הַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וּפָסְקָה עִמּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּזוּן אֶת בִּתָּהּ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים, חַיָּב לְזוּנָהּ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. נִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וּפָסְקָה עִמּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּזוּן אֶת בִּתָּהּ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים, חַיָּב לְזוּנָהּ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. לֹא יֹאמַר הָרִאשׁוֹן לִכְשֶׁתָּבֹא אֶצְלִי אֲזוּנָהּ, אֶלָּא מוֹלִיךְ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ לִמְקוֹם אִמָּהּ. וְכֵן לֹא יֹאמְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם הֲרֵי אָנוּ זָנִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאֶחָד, אֶלָּא אֶחָד זָנָהּ וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן לָהּ דְּמֵי מְזוֹנוֹת: One who marries a woman, and she stipulated with him that he would sustain her daughter from another man for five years, is obligated to sustain her daughter for five years. If, in the course of those five years they were divorced and the woman was married to another man, and she stipulated with him that he would sustain her daughter for five years, he too is obligated to sustain her for five years. The first husband may not say: When she comes to me, I will sustain her. Rather, he brings her sustenance to her, to the place where her mother lives. And likewise, both of them may not jointly say: We will sustain the girl as one in a partnership. Rather, one sustains her, providing her with food, while the other gives her the monetary value of the sustenance.
נִשֵּׂאת, הַבַּעַל נוֹתֵן לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת וְהֵן נוֹתְנִין לָהּ דְּמֵי מְזוֹנוֹת. מֵתוּ, בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן נִזּוֹנוֹת מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וְהִיא נִזּוֹנֶת מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְבַעֲלַת חוֹב. הַפִּקְחִים הָיוּ כוֹתְבִים, עַל מְנָת שֶׁאָזוּן אֶת בִּתֵּךְ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאַתְּ עִמִּי: If the daughter was married during this period, her husband provides her with the sustenance customarily provided by a husband for his wife, and the two men obligated to sustain her due to agreements with her mother provide her with the monetary value of the sustenance. If the two husbands of the mother died, their daughters are sustained from unsold property, and she, their wife’s daughter, whom they agreed to sustain, is sustained even from liened property that was sold. This is due to the fact that her legal status is like that of a creditor, given that he is contractually obligated to support her. The perspicacious ones would write an explicit stipulation into the agreement: I agree on the condition that I will sustain your daughter for five years only as long as you are with me. Then they would not be obligated to sustain a girl who is not their daughter when they are no longer married to the girl’s mother.
אַלְמָנָה שֶׁאָמְרָה אִי אֶפְשִׁי לָזוּז מִבֵּית בַּעְלִי, אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין יְכוֹלִין לוֹמַר לָהּ לְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ וְאָנוּ זָנִין אוֹתָךְ, אֶלָּא זָנִין אוֹתָהּ בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ מָדוֹר לְפִי כְבוֹדָהּ. אָמְרָה אִי אֶפְשִׁי לָזוּז מִבֵּית אַבָּא, יְכוֹלִים הַיּוֹרְשִׁים לוֹמַר לָהּ, אִם אַתְּ אֶצְלֵנוּ יֶשׁ לִיךְ מְזוֹנוֹת, וְאִם אֵין אַתְּ אֶצְלֵנוּ אֵין לִיךְ מְזוֹנוֹת. אִם הָיְתָה טוֹעֶנֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא יַלְדָּה וְהֵן יְלָדִים, זָנִין אוֹתָהּ וְהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ: In the case of a widow who said: I do not want to move from my husband’s house, but instead I wish to remain there, the heirs are not able to say to her: Go to your father’s house and we will sustain you. Rather, they sustain her in her husband’s house and they give her living quarters befitting her dignity. However, if she said: I do not want to move from my father’s house, and you should bring me my support there, the heirs are able to say to her: If you are living with us, you will have sustenance from us, but if you are not living with us, you will not have sustenance from us. If she argued that she does not wish to live in her deceased husband’s house because she is young, and they, the heirs, are also young, and it is improper for them to be living in the same house together, then they sustain her and she stays in her father’s house.
כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְבֵית אָבִיהָ, גּוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ לְעוֹלָם. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ, גּוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה טוֹבָה כְנֶגֶד כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ, גּוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ לְעוֹלָם. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, גּוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. מֵתָה, יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ מַזְכִּירִין כְּתֻבָּתָהּ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים: As long as a widow is living in the house of her father and is being supported by her husband’s heirs, she may always collect payment of her marriage contract, even after many years. As long as she is living in the house of her husband, she may collect payment of her marriage contract until twenty-five years later, at which point she may no longer collect the payment. This is because there is enough time in twenty-five years for her to do favors and give to others, thereby spending the resources of the orphans, until what she has spent equals the value of her marriage contract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said it in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And the Rabbis say the opposite: As long as she is residing in the house of her husband she may always collect payment of her marriage contract, since during this time the heirs are caring for her and she is therefore embarrassed to sue them for payment of her marriage contract. However, as long as she is in the house of her father she may collect payment of her marriage contract until twenty-five years later, and if by then she has not sued for it, it is assumed that she has waived her rights to it. If she died, her heirs mention her marriage contract up until twenty-five years later.