surrender herself to him. The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that if she allows him access to her—even if he deceived her—then she has no further right [to withhold herself]. However, the correct view is that if he deceived her, she retains that right. But is a promise considered deception, or is it regarded as negligence on her part?

Clear deception is when he says, “Certainly, I will give you the dower,” then takes some papers, places them in an envelope, and gives it to her as though it were money; or when he writes her a cheque drawn on a bank account with no funds. This is obvious deception. As for whether merely promising her counts as deception, I have reservations about that. Yet women differ: some women are exceedingly innocent-hearted, imagining everything to be genuine and truthful. In such a case, we may say that she is entitled to withhold herself if he does not hand it over to her.

We previously mentioned in the chapter on conditions in marriage that if she stipulated that he should not travel with her, but he then deceived her and travelled with her, she is entitled to enforce that right if she later demands it. The question, however, is whether merely breaking a promise constitutes deception or not. That is the basis on which the ruling turns. If we say that it is deception, then she may return to her original right; but if we say that it is not deception, rather that she was negligent and should have said, “I cannot agree unless you give me my due,” then she has no such right.

“And if he is unable to provide maintenance in the form of food, clothing, part of either of them, or housing, she may annul the marriage. If he is absent and has not left her any maintenance, and it is impossible to take it from his property or for her to borrow on his account, then she may annul the marriage with the judge’s permission.”

His statement: “And if he is unable to provide maintenance in the form of food, clothing, part of either of them, or housing, she may annul the marriage.” “If he is unable,” that is, if the husband is unable, then she may annul the marriage. The apparent meaning of the author’s words, “If he is unable,” is that this occurs after the marriage contract, since he did not say, “If he is already indigent.” Thus, the apparent meaning is that if he had been affluent and then became indigent, then