אבן העזר פ״חEven HaEzer 88

Se’if 1א׳

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיּוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יַד בַּעֲלָהּ, בֵּין בְּמִיתָה בֵּין בְּגֵרוּשִׁין, נוֹטֶלֶת כָּל נְכָסֶיהָ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה, בֵּין נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג בֵּין נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל; אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ נוֹטֶלֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אַלְמָנָה (טוּר) אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה, נְכָסֶיהָ נוֹטֶלֶת בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. וְנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג נוֹטַלְתָּן כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵם, אֲפִלּוּ בָּלוּ הַרְבֵּה וְאֵין רָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהֶם מֵעֵין מְלַאכְתָּן רִאשׁוֹנָה. וְאִם אָבְדוּ לְגַמְרֵי, אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם לָהּ. וְאִם הוּקְרוּ, הוּקְרוּ לָהּ. וְעַיֵּן לְקַמָּן (סִימָן צ"ג סָעִיף א'), אִם יְכוֹלָה לִתְבֹּעַ בְּחַיֵּי בַּעֲלָהּ:

A woman who goes out from under the hand of her husband, either by his death or by divorce, she takes all of her possessions without an oath, whether melog properties or "iron flock" properties (see Siman 85:2 for definition of these properties), even though she is not accountable for her ketubah because she is a widow (Tur) or by a promise, she does not enter accountability without a promise. If she enters the numbers, even if there is not a lot to do between the original work, she recieves everything she entered, even if it is a little and does not seem to be worth anything. If he said it, he was citing it for her [he gives it to her]. Like it says in (siman 103, rule 1), if she is able to demand it on the life of her husband [she can hold him liable for it].

Se’if 2ב׳

נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל שֶׁהֵם נִקְרָאִים נְדוּנְיָא, מִן הַדִּין אִם פָּחֲתוּ צָרִיךְ לְשַׁלֵּם כָּל הַפְּחָת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרְאוּיִים לִמְלַאכְתָּן רִאשׁוֹנָה. אֲבָל נָהֲגוּ שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁרְאוּיִים לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵעֵין מְלַאכְתָּן רִאשׁוֹנָה, אֲפִלּוּ הֵם בְּלוּיִין הַרְבֵּה, נוֹטַלְתָּן כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵן; וְאִם לֹא הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין מֵעֵין מְלַאכְתָּן רִאשׁוֹנָה, חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵיהֶם שֶׁשָּׁמוּ עָלָיו בִּשְׁעַת הַנִּשּׂוּאִין; וְאִם הוּקְרוּ, אֵינָהּ נוֹטַלְתָּן אֶלָּא בְּשׁוּמָא רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל שְׁעַת הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹהֲגִין לִכְתֹּב בַּכְּתֻבָּה: "הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ כְּלִי פְּלוֹנִי בְּסַךְ כָּךְ וְכָךְ, וּכְלִי פְּלוֹנִי בְּסַךְ כָּךְ וְכָךְ"; אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין בַּכְּתֻבָּה שׁוּם כְּלִי בִּפְרָטוּת, אֶלָּא כּוֹלְלִים הַכֹּל, וְכוֹתְבִין: "הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ בִּבְגָדִים וְתַכְשִׁיטִים סַךְ כָּךְ וְכָךְ מָעוֹת", הֲרֵי סַךְ אוֹתוֹ הַמָּעוֹת חוֹב עָלָיו, וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ הַנְּכָסִים חֲדָשִׁים חוֹזְרִים לָשׁוּם אוֹתָם כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁוִים עַכְשָׁו, וְאִם פָּחֲתוּ פָּחֲתוּ לוֹ, וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לוֹ, וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁים לְשׁוּמָא רִאשׁוֹנָה כְּלָל:

[With respect to] "iron flock" properties, which are termed dowry, the law is that if declined in value, the husband is required to pay the loss in value, even though they are still usable for their original purpose. But the custom is that as long as they are still usable for their original purpose, even if they are extremely worn, she receives them back as is. If they are no longer usable for their original purpose, he is required to pay their value as assessed at the time of the marriage. If they increased in value, she does not take them except at the original value as assessed at the time of the marriage. In what circumstances? Where the custom is to write into the ketuba, "She brought to him such-and-such utensil at such-and-such price and such-and-such utensil at such-and-such price." But in locales where they do not itemize each utensil [in the dowry] separately, but lump them all together and write, "She brought him clothes and adornments with a total value of such-and-such," that total amount is considered as a debt upon him, and even if the items were new, we reassess them at their current value. If they (the total value of all the items) declined in value, the loss is his, and if they increased in value, the gain is his, and we do not worry about the original assessment at all.

Se’if 3ג׳

אִם הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: כְּלִי אֲנִי נוֹטֶלֶת, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: דָּמִים אֲנִי נוֹתֵן, שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ; וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עוֹשִׂין מֵעֵין מְלַאכְתָּן, וְהוּא הַדִּין לִוְלָדוֹת שֶׁל שִׁפְחָה וּבְהֵמָה שֶׁל נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים אוֹ שְׁתֵּי שְׁפָחוֹת בְּתוֹרַת נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל, וְשָׁמוּ אוֹתָם עָלָיו בְּאֶלֶף זוּז, וְהוּקְרוּ וְעָמְדוּ בְּאַלְפַּיִם, נוֹטֶלֶת אֶחָד בְּאֶלֶף שֶׁלָּהּ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי אִם רָצְתָה לָתֵת דָּמָיו וּלְנָטְלוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁבַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ, שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ:

If she said, "I will take the actual utensil (from the dowry)," and he says, "I will give its value," we listen to her, as long as it is still utilized along the lines of its original work. We rule likewise with the offspring of [Canaanite] maidservants or animals of melog properties. Furthermore, if she brought in to the marriage two utensils or two maidservants as "iron flock" properties, and they were assessed a [combined] value of 1000 zuz, and increased in value [during the marriage] to 2000 zuz, she takes one of them (maidservant or animal) as repayment of her 1000 [zuz dowry], and the second, if she desires to pay its value and take it to demonstrate the praiseworthiness of her family (i.e. to show that their property rises in value), we listen to her.