Be wary of the government, for they only befriend a person for their own purposes. They appear to be friends when it suits them, but they do not stand by a person when he is down.
Surely, the fact that this rings a bell in our experience is a truly sad commentary on the world in which we live. Perhaps, however, we can take comfort from the knowledge that in this regard things are no different today than they were two thousand years ago!
In Avot041 I wrote:
The husband would know that everything he possessed was mortgaged for the amount of the marriage deed. Thus he would think twice and three times before divorcing his wife. Yehuda Wiesen wrote:
But the ketuba amount due, usually 200 zuz, was not all that much money. So it would be a barrier to divorce only for the poor. I responded, essentially, that
the amount of 200 zuz it was customary to augment from two other sources: the husband was expected to provide an additional sum ('tosefet') and the bride's father was also expected to provide a good dowry ('nedunyah')…
Yehuda Wiesen now writes again:
If the bride did not enter the marriage with melog or tzon barzel property, the burden of 200 zuz would be only a modest barrier to the husband divorcing her. From where do we know that it was customary to augment the 200 zuz? I do not understand why people say that the ketuba with its 200 zuz requirement was a great boon for the wife, since the money would not support her all that long. Perhaps even that modest barrier to divorce was unique in its day.
I respond:
First of all I must explain the terms used by Yehuda. "Nikhsei Melog" refers to property which the wife brings to the common household upon marriage which the husband is entitled to administer and to enjoy any emoluments from the property; if the marriage ends in divorce the property reverts to the wife. For our present purposes we can say that the term "Nikhsei Tzon Barzel" has an identical meaning. (The literal meaning of the two terms is "usufractory property" and "iron-clad property" respectively.)
The augmentation of the Ketubbah with additions from the groom's family and the bride's family is dealt with at large by the Gemara. A good example is Ketubbot 52b-53a, but there a many others. These additions are mentioned to this day in the traditional Ketubbah (though modern translations usually obfuscate this).
The money payable to a divorced wife must have been meaningful to each woman according to her standard of living, because the threat of losing "her ketubbah" was usually sufficient to keep an errant wife in line. See also what Ze'ev Orzech wrote in Avot043 which is also very relevant here.
In Avot046 I had occasion to quote Rambam [Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:9] that some of the greatest of Israel's sages were woodchoppers, water-carriers … but nevertheless they occupied themselves with Torah Study by day and by night.
Gregory Ashe writes:
I read how in Israel and elsewhere, thousands of otherwise able-bodied young men do nothing but study in yeshivas living off charity (or a wealthy father-in-law) (as I understand, many do not serve in the army). How does this square with what we are learning that the Sages all thought one should have an occupation so as to not be a burden on society?
I respond:
Rambam [Talmud Torah 3:10] is quite explicit about this:
We shall expatiate on this when we reach Avot 4:5. When we studied Tractate Pe'ah I explained how this prohibition was circumvented. See in our web archives
Pe'ah 004, explanation 16.
