Welcome to the Judaism community on Codidact!
Will you help us build our community of learners? Drop into our study hall, ask questions, help others with answers to their questions, share a d'var torah if you're so inclined, invite your friends, and join us in building this community together. Not an ask-the-rabbi service, just people at all levels learning together.
Post History
As written in your own answer, this depends on the status of the bondwoman in the context of their ketuba arrangement. If the bondwoman is categorized as nichsei m'log, then the wife retains owners...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
PinnyM
·
2020-06-29T15:37:53Z (almost 4 years ago)
- As written in your own answer, this depends on the status of the bondwoman in the context of their ketuba arrangement.
- If the bondwoman is categorized as *nichsei m'log*, then the wife retains ownership of the principal, and the husband retains any derived profit or benefit. Under this arrangement, the husband may not take any action that would put the principal at risk, and so must maintain the bondwoman. This same rationale would hold true of any acquisition of a bondwoman using *m'log* funds (presuming both husband and wife agreed to such an acquisition, as this would not be a typical investment choice and either party could prevent such a transaction).
If the acquisition is made using funds that are under sole ownership of the wife, then the husband has no claim to any derived benefits - only the wife can determine how her labor is utilized. As such, he would also not be responsible for any maintenance,that would be solely the wife's decision.
- As written in your own answer, this depends on the status of the bondwoman in the context of their ketuba arrangement.
- If the bondwoman is categorized as *nichsei m'log*, then the wife retains ownership of the principal, and the husband retains any derived profit or benefit. Under this arrangement, the husband may not take any action that would put the principal at risk, and so must maintain the bondwoman. This same rationale would hold true of any acquisition of a bondwoman using *m'log* funds (presuming both husband and wife agreed to such an acquisition, as this would not be a typical investment choice and either party could prevent such a transaction).
- If the acquisition is made using funds that are under sole ownership of the wife, then the husband has no claim to any derived benefits - only the wife can determine how her labor is utilized. As such, he would also not be responsible for any maintenance, and that would be solely the wife's decision.
#1: Initial revision
by
PinnyM
·
2020-06-29T02:54:08Z (almost 4 years ago)
As written in your own answer, this depends on the status of the bondwoman in the context of their ketuba arrangement. If the bondwoman is categorized as *nichsei m'log*, then the wife retains ownership of the principal, and the husband retains any derived profit or benefit. Under this arrangement, the husband may not take any action that would put the principal at risk, and so must maintain the bondwoman. This same rationale would hold true of any acquisition of a bondwoman using *m'log* funds (presuming both husband and wife agreed to such an acquisition, as this would not be a typical investment choice and either party could prevent such a transaction). If the acquisition is made using funds that are under sole ownership of the wife, then the husband has no claim to any derived benefits - only the wife can determine how her labor is utilized. As such, he would also not be responsible for any maintenance,that would be solely the wife's decision.