December 6, 2019 2:13 pm at 2:13 pm #1808413
How can any merchant make any sale valued at anything more than a small transaction to a married woman unless he knows in advance that her husband permits the purchase? Halachicly that’s required. If he does so without knowing this in advance the husband can later force him to return the money she paid him even if the product was already consumed. And even if the husband doesn’t do so, if he wasn’t happy about the transaction the merchant is effectively a ganav unless he makes the husband whole.December 6, 2019 2:55 pm at 2:55 pm #1808445Reb EliezerParticipantDecember 6, 2019 3:15 pm at 3:15 pm #1808449Reb EliezerParticipant
Since women didn’t work outside of the house, she should be able to say, either I can buy whatever I want besides supporting you, or you supporr me and I will not work outside of the house.December 6, 2019 3:44 pm at 3:44 pm #1808455
Reminder that one of the Mods wisely posted yesterday that a Trolling post can either seek to aggravate certain other posters or occasionally to solicit opinions on controversial issues.
Obviously, here Rev Yosef is really upset that he came home earlier this afternoon for Shabbos and discovered that Rebbitzen Yosef had purchased a new beachfront South Florida condo using funds that were a gift from her father, to get away from the cold weather (and possibly Reb Yosef as well) during the winter months. Outraged by this act of civil disobedience, Reb Yosef immediately called the real estate agent demanding a refund of the deposit but was politely told to engage in certain activities that cannot be repeated here on YWN. Thus, Reb Yosef is considering whether these funds (which were a gift to his wife from her father) immediately became marital property and thus HIS property and therefore the Florida real estate agent is mamash a ganov in accordance with hilchos Yosef.
More to come motzi Shabbos.December 6, 2019 3:45 pm at 3:45 pm #1808456
P.S. Presumption that no woman earning more than Reb Yosef would have married him so that he could claim control over her earnings so the hypothetical provides that the funds were “gifted” to her.December 7, 2019 7:10 pm at 7:10 pm #1808469interjectionParticipant
I think that if a woman is carrying around money or a credit card, that she has permission to use it. If she didn’t have permission then it means she stole it. Since we’re not supposed to needlessly be choshed a fellow yid, it’s safe to assume that she did not steal the money. If the husband tries to claim that his wife stole the money from him, I doubt they will be married much longer.December 7, 2019 7:12 pm at 7:12 pm #1808540
Presumably, Reb Yosef will argue that In order to offset his obligation under the Ketubah to support the Rebitzen in the style she deserves, she was required under halacha to surrender all her property and earnings to Reb Yosef (along with with any profits she might make through investments, winning the lottery etc.). I could not find any place where chazal bring down whether that include a gift from her father for the specific purpose of purchasing a Florida condo?
Also, hopefully Reb Yosef will clarify my understanding that the Rebbitzen may NOT have been required to convey all of her property rights to her husband if she explicitly made clear her intention to support herself (Masseches Kessubos: 46b-47b]. Thus, the real estate agent, having been informed of Rebitzen Yosef’s declared self-supporting status correctly assumed he didn’t need Reb Yosef’s approval to take the deposit for the Condo.
The real questioni is whether Reb Yosef will be inviting his DR chevrusah down to Florida for Super Bowl weekend (at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami). And no, its on February 1st, a month after the Siyum in the Snow at Met Life Stadium on January 1st.December 7, 2019 7:16 pm at 7:16 pm #1808465PhilParticipant
Joseph’s three wives work hard to support him and their twenty-seven children so they deserve whatever creature comforts they can afford. I hope they enjoy their well-earned winter respite in South Florida while he’s on ice in Brooklyn.December 7, 2019 7:36 pm at 7:36 pm #1808549☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
Of course, Joseph is wrong halachically. There’s no reason the merchant needs to assume that the transaction is without the explicit or implicit permission of the husband. If he would want to challenge the transaction, he would need to prove that it was outside of their normal spending patterns and was without permission, which is nearly impossible to do.
This is is all assuming she didn’t say איני נזונת ואיני עושה, in which case the whole thing doesn’t start.December 7, 2019 10:28 pm at 10:28 pm #1808569simplesenseParticipant
Isn’t this the wrong place to post such a question? Speak to your local Orthodox Rabbi (and make sure he isn’t Gadolhadorah…).December 7, 2019 10:31 pm at 10:31 pm #1808566
DY: Note that the title of this discussion refers to a “substantial sale”; that obviously refers to something “outside of their normal spending patterns”. Given that, the burden of proof would be on the merchant, considering that the money he was paid was rendered to him by a person other than the owner of said funds.
If Reuven goes to Shimon and purchases a Yacht with Levi’s money, when Levi comes demanding Shimon return to him the money Reuven gave him, he will have to do so unless Shimon can prove Reuven acted with Levi’s authorization. This high burden will be on the merchant’s shoulders.
And by the way, some shittos say even if the dollar figure in the transaction that the wife spent was a very nominal amount the merchant still bears the high burden of proof.December 7, 2019 10:32 pm at 10:32 pm #1808567
Reb Eliezer: That’s only the case if the wife explicitly said איני נזונת ואיני עושה. And then it applies from that time forward but not retroactively. But in any event she had to have made that explicit statement; by halachic default that is never effective or assumed regardless of her income status. And as a practical reality, very very few wives (even high earners) say איני נזונת ואיני עושה.December 7, 2019 10:33 pm at 10:33 pm #1808574MilhouseParticipant
The standard teno’im (at least every time I’ve listened to them being read) says וישלטון בנכסיהון שוה בשוה. Therefore none of the halachos that the OP referenced apply any more, and the wife has the same right as the husband to make any purchase.December 7, 2019 10:47 pm at 10:47 pm #1808584
Simplesense……Not everyone has the yichus to have a Gadolhadorah as their local rav/posek. Also, the original question/troll by Reb Yosef was rather thought-provoking.December 8, 2019 7:34 am at 7:34 am #1808607
Milhouse: Looking at a standard tenoyim, I don’t see that phrase. Are you looking at a Chasidishe tenoyim (I think they’re different) or Litvish one or a Sefardic one? In any event, even if that term was inserted into a tenoyim, I fail to see how a tenoyim changes the Halachic default monetary obligations of a married couple for a lifetime. A tenoyim?December 8, 2019 7:35 am at 7:35 am #1808608
GHD: Actually a father gifting something to his married daughter is one of the few receipts of monetary value a married woman maintains in her possession rather than it instantly automatically becoming the property of her husband. Another example of such an exception is property she owned prior to marriage. But even in that latter example, whereas she still retains ownership of the underlying properties that she owned prior to marriage, any income generated from those properties (i.e. rent) automatically belongs to her husband. Any actual income she receives, for example from her employment, belongs to her husband.December 8, 2019 7:35 am at 7:35 am #1808610
“If the husband tries to claim that his wife stole the money from him, I doubt they will be married much longer.”
Interjection: The husband can be mochel her and not wish to (or even agree to if she wanted to) divorce her. She may have made an error in judgement and not realized in advance that her husband objects to spending his money on whatever it was.December 8, 2019 10:16 am at 10:16 am #1808708philosopherParticipant
Joseph, 90% or more of your posts are about womens’ obligations (or percieved obligations) to their husbands.
That is an obsession right there…Maybe you should think in the opposite direction and put forth some thought provoking questions of what husbands’ obligations are to their wives. It is healthy to be thinking not only of womans’ obligations to their husbands and but your brain should at least sometimes be thinking about husbands’ obligations to their wives if this is the generally the topic of your thought process.
Any rov will say that if the husband purchases for example, large properties for personal use, if the his family will live there, then the wife must be consulted. And of course, vice versa if the women makes such purchases. But if it is for business purposes where they have separate businesses, then this question is ridiculous because every normal husband wants his wife to be successful and automatically endorses substantial business transactions if she has a successful track record, and if the husband hampers a wife in any way, he’s obviously not fit for marriage. ( And good luck in court to the husband who tries to abolish large transactions made by his wife…)December 9, 2019 10:39 pm at 10:39 pm #1809530Rebbe YidParticipant
Hmm….so if my wife enrolls my son in yeshiva, I can balk at paying the tuition?December 10, 2019 8:03 am at 8:03 am #1809596frumtdParticipant
Is this Halacha? Why not take such a position to Beis Din? You should learn about things like Dina D’Malchusa Dina and Minhag Hamakom, and how they impact the actual rulings Beis Din would give on these things.
I mean just consider the consequences in refusing to do business with women as they need their husband’s permission. That would likely open the merchant to all sorts of legal issues. Would be very strange for any Beis Din to uphold such a strict approach (a strict “Din” approach to disputes is generally not how matters are resolved in Beis Din… and this FYI, is perfectly fine in Halacha).December 10, 2019 8:07 am at 8:07 am #1809623
Rebbe Yid: You’re obligated to teach your sons Torah.December 10, 2019 9:23 am at 9:23 am #1809649devnyBlocked
Being Joseph’s wife, I can attest that he has never once told me off for purchasing property in Florida. Because I never bought property, anywhere. And I never bought anything else, for that matter. Mainly because I’m locked in a closet without access to the outside world. So stop with the unfounded accusations, okay?December 10, 2019 10:38 am at 10:38 am #1809675
Devny: Apparently, it was your evil twin sister (the one who went to the MO seminary) and somehow obtained your hacked confidential information from a Ukrainian website and was able to deposit your father’s check in her bank account and make the purchase in your name. However, she was very sensitive to Reb Yosef’s concerns and your new Condo has its very own closet with a small window where you can be locked away but you will have a wonderful view of the beach. Closing is scheduled for Zois Chanukah.December 10, 2019 10:38 am at 10:38 am #1809676MilhouseParticipant
Joseph, I’m not sure whose nusach of the teno’im I’m remembering, but that phrase is definitely in there. And yes, of course anything written in the teno’im overrides “the Halachic default monetary obligations of a married couple for a lifetime”. That’s what teno’im are: The terms of the marriage. If the original terms of the marriage are that the couple will have equal control of their possessions, then they do, regardless of what the halacha would have been without such a condition. How else could it be? What did you think teno’im were, that you dismissed them like that?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.