מְצִיאַת הָאִשָּׁה וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, לְבַעְלָהּ. וִירֻשָּׁתָהּ, הוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. בָּשְׁתָּהּ וּפְגָמָהּ, שֶׁלָּהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר, בִּזְמַן שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר, לָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים, וְלוֹ אֶחָד. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי, לוֹ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים, וְלָהּ אֶחָד. שֶׁלּוֹ, יִנָּתֵן מִיָּד. וְשֶׁלָּהּ, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת: A lost object found by a wife and the wife’s earnings belong to her husband. And with regard to her inheritance, the husband enjoys the profits of this property in her lifetime. If she is humiliated or injured, the perpetrator is liable to pay compensation for her humiliation and her degradation, as relevant. This payment belongs to her. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: When it is an injury that is in a concealed part of the woman’s body, she receives two parts, i.e., two-thirds, of the payment for humiliation and degradation, and the husband receives one part, i.e., one-third, as the injury affects him as well. And when it is an injury that is in an exposed part of her body, he receives two parts, as he suffers public humiliation due to her condition, and she receives one part. His payment should be given to him immediately. And with her portion, land should be purchased with it, and he enjoys the profits of that property.
הַפּוֹסֵק מָעוֹת לַחֲתָנוֹ, וּמֵת חֲתָנוֹ, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, יָכוֹל הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר, לְאָחִיךָ הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן, וּלְךָ אִי אֶפְשִׁי לִתֵּן: In the case of one who pledges to set aside a sum of money for his son-in-law as part of a dowry, and his son-in-law dies before receiving the money, the terms of the dowry do not transfer to the brother, who is now the yavam of the widow. The Sages said: The father-in-law can say to the yavam: To your brother, I wanted to give this money, but to you I do not want to give it.
פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ אֶלֶף דִּינָר, הוּא פוֹסֵק כְּנֶגְדָּן חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר מָנֶה. וּכְנֶגֶד הַשּׁוּם, הוּא פוֹסֵק פָּחוֹת חֹמֶשׁ. שׁוּם בְּמָנֶה וְשָׁוֶה מָנֶה, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה. שׁוּם בְּמָנֶה, הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד סֶלַע וְדִינָר. וּבְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת. מַה שֶּׁחָתָן פּוֹסֵק, הוּא פוֹסֵק פָּחוֹת חֹמֶשׁ: The mishna addresses another matter. If the woman had pledged to bring in for him one thousand dinars in cash as a dowry, he then pledges, in the marriage contract, that he will give her fifteen hundred dinars against them. That is, he writes in the marriage document that in the event of divorce or his death, he will pay her that greater amount. And against the appraisal of goods such as utensils and other movable items that are included in the dowry, he pledges one-fifth less than the amount of the evaluation. This is because movable property is generally assessed at a value one-fifth higher than the actual value, and he cannot earn any money from these items. If the appraisal is set at one hundred dinars and the property is actually worth one hundred dinars, then since the appraisal is conducted at market value he has a claim to property worth only one hundred dinars. Likewise, he may not record a decreased sum of property. His recorded appraisal of the movable property that she brings into the marriage is one hundred dinars only when she is giving thirty-one sela and one dinar, equal to 125 dinars. This is because the actual value is one-fifth less than the inflated evaluation, as explained. And similarly, he pledges four hundred dinars against her assets only when she is giving five hundred, based on the inflated assessment of their worth, such that the real value is four hundred dinars. In contrast, what the son-in-law pledges according to the amount of the dowry that the bride brings, he pledges one-fifth less in the marriage contract, which is the actual value of the property.
פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ כְסָפִים, סֶלַע כֶּסֶף נַעֲשֶׂה שִׁשָּׁה דִינָרִים. הֶחָתָן מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֲשָׂרָה דִינָרִין לַקֻּפָּה, לְכָל מָנֶה וּמָנֶה. רַבָּן שְׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה: If she pledged to bring him money and not articles to serve as a dowry, her sela, i.e., four dinars, becomes six dinars with respect to the husband’s obligation in the marriage contract. This follows the standard outlined in the previous mishna: The groom increases his obligation by one half since he will profit from this money. Additionally, the groom accepts upon himself to give ten dinars to the account for her needs, for each and every hundred dinars that she brings. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is in accordance with the regional custom.
הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת בִּתּוֹ סְתָם, לֹא יִפְחֹת לָהּ מֵחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. פָּסַק לְהַכְנִיסָהּ עֲרֻמָּה, לֹא יֹאמַר הַבַּעַל כְּשֶׁאַכְנִיסָהּ לְבֵיתִי אֲכַסֶּנָּה בִכְסוּתִי, אֶלָּא מְכַסָּהּ וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. וְכֵן הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת הַיְתוֹמָה, לֹא יִפְחֹת לָהּ מֵחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. אִם יֵשׁ בַּכִּיס, מְפַרְנְסִין אוֹתָהּ לְפִי כְבוֹדָהּ: With regard to one who marries off his daughter with the terms of the dowry unspecified, he must not give her less than fifty dinars. If the bride’s father pledged to bring her into the marriage bare, by saying that he refuses to give her anything, the husband should not say: When I bring her into my house, I will clothe her with my clothing, but not beforehand. Rather, he must clothe her while she is yet in her father’s house, and she enters the marriage with the clothing in hand. And similarly, with regard to a charity administrator who marries off an orphan girl, he must not give her less than fifty dinars. If there are sufficient resources in the charity fund, the charities provide even more for her, furnishing a dowry and her other needs according to her dignity.
יְתוֹמָה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאַתָּה אִמָּהּ אוֹ אַחֶיהָ מִדַּעְתָּהּ, וְכָתְבוּ לָהּ בְּמֵאָה אוֹ בַחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, יְכוֹלָה הִיא מִשֶּׁתַּגְדִּיל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָן מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לְהִנָּתֵן לָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הִשִּׂיא אֶת הַבַּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, יִנָּתֵן לַשְּׁנִיָּה כְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנָּתַן לָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר אוֹ עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי, אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ: With regard to a minor orphan girl whose mother or brothers married her off, even with her consent to a small dowry, she retains her rights to a proper dowry. And thus, if they wrote for her a dowry of one hundred or of fifty dinars, she may, upon reaching majority, exact from her mother, or brothers, or their respective estates the sum of money that is fit to be given to her as a dowry, which is one-tenth of the family’s estate. Even if she agreed to forgo part of this sum as a minor, she may collect it as an adult. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the father married off the first daughter before he died, a dowry should be given to the second daughter in the same manner that he gave one to the first daughter. And the Rabbis say: There is no ready standard, since sometimes a person is poor and then becomes wealthy, or a person is wealthy and then becomes poor, so a family’s allowance for dowries is subject to change. Rather, the court appraises the property and gives her the appropriate sum.
הַמַּשְׁלִישׁ מָעוֹת לְבִתּוֹ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת נֶאֱמָן בַּעְלִי עָלָי, יַעֲשֶׂה הַשָּׁלִישׁ מַה שֶׁהֻשְׁלַשׁ בְּיָדוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, וְכִי אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא שָׂדֶה וְהִיא רוֹצָה לְמָכְרָהּ, הֲרֵי הִיא מְכוּרָה מֵעַכְשָׁיו. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בִּגְדוֹלָה. אֲבָל בִּקְטַנָּה, אֵין מַעֲשֵׂה קְטַנָּה כְלוּם: With regard to one who transfers money by means of a third party for his daughter to purchase a field after she marries, is the daughter allowed to assert control over the money? If she says after she marries: My husband is trustworthy for me, so give him the money to buy the property for me, her wishes are not honored. The third party should execute the agency that was entrusted in his power; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The daughter has authority: And were it only a field and she wanted to sell it, it could be sold immediately. Just as she would have authority to control the field, she may control the money assigned for her. The mishna qualifies: In what case is this statement said? With respect to an adult woman. But with respect to a minor girl, any action of a minor girl is nothing from a legal standpoint; a minor would have no authority in this matter.