout is to be remitted to the sons of that wife, rather than the man's sons from a different wife.

This wording is not present in modern kesubos, as far as I know (although I seem to recall hearing that Yemenite kesubot do retain that phrase).

Menachem
  • 1,019
  • 5
  • 12
-1

The reason for the payment is to discourage divorcing her without cause (when there is cause he doesn't pay it). It's a fine, actually. There's no reason to fine him when he didn't divorce her.

Ethan Leonard
  • 684
  • 1
  • 8
  • -1. There's no reason to fine him (or his heirs) for dying either, yet the kesubah is payable in that case. – Meir Dec 15 '23 at 00:14
  • @Meir that's not the same payment. It's part of a different right, which is to provide for her sustenance. An example of this is that when he dies, she continues to collect money for her sustenance until she remarries, while sustenance payments don't get paid out to divorced women, because it's not part of the same payment. Should I edit to explain the difference further? – Ethan Leonard Dec 15 '23 at 00:38
  • Nope. Kesubah and mezonos are two different things. When the husband dies, she collects mezonos, then eventually gets paid her kesubah; only if she collects the kesubah first (or at least sues for it in beis din) does she forfeit mezonos from that point onward. – Meir Dec 15 '23 at 16:55
  • @Meir of course they are different things (and as you said correctly just now, after death both payments achieve the same goal, which is why I mentioned it.) And the fact that mezonos is available after death but not after divorce is proof that payment after divorce functions completely differently from after death. Which demonstrates that there can be a rule for when someone pays a kesubah after divorce that can't be applied after death. The OP's question was about divorce, and the rule I mentioned in my answer is in fact true about divorce. Would you like to continue discussing in chat? – Ethan Leonard Dec 15 '23 at 18:50
  • It shows that mezonos, which are a tnai kesubah, function differently. But the kesubah itself does not. It's שלא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה, not that if he is מוציא he's fined. – Meir Dec 15 '23 at 19:33
  • I see. You're confused about the word "fined". Well, you don't have to think about it that way, but realize that if he does divorce her, whether he had a good reason determines if he pays. (The word "fine" in English conveys the message well that he is paying for violation of proper practice. ) – Ethan Leonard Dec 15 '23 at 20:49
  • Before you start claiming that someone is "confused," do yourself a favor and look up the difference between ממון and קנס. The kesubah is the former. – Meir Dec 17 '23 at 20:52