הנושא אשה ופסקה עמו לזון את בתה ה' שנים חייב לזונה במאכל ובמשקה ה' שנים הראשונים שאחר הנישואין בין אם המזונות ביוקר או בזול ואם לא זנה בהם והוזלו המזונות אם הוא עיכב צריך לפרוע לה כזמן היוקר ואם היא עיכבה אינו נותן לה אלא בזמן הזול ואם היו בזול והוקרו אפילו אם עיכב הוא אינו נותן לה אלא כדמי הזול:

If a man married a woman and agreed that he would feed her daughter for five years, he must provide food and drink for the first five years of the marriage, whether food prices are high or low. If he did not feed her during those years, and food prices dropped - if he had withheld [the food] he must pay her according to the higher prices., but if she prevented him [from providing the food], he only pays her according to the lower prices. If food prices rose, even if he had withheld the food, he only pays according to the lower prices.

Even though he provides her with food, she keep her own handiwork.

If the mother exempts him from paying, her exemption counts for nothing.

If the husband died, the daughter may extract the payment for her food from liened properties like any other creditor. This is only true if they has an agreement with a gesture of obligation, or with a contract, but if there was no gesture, this is a case of an unwritten arrangement, and she may not [collect] her food from liened properties.

If the daughter died her heirs do not receive her sustenance. Rema: If the daughter was sick, it is as if she is married and he gives her sustenance as if she were healthy.

If she was divorced during the time when he accepted upon himself the obligation to sustain the daughter, he must give her full sustenance in the place where her mother is, like one who sustains his wife by an agent, but he is not obligated to provide for her according to his honor nor according to her honor. And there are those who disagree and hold that he must provide for her as if she was one of the members of his household (Tur, in the name of the Rosh). And this seems correct to me. And if he feeds her on his table, she is sustained with him like one who eats at his table. And in either case, he is not liable to pay for her medical care.

The same is true for one who is obligated to provide sustenance for another person. See the rules in Hoshen Mishpat siman 60.

If she is married to another man, and he cuts a deal with her to sustain her daughter, one sustains her and one gives her full sustenance money.

[if] the other also drove her out and they both owe her alimony, and each one says: I fill feed her and won't give money, it depends on her to choose which of them she wants to feed her. and if she's deaf that she has no understanding to choose, [they] feed her intermittently - this one a week [Sabbath] and this one a week [Sabbath]

[if] the daughter is married within the timespan, the husband owes her alimony and the two - each one - give her alimony.

[if he] wrote her: "I will feed your daughter as long as you're with me", and the mother died, he no longer has to feed her. and this way also if she got divorced (from him) even if he remarried her.

Anyone who obligated himself deliberately to provide sustenance [to his wife's children] beyond what is ordained by the court is not obligated to provide clothing, unless he specified, "I will feed and support." Rem"a: If he wrote to someone that if he married the daughter of such-and-such, he will give him a certain amount for food support, he must give the money even if the daughter died, as he did not specify a time for food, and he did specify a certain amount for food. If he had wished to take the full amount at once he would have been obligated to give it to him. If, however, he wrote it to him and his wife, he does not bequeath his portion to his wife.