Imagine that the husband went on a trip, leaving his wife penniless - or, at least, this is what she claims. In this case, she comes to court, asking the court to start selling the husband's property to provide her support.
One of the two judges we mentioned above as promulgating beneficial decrees, by the name of Chanan, ruled that she would have to swear afterward when she comes to collect her Ketubah payment. However, right now, she does not have to swear about her claim and is provided with sustenance. Others disagreed, but Chanan's law was accepted.
But in general, do we really provide sustenance by selling the estate? – If he left not on good terms, we can believe he left her nothing. But typically, does a man leave his house empty? – For these reasons, Shmuel ruled that the court does not give her sustenance. What about the ruling of Chanan? Even those who disagreed with Chanan only argued about an oath but not sustenance. Can we assume that Shmuel is wrong? – No, Shmuel will tell you that Chanan was talking about a specific case where there is a rumor that the husband died. Then we can give her sustenance, but not in the usual case.
Rav disagreed with Shmuel: there is no reason to suspect the wife, and sustenance is given to her, even including money for fragrances.
Art: In the estate by Boris Kustodiev
No comments:
Post a Comment