Siman 52

The sages taught [Ketubot 108b]: One who promises money to his son-in-law and stretches out his leg to him, she can say, "What can I do? Either marry or release!" The explanation of the matter: That he promised a dowry to his daughter, whether he promised it to her by means of a fine as written in siman 50, or whether he transferred it to her with a complete kinyan as written in siman 51, or whether he promised in a manner that is acquired through mere speech as written there, or whether he promised with mere words in a manner that is not acquired through speech, kinyan, or fine [as is evident in the Tur], and based on this the groom betrothed his daughter, and afterward he stretched out his leg to him—meaning that he is unconcerned with his words and says to him in a language of contempt, "take the mud off my feet" and mocks him, or says, "hang me on a tree, I have nothing to give you," or he died, or he went to a distant land and there is no one from whom to claim [Ran]—and the groom does not want to marry her nor to release her with a get until the father fulfills what he promised, the daughter can compel him to either marry her or divorce her. For why should he leave her an agunah for the sin of her father? And while she does not have the power to compel him to marry her without the dowry, nevertheless, she can compel him to one of these two: either marry or release. And the matter is simple: that if he obligated himself with a complete obligation as in siman 51 and he has property, the beit din can extract from him against his will what he promised; and even if he is not here, the beit din descends to his property and collects from his property. It is only if he became poor, or they do not have the power to collect, or he is not obligated according to the law as has been explained, that she can compel him to either marry or release [see Ran]. And there is no difference whether the father promised in the presence of the daughter or not in her presence [see Beit Shmuel].

And regarding one who pledged upon herself and does not fulfill it, the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in chapter 23 that one who pledged upon herself and her hand did not reach it—she sits until she finds what she pledged or until she dies. And why should she not exempt herself through rebellion [meaning that he rules regarding a claim of "he is loathsome to me" that we compel him to give a get], for a rebellious woman while she is betrothed, the husband wants to marry her and she does not want to, but this one, the husband does not want her until she gives the dowry she pledged, and she wants him, for she says to him "either marry or release." In what case are these words said? Regarding an adult woman, but regarding a minor who pledged upon herself—we compel him to give a get or he shall marry without a dowry. Thus far his words. And some say that even this one, her law is like a rebellious woman [the Rif]; however, according to what we have established in siman 77 that even with a rebellious woman we do not compel him to divorce her, there is no practical difference in this. And in any case, the opinion of the Rambam and the Rif is that one who pledged upon herself and she is an adult, even if she has nothing to give him—it is not in her power to compel him, but rather she shall sit until her head turns white or she manages to give to him.

But some say that even if she herself pledged, and she was then able to fulfill it, and afterwards she fell from her status and is unable to fulfill it, she can say, "What can I do? Either marry me or release me" [the Rosh and the Meor according to Admon in the Baraita]. However, the Tur distinguishes in this, that this is specifically when she pledged in the presence of her father, for then she can say, "I thought that my father would give on my behalf; now what can I do?" [And with this, the wording of Admon in the Mishnah is well-settled; and examine this carefully]. Nevertheless, it can be said that even according to the Tur, if she pledged for herself not in the presence of her father, and then she was able to fulfill it and afterwards she fell from her status, she can also compel him to marry or release. And the Tur only spoke of a case where even at the time of the pledge she was unable, for then she cannot compel him when she pledged not in the presence of her father [for in this as well, the wording of the Mishnah is well-settled; see there and examine this carefully].

Even if her father pledged, when can she compel him? When her hand cannot reach to give what her father pledged; but if her hand can reach, she must give what her father pledged and she cannot say "marry or release," and she is not to say "what is it to me regarding my father's pledge," for behold, according to the core law we are not to compel him when the prevention is from the other side [for this is the reasoning of the sages there], rather we hold that since she is under duress we are not to leave her an agunah, and therefore if she is not under duress, in that it is in her power to fulfill but she stands upon the line of the law because she did not pledge, therefore we also stand him upon the line of the law and we are not to compel him, and such is the primary ruling [see Be'er Sheva subsection 3 that in the Responsa of Maimoni it also implies so, and see Bach] [see Mishneh LaMelekh chapter 23 halacha 16 that even if he swore to marry her he is exempt].

All these matters apply only after erusin and before nisuin, but before erusin, such as in our practice after the tenaim, this law is not relevant, for they tear the tenaim and the shidduch is canceled when one of the parties does not fulfill his commitment. And after nisuin, he certainly cannot betray his wife because they do not give him what they committed to him; rather, he is obligated in every matter that a man is obligated to his wife. And even if she herself committed and she has nothing to give, it is forbidden to betray her once he has married her. Nevertheless, when the father committed and does not want to fulfill it and it is within his power—they extract from the father by the authority of the beit din everything he committed, even after nisuin [Beit Shmuel]. And it has already been explained in siman 2 that a man should not quarrel over a dowry even though they committed it to him, and through this he will see a sign of blessing; see there.

One who stipulated to give a dowry to his daughter, and his son-in-law claims it from him, and he says that he gave it to his daughter—this is not a valid claim, for the matter is known that the intent of the stipulation is that he give it to the couple. And one who swore to pay his son-in-law, and at that time he was wealthy and became poor—he is obligated to sell his belongings and other things and pay the son-in-law since he swore, except for his dwelling and his service vessels; however, the son-in-law is cruel if he brings his father-in-law to such things, and he must forgive him [it appears to me].