Takkanah: On Not Returning a Dowry

By the decree of the king and his nobles, and our rabbis who dwell in Narbonne, whom we have heard and known, and from whose elders we comprehend matters.

We said: Let there now be an oath among us, the residents of France, Anjou, and Normandy, just as was decreed by those who erect safeguards, the great scholars from Narbonne and the surrounding land. They issued a harsh decree, as a decree of Joshua bin Nun [see Joshua 6:26], with Torah scrolls, a decree of the court above and a decree of the court below.

If a man marries a woman, and she dies within twelve months, without producing viable offspring, [i.e.,] until a year has passed since the wedding, he shall return the entire dowry and his wife’s jewelry to her heirs or to those who provided the dowry. Whatever is left in his possession from the dowry, which he did not spend and which was not consumed, he shall not [now] consume it, by means of subterfuge. Rather, he shall prepare her burial [and pay for it] from what remains, in accordance with her station.

He must give back whatever is left, within the court’s stipulated period of thirty days, if it is claimed. Before it is claimed, the decree shall not apply to him, but only thirty days after the day of the claim, if he fails to return it, heaven forfend.

We have further decreed that he shall not claim from the father-in-law any portion [of the dowry] that was never collected, even if she died after a year of marriage, and even if she gave birth. We, the residents of Troyes and Reims, accepted this upon ourselves, and we sent it to those who live nearby, within a day’s walk, and they were pleased with it.

We have issued a ban and decreed upon ourselves, and upon all who join us, and upon our children, as written above. It is also incumbent upon the residents of France, Poitou, Anjou, Normandy, and those who live near these cities, within a day’s or two days’ walk, to uphold this decree, upon both them and their descendants.

For who will eat and who will enjoy, if not I [i.e., the wicked] (Ecclesiastes 2:25) that which the father, or he who handed her over in marriage, rushed to give to the groom, after the death of the woman? Shall this one eat and be merry? We decided that the period of one year, and no more, is suitable for this matter, since after this year what has been given is forgotten from the heart and causes no further sorrow.

We have signed and sealed that which we have decreed.

Translated by Avi Steinhart.

Published in: The Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization, vol. 3: Encountering Christianity and Islam.

Engage with this Source

Rabbenu Tam was one of the few rabbinic authorities in the course of Jewish history who attempted to change halakhah outright by issuing legal ordinances, or takkanot. The following ordinance aimed to address an economic injustice that afflicted northern European Jews, who tended to transfer significant wealth to their offspring in the form of dowries. According to the Talmud, a married man inherits his wife’s entire property even when she dies on their wedding day or shortly thereafter. The woman’s bereft parents thus lose not only their daughter but also all the assets they gave her in anticipation of her marriage. Rabbenu Tam’s dowry ordinance overturned the rule, requiring a husband to return any properties he had received from his wife’s family if she died within a year of their wedding. It further prohibited him from acquiring any part of the dowry he had not yet collected, even if more time had elapsed. The ordinance alludes to similar reforms among Provençal Jews and among the local, Christian population, and a version of it was officially adopted by the Rhineland communities in the early thirteenth century. It was, however, rejected by other medieval Jewish communities, including those in the eastern regions of the German empire.

Read more

You may also like