Siman 57

We have already explained in siman 55 what constitutes a huppah, through which she becomes his complete wife in every respect. However, we explained there that the status of nishuim is applied even before the huppah, for the status of nishuim extends from the time she departs from her father's house to her husband's house, and the conclusion of the nishuim is the huppah. Our sages, of blessed memory, received a tradition that there are matters for which she is considered his wife from the time she leaves her father's domain for her husband's domain, even though the huppah has not yet been concluded, as will be explained. This refers to the matter of inheritance according to Torah law, for the husband inherits from his wife from the stage of nishuim when the dowry is with him, or even with her father according to the opinions explained in siman 53. This is as the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote at the beginning of chapter 22 of Ishut, and this is his wording: The husband precedes all people in inheriting from his wife; and from when does he merit her inheritance? From the time she leaves the father's domain, and even though she has not yet entered the huppah, since she has come into the husband's domain, he inherits from her. Thus far his words. Similarly, regarding the matter that if she committed adultery, her death is by strangulation and not by stoning like an arusah, as it is written, "to play the harlot in her father's house" (Deuteronomy 22:21) – excluding one whom the father handed over to the messengers of the husband, and certainly when he handed her over to the husband himself and even before the huppah. Similarly regarding the annulment of vows, for the husband annuls her vows without the partnership of the father as is the case with an arusah, as written in Yoreh Deah siman 234. Furthermore, even if the husband died before the huppah, the status of a nishuah remains upon her regarding the matter explained, and she is considered a widow from nishuim, and for this reason she no longer returns to her father's domain. However, for other matters, such as the eating of terumah, her findings, and the like, she is not considered a nishuah until after the huppah. Likewise, he does not contract tumah for her if he is a kohen, and he does not mourn for her until after the huppah, and likewise the work of her hands is not his until after the huppah. And that which we wrote that regarding vows she is like a nishuah, there is no one who disagrees with this.

Therefore, a woman who was betrothed and her father delivered her to her husband or to the messengers of her husband whom he sent to take her and bring her to him, or if the father sent her to her husband and they encountered the husband or his messengers and delivered her, and she died on the way before entering the chuppah, even though the dowry is still in her father's house, her husband inherits her by Torah law according to the approach of Rashi and the Rambam in siman 53. However, according to the approach of Rabbeinu Tam there, it is specifically when the dowry is in his possession. This is by Torah law, but from the perspective of the enactment – he does not inherit her even after the chuppah for a certain duration, as was written there.

The Rambam wrote: And so too if the father or the father's agents went with the husband, and her husband entered with her on the way into a courtyard and secluded himself with her there for the sake of marriage and she died—this husband shall inherit from her; but if the father is still with the husband to bring her to her husband's house, or if the father's agents went with the husband's agents or with the husband, even if the husband entered with her into a courtyard to lodge on the way where travelers lodge in a single inn, since the father or his agents are with her and he has not yet secluded himself with her for the sake of marriage, if she dies her father shall inherit from her even though her ketubah is in her husband's house. Thus far his words. And behold, it is certain that regarding one who secluded himself with her explicitly for the sake of marriage, it is not specifically for inheritance alone that she is fully married, but for every matter and even for the eating of terumah, for the Rambam holds that seclusion for the sake of marriage constitutes huppah, as written in siman 55, and it is only that the Rambam in this chapter is dealing with the laws of inheritance [and proof is from the Rashba who wrote: And if you will say, according to the words of the questioner who thought that she entered with him explicitly for the sake of marriage, how can it teach "for inheritance" etc., behold there is nothing after huppah, thus far his words; and therefore Rashi was precise in the heading "In what case is this said, that her delivery" etc., and he means to say that it does not refer to "explicitly for marriage," see there].

The Tur wrote: If the father handed her over to the messengers of the husband etc., or if the husband had a courtyard on the way and she entered with him and secluded herself with him, presumably they entered for the sake of nisuin and he inherits her etc. But if the father went with the messengers of the husband etc., or if she had a courtyard on the way and she entered with him, presumably she only entered to lodge and she has not left the domain of the father, and even if her dowry is in the hand of the husband, the father inherits her. Thus far his words. And this is a different law than what the Rambam wrote, for the Tur is dealing with a case where they did not speak either for the sake of nisuin or not for the sake of nisuin; therefore, in her courtyard it is presumably not for the sake of nisuin, and in his courtyard it is presumably for the sake of nisuin. However, this is only regarding the matter of inheritance since we do not know clearly that it is for the sake of nisuin, and the Rambam did not deal with this at all, even though this law is found in the Gemara. But the Rambam wrote the laws emerging from this: that explicitly for the sake of nisuin she is fully married, and explicitly not for the sake of nisuin it is nothing even for inheritance. But in an unspecified case it depends on the matter, for in her courtyard presumably he did not consent to nisuin as the matter is cheapening to him unless he specified for the sake of nisuin, and in his courtyard or a courtyard belonging to both of them—presumably it is for nisuin unless he specified that this is not for the sake of nisuin. And as for the law, the Rambam does not disagree in this [and so wrote the Maggid Mishneh; and see Beit Shmuel subsection 2 who wrote that in his courtyard when he secludes himself it is huppah and he acquires everything, see there; but it does not imply so from the Tur and the Rashba, and so it appears from the Ran and from the sugya of the Shas, and what Rashi wrote is according to the view of the questioner; and examine this closely].

And this law of delivery into his domain is not specifically in a case where she has a father and is a ketannah or a naarah, for the same applies if she is a bogeret who has already left the domain of the father, or an orphan, or a widow from marriage who went by herself from her home or from her father's home to her husband's home and neither her husband nor his agents are with her, and she died on the way—the husband does not inherit from her. But if the husband or his agents received her to lead her to the husband's home and she died—the husband inherits from her by the law of the Torah, and so too all the laws that have been explained apply also to her. And know, that even according to the opinion of the Rambam that the huppah of a niddah is not a huppah, nevertheless, regarding delivery into his domain for the matter of inheritance it is effective even when she is a niddah, for this law is not based on the concept of intercourse. Therefore, even regarding a widow, who according to many of the poskim has no huppah, nevertheless, delivery into his domain for the matter of her inheritance has the same law as for a virgin. Therefore, in truth, some say that this matter of a widow having no huppah is when he does not go with her, because in the earlier generations they did not make a huppah on poles as is our custom, but rather there was a house designated for marriage and the groom and bride would come there, and delivery into the domain is not relevant there since he does not go with her but rather each one comes by themselves. But now that the groom goes with the bride from our huppah to the house of marriage and there he will cohabit with her—he acquires her even when she is a widow. However, if it is from the perspective of delivery into the domain, it has been explained that this is only effective for inheritance, and so the halachah was decided in the Gemara. Furthermore, in truth, regarding a widow even now it is not the custom that he goes with the bride; on the contrary, each one comes to the house that they designate and there he betroths her and they recite the seven blessings, and from there he either takes her with him to his home or she returns to her home for a period of time and afterwards travels to her husband's home.