Q&A: Does a lien on property override the presumption that “it is better to dwell as two”?
Does a lien on property override the presumption that “it is better to dwell as two”?
Question
Talmud in Ketubot 82b: “Rav Yehudah said: Originally they would write for a virgin two hundred, and for a widow one hundred, and they would grow old and not marry women, until Shimon ben Shetach came and enacted that all his property would be pledged to her ketubah.”
Rashi there: “And they would not marry women” — because the women did not want to marry them. They said: when he dies or divorces her, there will be nothing from which to collect, because the heirs will hide the inheritance money.
Why does the fairly remote concern that perhaps the husband will die before he brings the ketubah, and perhaps the heirs will hide the assets pledged for the ketubah (when she can still keep an eye on it), override the presumption of “it is better to dwell as two,” so that they take it into account — whereas marriage to a husband afflicted with boils does not?
Answer
One has to remember that here the Sages were assessing reality, not just laying down arbitrary rules. Apparently this really was the reality in their time, even if today it is hard to understand. One possible explanation is that the presumption of “it is better to dwell as two” is based in part on a woman’s need for someone to support her financially. If she expects a future in which she will have nothing to eat and her financial security will not be in her hands, she will not want to enter such a situation. One might still ask why not marrying would improve her position, but perhaps the concern is that she is counting on someone else to secure her livelihood — maybe her father, or another partner who will make an adequate arrangement with her — and so she will wait and turn down all the offers, and in the end may not marry at all.