Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 1.pdf/447

399 Aliens

THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

399

modem

Strictly speaking, under Jewish law law. divorced woniiiii had no Alimony. The Jewish law, however, provided for the divorced woman by the niarriaKt-' contnut or maniajre settlement, the substantial results of which were the same as those secured in modern times by an order of court. The marriage c-ontract or setth'ment (IvF.Ttiii.Mi) must be in writins. 15y the ketubah. which a husbanil gives to his wife, a cerUiin sum of money is .secured to her by her husband, to be Jiaid out of his estate upon her widowhood or divorce. The sum thus secured to the wife is a lien on his cstiite, i)rior to all other debts; and it may be collected out of property which is no longer in liis possession, even though it has been transferred to a third person (Ket. >ay it. ('onse(|uenlly. as soon as a woman was divorceil she could make demand for the payment of the amount guanint^'ed her by the ketubah and the judges that i)resided in the divorce |)roceedings would enforce its payment. Originally, the amount thus secured to the wife was paid to her father; and late in Talmudic times tliis was still the law in cases where the wife was a minor or was divorced before the marriage had been consummated. Eventually, however, the money was settled on the wife: remaining undivided in th<estate of the husband, and biing made payable to Iter on lier divorce or widowhood. As the heirs of the husband often defrauded the widow of her rights, it was ordained that the amount of the marriage settlement should be Ketubah, deposite<l with the father of the bride, or Marriage thus making it secure against the adSettlement, verse claim of her hustiand's heirs; but as it was till' original ]iiirposcof the marriage seltlement to act as a check upon the husband so that " it shall not be easy in his eyes to divorce her." the deposit of the money with the father of the bride destroyed the elTect intended for, the husliand having no further jiayment to make, there were no tinancial considenitions to hinder him from

Alimony

of antenuptial incontinence (.Mishnah Ket. i. ir. a woman who practised fraud upon her husband leading to her marriage (Mishnah Kid. ii. Ket. vii. 7i; one who olfended against .some ethical WomenNot or religious law or cu.stom. involving Entitled moral turpitude (.Mishnah Ket. vii. r>); toAliraouy. the woman who. having been married during her minority, refused, upon attaining her majority, to continue to live with her husband (Mishnah Ket. xi. (!); a woman married to her husband in disregard of the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (ib.); a woman who deserted her husband (Ket. h)li), or who refused to cohabit with him (Ket. (y.i/> et s, I/.). Although the husband was not legi'lly obliged to pay his wife more than the amount speiiticd in the ketubah or in the decree of the court, it was deemed commendable in him to support her if she was in want after she had been divorced. It is related of H. Jose, the Galilean, who lived about the beginning of the second century, that after his divorced wife had remarried and had become impoverished, he invited her and her husband into his liouse and supported them, notwithstanding the fact that while she was his wife she had made his life miserable. His conduct is the subject of rabbinical laudation (Yer. Ket. xi. :iih. Gen. K. xvii., Lev. I{. xxxiv.). "Do not withdraw from thy llesh." said •").

(Iviii. 7, 1/t't.). "This." .s;iid K. Jacob b. Aha. "means, do not withdniw help from thy divorced wife" (Yer. Ket. I. c). H. Mosi's Is,scrles cites this case with approval (Shulhan 'Aruk. Eben ha-'Ezer, 119, 8, gloss), and adds that the support of the divorced wife is considered a better deed than the support of any other poor person, provided hat for niond reasons the husband has no direct personal dealings with her, but sends the money for her maintenance by a messenger. See al.so DivoKCK and Kktih.^ii.

Isaiah

t

Bibliography



Amrani, JcirUh

Law <>/

Dinirre, rh. x.

D.



"giving" ilivorce whenever he pleased. It was thereupon provided by law that the amount of the marriage sellleiiKnt should be invested in articles of value, and that these should remain in pos.se.ssion of the liusband. This regulation, however, was found to give no greater satisfaction than the former one; for it was very easy for the husband to give the articles of value to liis wife and to tell her to go. The tinal remedy of the ketubah was provided liy Simon lien Shelah. which prescrilxMl that the amoimt of the marriage seltlement shoulil remain in the possession of the husband and not be .separated from his estate; but that it should be secured to the wife by a writing whereby all of his estate was charged with its payment (Kel. 82/)). The wife's right under the ketubah was absolutely guaranteed to her by the law and she was not permitted, even voluntarily, to releas<- her husband from his obligatir>n to her Maimonides. "Yad haHa/.iikuh. Ililkol Ishiil." . lb). In case the husband refuseil his wife herconjugal rights, he was ]iunished by a weekly addition to the ketubah, until he yielded. In such cttses, the court, by its decree, increased the amount due to the wife under the ketubah (Mishnah Ket. v. 7). and such a decree was iimctically the same as tiio decree of a modern court of law for Alimony.

(

Thcwife's right to nceive payment of thcamount to which she was entitled under the ketubah depended on her good conduct. The following women were not entitled to its payment An adulteress (Mishnah Sotoli, iv. 5) a maiden (l>etiil(ili)-wlio had iK'en guilty



W.

A.

a document of a legal sale of the husband's property, during his absence, for the support of his wife, called Alimony (pfO JTlJX', from

The following

is

the collection of thi!

documents by Juduh

Qarzillai of

twelfth century;

"Wlierens, tx-fore us, Itic iindcrslffned luilpps [ilavyanlml, .... daueliter of Mr. . . . ami wife of Mr roDiplalnini; of lier stniltenetl eln-unistances and want, pleailapiH'an'il Mrs.

ing: 'Kuow ye, Raltltls tlial my linsliand. Mr. .... is aen>sslhe sea In fon*li,'iilaiuLsaiid has Ancient •ven for llinv iiioiilhs. Writ left no nilions to last of Alimony, have no means to support luyst'lf and no Inam now In son* come fnim uiv tmniUwork. i

I

I

then-fon' ix'lltlon you. I of means to sustain life. want and to ilolde ui>on Kahilis, lo Imiuln' n-irardluit .iid we, the JudRi-s, eonslderlnif her ilalm as of alliiionv.' iii-eil

my

my

a search for her husliand's pniperlv. hut found none Unit loiild U' ills|»ised vt exeept a lerlalll Held (deAnd after advertlslnir sitIIk-.!) whieh we ordenil to Ih' siT moiiih. to which stipulation thi' said A.. .

elia-ser

sum

wIllInK to olTer as iniiih as A.

of

.

.

.

Wn

a(n"ei'rehilm thensin. And lake |sis.»<-«iloll of the said

leiksi rlifht

the said A. I"n A. k'o and the usi' I'f hlmsi'lf. his helm, and suii'essors. And he shall have thi' rl(!hl I" ["•s.s'Tot and lo sm Ami should her said huslvtnd nt anjr this day on and fi>n'ver. tlineeh' a line of ish and !«• iialil I'V him to the Mild punluLMT. who luay iw li n." he pleawx, should he ever In- auisl In a licntlle itiiirt l>y the said bunlNinil for the recovery of Uic aald Oi-ld. Above all, he uiust

now

let

llehl for

W

.