Book of Dowries
It is recommended to specify the mahr in the marriage contract, although leaving it unmentioned does not affect the contract’s validity. Anything that may lawfully be sold may likewise be named as a mahr.
When the husband designates a particular item and it is lost while still in his possession, he is liable for it as a contractual debt; another opinion treats his liability as that of a mere custodian. Under the first opinion the bride may not sell the item before actually receiving it. If it perishes in his hand, he must provide a mahr equivalent to that customarily given to a woman of her social standing.
If she is the one who destroys the item, this counts as though she had taken possession of it; if he destroys it, the same ruling applies. When a third party destroys it, she has a choice, according to the authoritative view: she may annul the stipulation of that item and claim an equivalent mahr from her husband, or she may uphold the stipulation and seek compensation from the party who destroyed it. If the husband destroys it, the ruling is as just stated, though another opinion treats him like any other third party.
Should he stipulate two slaves as the mahr and one of them perish before delivery, the stipulation is void only with respect to the destroyed slave, not the other, according to the predominant view. The bride then has two options: if she rescinds, she receives an equivalent mahr; if she does not, she takes the surviving slave together with the proportionate value of the one that perished.
If the item becomes defective before she takes possession, she likewise has a choice: should she rescind, she is entitled to an equivalent mahr; if she prefers to keep it, she receives no further compensation.
The husband is not liable for benefits that were lost while the item was in his possession. However, if she demands delivery and he refuses, he becomes liable for it as a contractual debt; the same applies—according to the dominant opinion—to any benefit he has already taken from it, such as riding an animal that was named as mahr.
The bride may withhold herself from her husband until she receives a specific mahr that is immediately due, not one that has been deferred. If the deferred mahr falls due before delivery, the stronger opinion is that she may not exercise this right of refusal.
When each spouse says, “I will not hand over my obligation until the other does,” one view compels the husband, another compels neither; whoever fulfills first obliges the other. The sounder position is that both are compelled: the husband is ordered to deposit the mahr with a trustworthy third party, and the wife is ordered to make herself available. Once she complies, the trustee hands the mahr over to her.
If she takes the initiative, moves in with him, and then demands the mahr, she may refuse relations until it is paid—provided intercourse has not yet occurred; if intercourse has already taken place, she may not refuse. Conversely, if the husband is the first to deliver the mahr when marital relations are possible, yet she then refuses without excuse, he may reclaim it, according to the opinion that he can be so compelled. If she only asks for a short delay to clean herself or the like