All Wife's Money & Properties Belong to Husband

not sure about the practicle effect….but after Mortage, tuition tzedakah, 401k plan, food etc….there isn’t much left…so I haven’t really given it any thought

Just my opinion – Most people these days insist on separate fianances (checking accounts etc.) just in case they will divorce which is considered a practical step seeing that at least 50% of couples will divorce (which didn’t happen so frequently just 50 years ago). When the money belongs to the man and the wife cannot inherit the man this greatly reduces the risk that she’ll do various despicable things to her husband which do happen these days. The man is obligated to have children and not pay for them which gets rid of the need for child support cases where the lawyers are able to take advantage of people in an emotionally vulnerable state. I think it causes the couple to try harder and acheive peace with each other. The Torah does talk about cases where the woman gets angry at her husband and that the solution in some cases is to bring an offering (for example after giving birth). Maybe she’d have to give an offering after having any bad thoughts about her husband. I think he’d have to pay for that and I would guess that after awhile he’d start being nicer.

Most people these days insist on separate fianances (checking accounts etc.)

not sure if this is the case, but I don’t

SJS: Halachicly it is true, even if the wife works and the husband learns, unless she says I want to keep my money (which in that case he does not have to feed her (which as you pointed out, may be true anyway)).

Besides, this is only for “earnings”. Presents given from husband to wife are excluded.

In healthy marriages, the spouses come to agreement on financial matters. If there is a practical effect of this halachah, it must not be a very good marriage.

Well said. My guess is the practial part comes in only if they C”V divorce.

My question is, what is the practical effect of this halacha?

For us, it has no effect. All our money goes into the communal pot — regardless of who earns it.

The Wolf

I don’t know how you all can even be in a situation where you have to wonder about these things.

My wife knows who the boss is.

When its time to eat, its service with a smile or do it over.

When dishes need to doing she knows not to interrupt me when I’m twiddling my thumbs doing nothing.

I own her and she…uh oh

Wife’s coming don’t tell her I was here. Qui..

She has to verbalize this to do this. This isn’t commonly done. And if it is, she loses rights she was entitled to from her kesuba (i.e. support).

She obviously gives up the right to support. I don’t believe she gives up her rights with regard to payment at the termination of the marriage. Nor does she give up her non-economic rights as well.

The Wolf

Derech HaMelech

LOL! I think the big fat greek comment applies here as well (which has been quoted many times here in the CR):

Ma, Dad is so stubborn. What he says goes. “Ah, the man is the head of the house!”

Its no-wonder divorce rates are so high. Marriage is an equal partnership not king and maidservant.

A man is to treat his wife as queen, and she is to treat him as king.

Taking a stronghold on finances could be a form of abuse.

Having separate accounts, you may as well live separatly and meet up occssionaly for meals.

Marriage should be done as a life long commitment, not with your eyes on divorce in a few years time. Working things out at the start of a marriage with arrangements in place for a divorce, sends a message to each other that divorce is on the cards, and its a matter of “when” not “if”

As for the original question: “what is the practical effect of this halacha?” I think the answer lies in what the property produces in the interim. Lets say the lady brings in a tree at the time of marriage, the tree belong to the husband whilst they are married. When they call it quits, the tree returns to the lady, but any fruits that were produced during their time together, belong to him. A modern example? Say she owns a property at the time of marriage, the property belongs to the husband whilst they are married. When they end it, the property returns to the lady, but any rental income during their time together, belong to him.

Also I think it makes a difference regarding the $100 bill she finds on the street.

one practical effect is that if she damages (mazik) something, she cant be forced to pay for the damages since she has no money (as any money belongs to her husband and he isnt legally liable in b”d to pay for her damages.)

“He is still be entitled to all the marital assets (sans the specific exceptions) in a divorce case.”

Also, under federal law she is entitled to half her pension moneys.

the only thing the secular divorce court should be asked to do (by either side) is to issue a divorce certificate. they should not be asked or made involved in asset separation, as that is a halachic matter.

Have you never heard of “Kim Li”?

Also, the husband or wife will use children as leverage to get money, or the opposite.

Shlishi:

Or if she is holding onto it. For Karka (the family home), you would probably be correct.

For joint assets such as bank accounts, etc. just her threat to withhold permission to divide Al Pi Halacha (and go through secular court) might be enough, via the din of Ei Shaskis. I am not a Dayan, so someone who knows more about it could elucidate more.

One can usually find an opinion that agrees with what you want, if you look hard enough.

I’m learning the sugya now. I’ll bring that up tomorrow.

so if he earns $1000 a week at work, he (and she) owns the full $1000; not just $500. so he made a “kinyan” on the full funds and he has full rights to the full funds.

I opened up a side discussion (not wanting to take the focus off of husband/wife issues) on the point of making a valid kinyan at the following thread:

Kinyan

The Wolf

The Halacha is that a married woman may give a small amount of her husband’s money to Tzedaka without his knowledge. We can assume that the husband allows her to do so. The size of this donation depends on the financial standing of the household.

However, if the husband specifically said that he does not want her to make any donations, then she can’t give any money to Tzedaka. (Shulchan Aruch 248:4)

Aruch Hashulchan (YD 248: 11, 13) rules that in a society where Bais Din is unable to compel people to give an appropriate amount of Tzedaka, a wife (of someone who gives less than halachicly required) is permitted to be the one to force her husband to give by doing so without his knowledge. However, Aruch Hashulchan emphasizes that this can only be done based on the directive of the local Rav, who determines that according to this person’s wealth we would force him to donate this amount.

Shevet Halevi (Vol.5 132:7) disagrees with this ruling. He references the Halacha (YD 148:1) that even when Bais Din forces a person to give Tzedaka, they may only take his property in his presence, with his knowledge. Surely the wife, even if she is acting on the directive of the Rav, has no more authority than Bais Din.