Ketubot 81: Deciding to Opt Out

We begin a new Perek and a new Mishna.  At the start of Perek IX, our Mishna teaches that men can opt out of the rules regarding access to their wives' properties in three different ways.

First, a man can write that he will have no legal dealings or involvement with her property.  He will still have access to the produce of her property.  If she dies before him, he will inherit her property.  The rabbis wonder why this should be a possibility at all.  

Second, he can write that he will have no legal dealings or involvement with her property or her produce.  In this case, he can still benefit from her usufruct property if it is sold to buy land and that land produces edible or otherwise useful yield. That is called the produce of her produce.  If she dies before him, he will inherit her property after she dies and he will then access her produce as well as the produce of her produce.  It is suggested that he add the word "forever" to his stipulation to ensure that he does not access her produce after her death.

Third, he can contract that he will have no legal dealings or involvement with her property or her produce or the produce of her produce in her lifetime or after her death.  This is a more defiant move on the husband's part, for he is giving up any access to his wife's land or its produce at any time.  The rabbis challenge this choice, for Torah law states that a man is to inherit his wife's property after she dies.  One cannot make a stipulation that goes against Torah law; it is considered to be meaningless. 

The rabbis wonder why a man would want to give up the right to his wife's property.  They wonder if this is similar to the woman's right to tell her husband that she will not work.  The rabbis also ask questions about the timing of these statements and how timing might validate or invalidate the stipulations.  Does it matter if these words are written after the betrothal?  After the wedding?  Must they be enacted immediately?  They note that men have more control than women over women's property after marriage. This is compared with couples who have married through yibum, where the wife's claims on her land are stronger than those of her husband.

The rabbis then wonder why a husband would not stipulate differently.  Why not say that he has relinquished his rights to her produce?  Why not say that he has given up his rights to her inheritance?  They note that the word "forever" might indicate the ongoing nature of his promise.  Otherwise, when he relinquished his rights, it might be assumed that he meant to give up those rights only over the first year of their marriage.

I know men who have rewritten their wills upon remarrying stipulating that their wives will get much of their inheritance.  Those men have made an active decision to demonstrate their confidence in their relationships and to reassure their new wives of their sincere wishes to provide for her even after their deaths.  Is today's learning an ancient version of the same notion?  Rather than describing a prenuptial agreement, when a man vows to keep his money from his new wife, we learn about an ancient act of generosity?  

Why would men do this?  To demonstrate to their betrothed that they are to be trusted?  To prove their love for these women to their betrotheds' families?  To stick it to their own birth-families?