I am puzzled as to why Rashi and other rishonim say the reason why a get written in daytime and signed the subsequent night is possul because of Peirei Nichsei Melug. Surely the husband can sell Peirei Nichsei Tzon Barzel with the same consequences.
The capital of the Tzon Barzel of course must be returned as you say. However he is entitled to the income but only according to the correct date. He has no right to sell the peiros after the correct date of the get - this is exactly the same as the peiros of the melog. It is only the capital which is treated differently not the peiros.
Chaim Pearlman
Rav Chaim Zundel shlit'a,
The Nichsei Tzon Barzel do not have 'Peiros' that are separate from the property. Tzon Barzel is simply a sum of money, or articles valued at a sum of money, that the husband received as dowry and must return to the wife upon her divorce. While they are married, the Tzon Barzel is entirely the husband's, like the rest of his property.
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rambam Hilchos Ishus 22:7 writes, "Kol Nechasim she'Yesh l'Ishah Bein Nichsei Tzon Barzel Bein Nichsei Melug ha'Ba'al Ochel Kol Peiroseihen b'Chayehah."
Surely the husband is entitled to the peiros of the Tzon Barzel in exactly the same way as he is entitled to the peiros of the Malog?
C.Z. Pearlman
Rav Chaim Zundel shlit'a,
You have made a very interesting point and it requires us to take a better look at the words of the Rishonim on the various Sugyos that deal with Tzon Barzel. Here is what I found. (For your benefit, I've collected many of the citations below in this Marei Mekomos sheet: www.dafyomi.co.il/gitin/discuss/gitn-017.qa2.pdf .)
Your question - why Rashi only mentions Peiros of Tzon Barzel and not Peiros of Nichsei Milug - is based on the assumption that the husband eats Peiros of Tzon Barzel only due to the Takanah of 'Peiroseha Tachas Pirkunah' (Kesuvos 47b). If we view Tzon Barzel as the property of the husband (until he divorces or dies, at which point it he 'gives it' to his ex-wife as per the Kesuvah contract) - your question does not begin. This is because even after the Get is given, the Peiros of Tzon Barzel do not 'automatically revert' to become the wife's property (like the Peiros Nichsel Milug). They belong to the owner of the Tzon Barzel, who is the husband, until he gives the Tzon Barzel property (with any future Peiros) to his ex-wife as per his obligation in the Kesuvah contract. So until she gets the property, the Peiros are indeed his.
Let us examine if your assumption is true.
1. Many Rishonim do not seem to accept your assumption.
(a) Rashi and Tosfos here and elsewhere write that the Takanah of Peiros was to grant 'Peiros Nichsei Milug' to the husband. (See, for example, Rashi Yevamos 84a and Kesuvos 100b DH v'Lo; Yevamos 107a DH Mishum; Kesuvos 56a DH v'Harei, Rashbam Bava Basra 49b, Tosfos Nidah 12b DH v'Lo.)
It seems clear that they learned that Peiros Nichsei Tzon Barzel belong to the husband even without the Takanah - the Tzon Barzel is just like the rest of his personal property.
Many other Rishonim (Ramban, Rashba, Re'ah, Ritva etc. - see Marei Mekomos sheet) similarly write that the Takanah was for Peiros Nichsei Milug, implying that Peiros Tzon Barzel are not included in the Takanah.
(b) Rashi (Kesuvos 80b b'Kesuvasah) even goes so far as to say that it is permitted for the husband to sell the Nichsei Tzon Barzel if he wants. His source seems to be from Kesuvos 101a (see Rashi there DH Nichsei Tzon Barzel).
But as the Mishneh la'Melech points out (Ishus 22:16) this seems to contradict the Gemara in Yevamos 66b which prohibits the husband from selling the Nichsei Tzon Barzel. (Note that Rashi there explains that the prohibition is so that the husband should be able to give his wife her items back upon divorce - not because the Tzon Barzel is not his to sell.)
The Magihah in the Mishneh la'Melech sends to the Rosh in Yevamos there who writes that it is a Machlokes Tana'im whether the husband can sell Tzon Barzel and some Rishonim rule that they can be sold.
2. On the other hand, the Rambam does seem to equate Peiros Nichsei Tzon Barzel with Peiros Nichsei Milug.
(a) The Rambam you cited (Ishus 22:7) implies that Peiros Nichsei Tzon Barzel are also Peiros of 'the wife's property'. This seems to be the implication of his words at the end of Ishus 24:4 as well, as the Or Same'ach (Ishus 12:4) points out.
(b) The Mirkeves ha'Mishneh (Ishus 22:10) states that it is 'obvious' that Peiros Nichsei Tzon Barzel are part of the Takanah of Peiroseha Tachas Pirkunah, without citing a source. (The 'Rav ha'Magen' - Rav Moshe Galanti, who lived 100 yrs. before the Mirkeves ha'Mishnah - makes a similar statement in his Teshuvos #103.)
(c) I found that Rav Betzalel Zolti zt'l wrote a lengthy essay on this subject in the periodical 'Torah she'Baal Peh' vol 22 pp. 9-21. He builds a case for including Peiros Nichsei Tzon Barzel in the Takanah and tries to show that even Tzon Barzel are not fully the property of the husband.
3. But the Acharonim do not seem to have accepted this approach.
(a) The Or Same'ach mentioned above considers the Rambam's words to be a great Chidush and not at all an obvious conclusion.
(b) And the Avnei Milu'im (92:7) proves from a Rivash (#150) that Peiros Nichsei Tzon Barzel are not part of the Takanah (and that is why even their Peiri d'Peiri belong to the husband).
So in summary - although the Rambam does seem to see Peiros Nichsei Tzon Barzel as you do, this is a big Chidush which Rashi and the other Rishonim did not accept. So Rashi is justified, l'Shitaso, in mentioning only Peiros Nichsei Milug in our Sugya.
Best regards,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf