One of the differences between the taxation policies of the United States and that of Canada is that in the United States a couple can choose to be taxed as a couple with (lower) tax rates based on the joint income of husband and wife. Those who live in Canada have no such option and each person is taxed individually so that two families who earn the same collectively may pay different amount of taxes.
While there is no specific Torah taxation system - such was to be left up to the legislators of the day - there is little doubt that Jewish thought much prefers the USA model. Husband and wife upon marriage become “one flesh” and our Sages saw the earnings of the family as one. In Talmudic times and for long beyond - for some even today - such meant that all monies flowed to the husband who was the one responsible for supporting the family. While in our egalitarian age such sounds outdated to many - the Talmud itself asserts that the wife could elect out of such a system by using her own money for her own needs (Ketubot 58b) - there is a coherent, logical argument to be made for such an approach. The family is like a championship team, each performing their roles with complete dedication (and love) and willing to sacrifice for the benefit of the team when called for.
As many a study has shown, the number one issue couples do fight about is money. Our Sages attempted to avoid such by presenting clear and consistent rules so that couples could minimize, if not eliminate such arguments. As in almost all[1] areas of monetary law people can agree to “make conditions against the laws of the Torah” and make family financial decisions as they see fit.
With man’s innate love of money much vigilance was needed to help avoid conflict. As Jewish law stated that a husband must support his wife irrespective of whether or not she was employed - something that was left to her total discretion- coupled with the fact that a husband was obligated to spend more money on his wife than himself (Yevamot 62b), the potential for resentment was ever present - especially if money was tight. Thus even when there was “found-money” it went into the joint account managed by the husband. This the Talmud explains helped to avoid eivah, enmity, as the husband may feel, rightly or wrongly, that he is the one solely supporting the family yet the wife gets most of the benefits (Ketubot 47a).
However such concern would have little application to a widow who was entitled to keep that which she found (Ketubot 96a). This despite the fact that the husband’s children - who may only be her stepchildren - are obligated to support her. That support entitles them to her earnings (which the widow may keep by declining support) but not to keep that which she found.
While the Rabbis did their utmost to avoid possible eivah between husband and wife they established no ordinances to prevent such between stepchildren and their widowed stepmother. While a loving relationship would be best, if there be enmity, so be it. Regardless of the feelings the children may have they must continue to support their stepmother. Perhaps the Sages felt that it is almost inevitable that friction exist in such a scenario and nothing they could do would prevent such. Either the new family blended in well together or they did not but such was not dependent on who could keep the findings of the widow.
Furthermore while it is one thing to insist the stepmother be supported out of the husband’s estate it is quite another to have stepchildren keep the findings of their stepmother. Such will surely generate eivah.
Handling the finances of a family can be a tricky affair. Doing so properly may make the difference between a home where friction is rampant and one where shalom bayit prevails.
[1] The major exception to this rule is regarding interest where even if borrower and lender agree interest may not be charged on a loan. Yet even here a heter iska may be employed effectively negating the prohibition of charging interest.
