A husband inherits his wife, both melog properties (dowry property in which the husband is permitted usufruct) and "iron flock" properties (dowry properties guaranteed 100% by the husband). With what circumstance are we dealing? with property in the direct possession of the wife, but not property which has not yet arrived in her possession, such as an inheritance designated for her, but she died before the grantor. [In the latter case] he does not stand in her stead to inherit. Note: A writ of "half male" which is our current custom, that the father writes to his daughter to inherit 1/2 the share of male children, but if the daughter has no surviving descendants, the debt is canceled; and the daughter died in the lifetime of her father, with surviving descendants, and then the descendant died and subsequently the father died, the husband [of the daughter who died] inherits the rights of that writ, by way of the descendant who inherited his mother, and he [the husband] inherits his own descendants (Mahariv chapter 16). If the grantors of her inheritance wrote equity ownership of land [to be given to the woman] while they are still alive [but withholding the usufruct to themselves], and she would inherit the usufruct after [their] death, the husband inherits that land from her (Mordechai, beginning of chapter Yesh Nochalin in Bava Bathra). But he takes the increase in value of what he inherits from her, for it increased in his hands. He does not inherit his wife's loans. For example, if her grantors died, and they had an outstanding loan in the hands of others when he married her, and she died before collecting those loans. Note: But if her grantors of inheritance left property, even if the daughter did not take possession of that property in her life, and even if they were collateralized for the ketubah of a widow [i.e. of the grantor], that property is considered to be in the daughter's possession, and the [daughter's] husband inherits them (Mordechai, chapter Kol haNishbain). Similarly, if she had an outstanding loan in the hands of others when he married her, and the woman died before collecting the loans, he does not inherit those loans. But if she loaned money from melog properties, and she died before collecting, in these the husband does collect. Note: All properties which a woman had, and to which her husband had no rights, and she loaned them to others, the husband does not inherit (Beit Yosef in the name of Responsa Rashba).
One who says: my estate will go to so-and-so and, after him, to my heirs; since we hold that the same law applies to the heirs of the heir, i.e. he had a daughter who died while he was yet alive, and that daughter has a son, then the son stands in his mother's place to inherit. But if the daughter has no heirs but her husband, then the husband does not inherit, [d'havye lei raui.] And if he said: my estate will go to so-and-so and, after him, from this moment to my heirs, then they become status quo, and the daughter's husband would inherit his wife.
One who marries a woman who is among the types of women where marriage will incur a sin [but not grevious enough to incur karet], then he inherits her if she dies, since their marriage was effective. This is also true for a woman who converts (Beit Yosef in the name of the Avi Ezri). Likewise, one who marries a minor who initiates miyun, even though the kiddushin is not complete, he still inherits her if she dies. But a [normal] man who marries a deaf-mute woman, even her hearing restores after their marriage, he does not inherit her if she dies. And a deaf-mute man who marries a [normal] woman, he inherits her if she dies, since she possesses knowledge and, according to her will, she married him, and awarded to him her assets.
A minor who was engaged by her father's will bit married against her father's will, whether before him or not in his presence, even if the father said nothing, if she died, the husband does not receive her inheritance unless the father wanted the marriage.
A woman who is divorced through a divorce that is in doubt [as to its legality], and then she dies, her husband cannot inherit her. Rama: But while she had not been divorced, even though he planned on divorcing her, he can inherit (Tur in the name of the Rosh). One who claims against his wife that she had blemishes and [his marriage] was a mistaken deal (as was explained earlier Siman 39), if she dies, he cannot inherit her (Teshuvat Maimoniot, end of Ishut, and Mordechai chapter Mi Shemet). A woman who was rebellious against her husband [and refused intimacy] and then died [and presumably he was to divorce her], her husband can inherit her (such is infered from the language of the Maggid Mishneh 22), and see earlier Siman 77. If he rebels against his wife [and refuses intimacy] or she against him, and does not act with her as they should in marriage, some say that if she dies, he does not inherit (Hagahot (Mordechai) Alfasi chapter Af Al Pi).
If a house fell on him and his wife, and it is not known which of them died first and he has no children with her, the heirs of the husband receive the main part of the Ketubah and the extra stipulations, and the woman's heirs receive the Melog (not in the Ketubah) property and they split the Tzon Barzel (in the ketubah) property.
A woman who writes over all her property to another, whether a relative or not, before she gets married, even though if she is widowed or is divorce the gift would be void, her husband cannot benefit from the produce [of that property]. And if she dies (in his lifetime), he cannot inherit her, for she gave them away before she was married, and when she dies in her husband's lifetime, the buyer who received the gift, his gift becomes a complete acquisition. Not only that, but even if she gave away a small amount, or all of it, and she wrote to the receiver of the gift, "Acquire it from today for as long as I will choose," the acquisition of which is not complete unless she chooses, [even then] the husband cannot benefit from that gift's produce, and if she dies, he cannot inherit it.
Some say, that Dina smuggling specifically without writing to him a gift complete, a gift conclusive, a gift lifting; but if she wrote to him like this, completely bought.
A woman who sold part of her Nichsei Milog after marriage, even though that property came to her [possession] before she got engaged, her husband [can] take fruit [of this property] from the buyers all her life, but not the actual land. And if she dies in his lifetime, he [can] take the actual land from the buyers without payment. And there are those who say that even in her lifetime he [can] take the actual property from the buyers without payment ( Tur and Rosh ). And if the payment that she got from the buyers is still around, or they find money in her possession (lit. hand), and they are able to take them ( Tur in the name of the Rosh ), they return it to the buyers, and he is not able to say: Maybe it [this money] is a found object. Rem"a: If she got widowed or divorced, her sale is [still] valid ( Tur and most Poskim ). And all the days of her life, if the husband wants to build or destroy on the land, the buyer is able to protest ( Nimukei Yosef Perek Chezkat HaBatim). And there is no distinction between if she sold her property or she made them Hekdesh ( Terumas HeDeshen Siman 272 )
And if the husband agrees, or if there are witnesses that she sold it with his permission, he cannot take it from the buyers, because she is like his agent, and if he wants he can take separated property which she sold without his knowledge. HGH: If he saw that she sold it and did not protest to her, he does not lose his rights. (Rosh, responsa, ch. 40). If she ordered, when she was sick, giving away this or that article of clothing, and the husband agrees, if she gave it to the poor he cannot get it back, and if to the rich he can get it back (Mordechai end of Hazahav and resp. of Moharam). See above ch. 86 if she sold movable property or used it as collateral for a loan.
What are we talking about? If she sold it after marriage, the husband can take it from the buyers, if it's inherited property known to the husband. But if she inherited property without the husband's knowledge, ab initio she may not sell it, but if she sold it before the husband knew about it, the sale stands. Similarly, a betrothed woman ab initio may not sell property inherited since her betrothal, but if she sold it prior to the marriage, the sale stands, even property known to the intended husband.
Properties that are not know to the husband, when they become known to him, they immediately become Melog properties. Similarly, produce that are discovered in her possession, immediately when they become known to him, they are Melog properties. Rama's Note: A woman who says about her inheritance that fell to her, that her father instructed her to to give a portion of it to third parties, if the properties are known to the husband, she is not believed. However, if the husband dies, she must fulfill her admission [to the third parties]. If the properties are not known [to the husband], she is believed (Bet Yosef, from responsa of Rashba).
A woman who sold or gave away her enumerated dowry property after marriage, whether to her husband or others, really hasn't. And some say that after she is divorced or widowed, the sale becomes valid (Nimukei Yosef ch. Hachovel). Similarly, a husband who sold land which was his wife's property, whether regular or enumerated dowry property, really hasn't. And some say that the husband himself can undermine the sale. And even if he survives her, the husband inherits her ability to sell and can nullify the sale.
A man is not allowed to sell chattel of Tzon Barzel properties, nor pledge them as security. If he sold or pledged them, what is done is done. Rama's Note: Some say that [in such a case] the sale is void. Woman's clothing that she brings [into the marriage] to him do not have the status of Tzon Barzel, only Melog properties, as was explained above, siman 77. And therefore, if he sold them or pledged them, it is unanimously held that it is void, and thus it appears to me. But some say, that if he said that he did what he did with her permission, he is believed with an oath. And similarly, if he said that he paid her the value [of the item] (Responsa of Rashba 536, 537). A Jew who collects real estate from a Cuthite (i.e., a non-Jew) in fulfillment of a loan, if the Cuthite has authority to redeem [the land], it has the status of chattel, and the woman does not have any power to contest it so that he cannot sell it; however, if the Jew took possession of it and the Cuthite cannot redeem it, then it has the status of real property, and it has the encumbrance of the wife's marriage contract on it just as any other real property (Terumat HaDeshen 339).
Movable property that he gave to her from his own property follows the same rules as dowry property [tzon barzel], which he may not sell ab initio, which also goes for movable property that she acquired, even if not directly to hand, and even if it has no potential for income. And there is no distinction between daily and Shabbat/holiday clothing. But he may sell gold and crystal utensils if he needs income from them. And if relatives gave her clothing or jewelry, the husband may sell them for his own income.
They both sold part of the wife's inherited property (nichsei melug), whether it was bought from the husband first and returned and bought from the wife, or it was bought from the wife and returned and bought from the husband, their sale stands. Similarly the wife who sold or gave inherited property to her husband, her sale or donation stand, and she cannot say about the inherited property: "I have made my husband happy." But regarding other inheritance she may say so. How does this work? The wife who sold or gave to her husband enumerated dowry property (tzon barzel), whether land or movable property, or a field that he set aside in her ketubah, or that he specified in in her ketubah, or a part of her field which she brought into the marriage for him, her husband has not actually acquired it. And even if they acquired it from the wife's hand, willingly, she may take it back at any time, because she neither gave nor sold it except for making peace in her home. Therefore, the husband has no proof that he owns any of his wife's property, except for inherited property, unless she explicitly received the responsibility to. HGH: Some say that specifically her sale or donation don't occur, but if she hands over to the husband all her her rights to the inheritances, as she can do with the money specified in her ketubah, the transfer is valid (Raavad and Rosh). And others argue (Ramban, Rashba, Rambam according to the Maggid Mishnah).
A husband who sold his property, and afterward, his wife wrote to the buyer, "I have no issue or matter with you," and she agreed to his actions, even though [the buyer] bought it from him, it is voided [lit: ripped up], since she only wrote this so that she should not have a fight with her husband, and so she can say, "I wanted to make my husband feel good [but did not intend for the transaction to have legal significance]" And even if she wrote to [the buyer] that she will not be able to say [the excuse that] "I wanted to make my husband feel good," it is meaningless. However, if he made a kinyan from the hand of the wife that there would be no encumbrance on this place, and [only] afterward the husband sold it to him, then the transaction is not voided. Similarly, if the husband sold [property], and he told his wife to write to the buyer, "I have no issue or matter with you," and she did not agree to his actions, and subsequently, the husband went and sold it to a different person—whether the same field or a different field—and after the husband sold it she did agree to his actions, and he made a kinyan that there would be no encumbrance on this field, she may not then contest [the transaction], because she is not able to say [that she only agreed to his actions because] "I wanted to make my husband feel good." Similarly, if she expressly accepted on herself the responsibility that if the creditor of her husband has [a debt] voided from him, she will pay him, then she is not able to claim [the reason I did this was merely that] "I wanted to make my husband feel good." Rama's Note: Some say that if the wife accepted the money she is not able to say afterward "I wanted to make my husband feel good" (Nimukei Yosef, Chapter Chezkat; Mesharim Nasiv 23, part 4). A wife who admits that she owes money with her husband must pay it, and she is not able to say with respect to this, [I made the admission because] "I wanted to make my husband feel good," because we only say this with respect to properties that are sold (Bet Yosef, from Responsa of Ramban). A wife whose power was removed from her husband's property prior to the husband's kinyan, he may sell the properties afterward and they will not be voided, and there is no relevance to say, "I wanted to make my husband feel good" (Mordechai, beginning of Chapter HaKotev; Hagaot Maimoni ch. 23).
Dowry property that was lost or stolen and she forgave her husband [from any responsibility for them], and she made a gesture of acquisition for them with witnesses, she cannot say, "I dis so to placate my husband." If, however, she gave him a gift from some movable property that was still from the extant dowry property, she has not [fully obligated herself] with an acquisition, because she can say, "I did so to placate my husband."
A woman whose husband said to her that she should do as she pleases with her clothing and jewelry, if she sold or gave them away, [her actions are] cancelled.
If Reuven's wife possessed non-dowry land and he had an outstanding contractual debt to Shimon, and a a later date he and his wife became contractually indebted to Levi, and the wife then dies while her husband is still living, Levi has first right to collect from that non-dowry land.