A widower villager who married a woman from town less than a year ago came for a ruling. He states that they had made a prenuptial agreement to immigrate to Israel, and made all the necessary arrangements. They had not, for this reason, rented a permanent residence but had stayed at his mother-in-law's, but only temporarily, being on the verge of traveling. So, he demands that his wife immigrate with him to the Land of Israel, or follow him to his town, his village, where he has his work, and if not - that she be considered moredet (a rebellious spouse). The woman states that they had, indeed, spoken of immigrating to the Land of Israel, but that this had not been stipulated in writing in the ketuba  (marriage contract). They had stayed with his mother-in-law temporarily only until they could find housing. This is not the right time to immigrate, and if she now finds it painful and distressing living with him at home, in her birthplace and with her relatives nearby, following him to the Land of Israel would be even worse, since she has no one there to help or support her, and who will guarantee her sustenance and income there… And I immediately said that the women's claims were entirely justified. On the matter of the Land of Israel, as has been already been clarified, in Pitchei Teshuva section 75, paragraph 109, in the names of the adjudicators, one must know (in advance) of a source of sufficient income. Here, deeds are judged on a daily basis. On what the husband said was in their prenuptial agreement, the woman replied accurately, in saying  that it was not stipulated in writing in the ketuba.