Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 3, 2015 | 讬状讚 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 90

讗诐 讙讟 拽讜讚诐 诇讻转讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讻转讜讘讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇讙讟 讗讬谞讛 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讗讞转 砖讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 注诇 诪谞转 讻转讜讘讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讞讝讬专讛

if the date of the bill of divorce precedes the date of the marriage contract, she collects payment for her two marriage contracts. She is entitled to the first marriage contract by virtue of the bill of divorce. She is entitled to the second one because she has shown that it was written for her when they remarried. If the date of the marriage contract precedes the date of the bill of divorce, she collects payment of only one marriage contract. This is because it is presumed that one who divorces his wife and remarries her, remarries her with the intention of using her first marriage contract, unless there is a reason to say otherwise.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讟谉 砖讛砖讬讗讜 讗讘讬讜 讻转讜讘转讛 拽讬讬诪转 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 拽讬讬诪讛 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专讛 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讻转讜讘转讛 拽讬讬诪转 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 拽讬讬诪讛

MISHNA: In the case of a minor who was married off by his father, the wife鈥檚 marriage contract that the minor wrote is valid even after the husband comes of age. He cannot excuse himself by saying that it was drafted when he was a minor, as it is on this condition, the terms of this marriage contract, that he maintained her as his wife upon his maturity. Similarly, in the case of a convert whose wife converted with him, the marriage contract that she had as a gentile is valid, for on this condition he maintained her as his wife.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 诪讗转讬诐 讗讘诇 转讜住驻转 讗讬谉 诇讛 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讜住驻转 讬砖 诇讛

GEMARA: Rav Huna said: They taught that the wife of a minor or convert receives payment only with regard to the main sum of one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars. However, she does not have the right to receive the additional sum that he wrote in her marriage contract, because this document is not legally binding, as it was written by a minor. She receives the main sum only as a result of an ordinance instituted by the Sages. And Rav Yehuda said: She has even the additional sum.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞讬讚砖讜 谞讜讟诇转 诪讛 砖讞讬讚砖讜 讞讬讚砖讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讚砖讜 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection against the opinion of Rav Yehuda from a baraita: If a minor who came of age or a gentile who converted then introduced an additional sum to the marriage contract, she takes the additional sum that they introduced. The Gemara infers: Yes, the woman receives what they introduced. However, if they did not introduce an additional sum, she does not collect, even if it was written in the original marriage contract.

讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪讛 砖讞讬讚砖讜 讜讛讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讛讻讬 讞讬讚砖讜 谞讜讟诇转 诪讛 砖讞讬讚砖讜 诇讗 讞讬讚砖讜 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara refutes this proof: Say that this means that she takes even that which they introduced, in addition to the entire amount of her original marriage contract. The Gemara asks: But the tanna did not teach this, and the continuation of the baraita states the opposite: If they introduced a new sum, she takes the additional sum that which they introduced. If they did not introduce a new sum, a virgin collects two hundred dinars and a widow one hundred dinars. She does not collect the additional sum listed in the marriage document. This provides a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Yehuda, whose opinion is rejected.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讟注讬转讬讛 讛讜讗 住讘专 讻转讜讘转讛 拽讬讬诪转 讗讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗注讬拽专 讻转讜讘讛 拽讗讬

The Gemara explains: Rav Yehuda was misled by the language of the mishna and reached an incorrect conclusion. He thought that the phrase: Her marriage contract is valid, is referring to the entire matter, the entire sum of the marriage contract. But that is not so, as it is referring only to the main sum of the marriage contract that was established by the Sages, and not to any additional sum.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讻讜转讘 诇讗砖转讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讬讜专砖讬 砖谞讬讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who was married to two women and died, the first woman he married precedes the second in collecting the payment specified in her marriage contract if there are insufficient funds to pay both, because her document is dated earlier. So too, if the wives died after their husband before they received payment for their marriage contracts, the heirs of the first wife precede the heirs of the second wife in collecting these payments.

谞砖讗 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪转讛 谞砖讗 砖谞讬讛 讜诪转 讛讜讗 砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛

If he married a first woman and she subsequently died, and he then married a second woman and he subsequently died, the second wife and her heirs precede the heirs of the first wife. This is because the marriage contract of the second wife is considered a debt that the estate of the deceased is required to pay, whereas the claim of the heirs of the first wife is based on the stipulation in the marriage contract that male children inherit their mother鈥檚 marriage contract. Heirs receive their share of the estate only from property that remains after all debts have been settled.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇砖谞讬讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬砖 诇讛 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 拽讚诪讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转驻住讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛

GEMARA: From the fact that it teaches: The first woman he married precedes the second in collecting the payment of her marriage contract, and it does not teach simply that the first woman has the right to receive payment of her marriage contract and the second does not have that right, the mishna thereby teaches by inference that if the second preceded the first and seized property in payment of her marriage contract, we do not expropriate it from her, because her rights to the property are not completely canceled.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讗讜讞专 砖拽讚诐 讜讙讘讛 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 讙讘讛

The Gemara suggests: Learn from the mishna the following principle: In the case of a creditor holding a promissory note dated later than the notes of other creditors who preceded the other creditors and collected his debt, whatever he collected, he has collected, and it is not expropriated from him even if the debtor does not have the means to pay back all his creditors.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 诇讗 讙讘讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讜讚诪转 诇讙诪专讬 拽转谞讬 讻讚转谞谉 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Actually, I will say to you that what he collected, he has not collected, i.e., he must restore the property to the debtor so that the latter can pay the other creditors. And what does the mishna mean when it teaches that the first wife precedes the second? It teaches that the first wife completely precedes the second and is granted exclusive rights to collect the payment of her marriage contract. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 115a): A son precedes a daughter in matters of inheritance. Were she to come first and take part of the inheritance, it would not become hers; the son completely precedes her, so that in cases where there is a male heir, the daughter receives nothing. The same understanding of the word precedes applies in this matter as well.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 拽讚诪讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转驻住讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 拽讚诪讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转驻住讛 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛

There are those who say that the discussion was as follows: From the fact that it does not teach: If the second wife preceded the first wife and seized property it is not expropriated from her, it proves by inference that if the second wife preceded the first and seized property as payment for her marriage contract, we do appropriate it from her.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讗讜讞专 砖拽讚诐 讜讙讘讛 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 诇讗 讙讘讛

The Gemara suggests: Learn from the mishna the following rule: In the case of a creditor holding a promissory note dated later than the notes of other creditors who preceded the other creditors and collected his debt, whatever he collected, he has not collected, i.e., it is expropriated from him.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 讙讘讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Actually, I will say to you that what the later creditor collected, he has collected, but since the mishna taught later: The second wife and her heirs precede the heirs of the first, so that even if the heirs of the first wife seize property, they do not legally acquire it and it is expropriated from them, because they are collecting an inheritance rather than a debt,

转谞讗 谞诪讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇砖谞讬讛

it taught the first clause as well with the same wording: The first woman precedes the second, without elaborating that the property would not be expropriated from the second if she were to seize it in payment of her marriage contract.

谞砖讗 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讗讬谞爪讜讬讬

搂 The mishna taught: If he married the first woman, etc. The Gemara notes: Conclude three conclusions from this statement: Conclude from it that if one of the man鈥檚 wives died in his lifetime and the other one died following his death, then the sons of the first wife are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children and we are not concerned that this would lead to quarreling.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 拽讜讚诪讬诐 诇讬讜专砖讬 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讬拽讚诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讚诪讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖拽诇讬

The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this is correct? From the fact that it teaches: The second wife and her heirs precede the heirs of the first wife, it can be inferred that they precede the heirs of the first, but if there are enough funds in the estate for all the claims against it, then the children of the first wife do take their share of the dowry.

讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛

The second point one can conclude from it is that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other. The Sages ruled that each son may claim his mother鈥檚 marriage settlement only when the value of the estate exceeds the sum total of the marriage contracts by at least one dinar, so that the biblical laws of inheritance can be fulfilled. Since the marriage settlement collected by the heirs of the second wife is considered a debt owed by the estate, this sum is considered to have been paid equally by all the heirs. The biblical laws of inheritance have thereby been fulfilled, and the sons of the first wife can claim the marriage contract concerning male children even if nothing will be left in the estate after they have collected their payment.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专

The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this is correct? The Gemara answers: From the fact that it does not teach in the mishna: If there is a surplus of a dinar in addition to the value of all the marriage contracts.

讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 诇讗 讟专驻讛 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 讟专驻讛 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 诇讬转讜 讘谞讬 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诇讟专驻讬谞讛讜 诇讘谞讬 砖谞讬讛

And conclude from it a third point, that when one collects the payment for the marriage contract concerning male children, he cannot seize liened property that his father sold to others, as one can when collecting a debt. As, if it should enter your mind that it can be repossessed from liened property, then let the sons of the first wife come and repossess land already claimed by the sons of the second wife as payment for their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, since the land the sons of the second wife took was previously liened, due to the marriage contract of the first wife. Rather, the children of the first wife are viewed not as creditors but as heirs, who cannot repossess property sold by their father.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜诪讗讬 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇谞讞诇讛 拽转谞讬

Rav Ashi objects to two of the three conclusions stated above: From where is it known that all of this is correct? Perhaps I could actually say to you that if one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, then no one is entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children. And what does the mishna mean when it says precede? It does not mean that if there are enough assets remaining, the sons of the first wife receive the sum of their mother鈥檚 marriage settlement. Rather, it is teaching that after the sons of the second wife receive the sum of their mother鈥檚 marriage settlement, the sons from both marriages inherit equal shares of the remaining estate.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛

And if you would say that if the mishna is referring to the inheritance of the remainder of the estate, why do I need the mishna to mention the heirs of the first wife; since it is teaching a halakha concerning their inheritance from their father and not their inheritance from their mother, why refer to them as the heirs of the first wife? One could reply that since it taught: The second wife and her heirs, the mishna also taught the parallel phrase: The heirs of the first wife, but no halakhic conclusions should be drawn from this.

讜讚拽讗诪专转 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专

And concerning what you said that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, this too can be rejected: Perhaps I could actually say to you that one marriage contract does not become surplus for the other, and that the case under discussion here is where there is a surplus of an additional dinar, and the reason why it was not explicitly mentioned is because it is not the subject of our mishna.

讜讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪转讜 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讘谉 谞谞住 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 讘谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讜诪专 诇讘谞讬 讛砖谞讬讛 讘谞讬 讘注诇转 讞讜讘 讗转诐 讟诇讜 讻转讜讘转 讗诪讻诐 讜爪讗讜

搂 The Gemara notes that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m if the sons of the wife who died in her husband鈥檚 lifetime are entitled to collect their mother鈥檚 marriage settlement. As it is taught in a baraita: If they died, one in his lifetime and one following his death, ben Nanas says: The sons of the first wife can say to the sons of the second wife: You are the children of a creditor, so collect your mother鈥檚 marriage contract and leave, and we will inherit the rest of the estate due to the marriage contact concerning male children.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讘专 拽驻爪讛 谞讞诇讛 诪诇驻谞讬 讘谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讘谞讬 讛砖谞讬讛

Rabbi Akiva says: When the husband died, the inheritance already eluded the sons of the first wife and came into the possession of the sons of the second wife as an inheritance, i.e., the Sages did not institute the marriage contract concerning male children in a case where one of the wives was alive when the husband died. Consequently, after the sons of the second wife collect their mother鈥檚 marriage settlement, the remainder of the estate is divided evenly between all the man鈥檚 sons.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉

The Gemara comments: What, is it not that they disagree about this: One Sage, ben Nanas, holds that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the first wife鈥檚 sons are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children. And the other Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the first wife鈥檚 sons are not entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rabba said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav sitting and saying: Everyone agrees that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the first wife鈥檚 sons are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children. Here, however, they disagree with regard to the question of whether or not one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other in a case where there is no surplus of an additional dinar with which to fulfill the biblical laws of inheritance. And the same is true with regard to payment made to a creditor, i.e., they disagree whether paying a creditor of their father is a sufficient fulfillment of the biblical laws of inheritance to allow collection of the marriage contract concerning male children.

诪专 住讘专 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘

One Sage, ben Nanas, holds that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, and the same is true with regard to payment made to a creditor, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that one marriage contract does not become surplus for the other, and the same is true with regard to the debt owed to a creditor.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讛讜讬 诪讜转专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讻转讜讘讛

Rabba continues: And I said to them: With regard to payment made to a creditor, everyone agrees that it is considered surplus and fulfills the biblical laws of inheritance, even given the lien attached to it. When they disagree it is with regard to whether a marriage contract can be considered surplus.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讘专 拽驻爪讛 谞讞诇讛 讗诐 讬砖 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rav Yosef objects to this. If that is so, then why did it say in the baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: The inheritance already eluded them? Rather, it should have said: If there is a surplus of a dinar, since that is the actual focal point of the disagreement.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rather, Rav Yosef said: They disagree with regard to the basic issue of whether the Sages instituted the marriage contract concerning male children in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, as was explained initially.

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 谞砖讗 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪转讛 谞砖讗 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讜诪转 讛讜讗 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬讛 砖诇 讝讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘砖讜讛

And these tanna鈥檌m, ben Nanas and Rabbi Akiva, are like those other tanna鈥檌m, who debated this very same point, as it is taught in a baraita: If he married a first woman and she subsequently died, and he then married a second woman and he subsequently died, the sons of this woman, i.e., the second wife, come after her death and collect payment of their mother鈥檚 marriage contract if she did not collect it while she was alive, while the rest of the estate is distributed equally between all the sons. Rabbi Shimon says: If there is a surplus of a dinar, these sons of the first wife collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, namely, the marriage contract concerning male offspring, and these sons of the second wife collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, and if not, they divide the entire estate equally among themselves.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉

What, is it not that they disagree with regard to the following: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children; and one Sage, the first tanna, holds that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are not entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children, and only the second wife鈥檚 sons collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is possible to say that everyone agrees that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 90

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 90

讗诐 讙讟 拽讜讚诐 诇讻转讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讻转讜讘讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇讙讟 讗讬谞讛 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讗讞转 砖讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 注诇 诪谞转 讻转讜讘讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讞讝讬专讛

if the date of the bill of divorce precedes the date of the marriage contract, she collects payment for her two marriage contracts. She is entitled to the first marriage contract by virtue of the bill of divorce. She is entitled to the second one because she has shown that it was written for her when they remarried. If the date of the marriage contract precedes the date of the bill of divorce, she collects payment of only one marriage contract. This is because it is presumed that one who divorces his wife and remarries her, remarries her with the intention of using her first marriage contract, unless there is a reason to say otherwise.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讟谉 砖讛砖讬讗讜 讗讘讬讜 讻转讜讘转讛 拽讬讬诪转 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 拽讬讬诪讛 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专讛 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讻转讜讘转讛 拽讬讬诪转 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 拽讬讬诪讛

MISHNA: In the case of a minor who was married off by his father, the wife鈥檚 marriage contract that the minor wrote is valid even after the husband comes of age. He cannot excuse himself by saying that it was drafted when he was a minor, as it is on this condition, the terms of this marriage contract, that he maintained her as his wife upon his maturity. Similarly, in the case of a convert whose wife converted with him, the marriage contract that she had as a gentile is valid, for on this condition he maintained her as his wife.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 诪讗转讬诐 讗讘诇 转讜住驻转 讗讬谉 诇讛 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讜住驻转 讬砖 诇讛

GEMARA: Rav Huna said: They taught that the wife of a minor or convert receives payment only with regard to the main sum of one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars. However, she does not have the right to receive the additional sum that he wrote in her marriage contract, because this document is not legally binding, as it was written by a minor. She receives the main sum only as a result of an ordinance instituted by the Sages. And Rav Yehuda said: She has even the additional sum.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞讬讚砖讜 谞讜讟诇转 诪讛 砖讞讬讚砖讜 讞讬讚砖讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讚砖讜 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection against the opinion of Rav Yehuda from a baraita: If a minor who came of age or a gentile who converted then introduced an additional sum to the marriage contract, she takes the additional sum that they introduced. The Gemara infers: Yes, the woman receives what they introduced. However, if they did not introduce an additional sum, she does not collect, even if it was written in the original marriage contract.

讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪讛 砖讞讬讚砖讜 讜讛讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讛讻讬 讞讬讚砖讜 谞讜讟诇转 诪讛 砖讞讬讚砖讜 诇讗 讞讬讚砖讜 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara refutes this proof: Say that this means that she takes even that which they introduced, in addition to the entire amount of her original marriage contract. The Gemara asks: But the tanna did not teach this, and the continuation of the baraita states the opposite: If they introduced a new sum, she takes the additional sum that which they introduced. If they did not introduce a new sum, a virgin collects two hundred dinars and a widow one hundred dinars. She does not collect the additional sum listed in the marriage document. This provides a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Yehuda, whose opinion is rejected.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讟注讬转讬讛 讛讜讗 住讘专 讻转讜讘转讛 拽讬讬诪转 讗讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗注讬拽专 讻转讜讘讛 拽讗讬

The Gemara explains: Rav Yehuda was misled by the language of the mishna and reached an incorrect conclusion. He thought that the phrase: Her marriage contract is valid, is referring to the entire matter, the entire sum of the marriage contract. But that is not so, as it is referring only to the main sum of the marriage contract that was established by the Sages, and not to any additional sum.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讻讜转讘 诇讗砖转讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讬讜专砖讬 砖谞讬讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who was married to two women and died, the first woman he married precedes the second in collecting the payment specified in her marriage contract if there are insufficient funds to pay both, because her document is dated earlier. So too, if the wives died after their husband before they received payment for their marriage contracts, the heirs of the first wife precede the heirs of the second wife in collecting these payments.

谞砖讗 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪转讛 谞砖讗 砖谞讬讛 讜诪转 讛讜讗 砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛

If he married a first woman and she subsequently died, and he then married a second woman and he subsequently died, the second wife and her heirs precede the heirs of the first wife. This is because the marriage contract of the second wife is considered a debt that the estate of the deceased is required to pay, whereas the claim of the heirs of the first wife is based on the stipulation in the marriage contract that male children inherit their mother鈥檚 marriage contract. Heirs receive their share of the estate only from property that remains after all debts have been settled.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇砖谞讬讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬砖 诇讛 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 拽讚诪讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转驻住讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛

GEMARA: From the fact that it teaches: The first woman he married precedes the second in collecting the payment of her marriage contract, and it does not teach simply that the first woman has the right to receive payment of her marriage contract and the second does not have that right, the mishna thereby teaches by inference that if the second preceded the first and seized property in payment of her marriage contract, we do not expropriate it from her, because her rights to the property are not completely canceled.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讗讜讞专 砖拽讚诐 讜讙讘讛 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 讙讘讛

The Gemara suggests: Learn from the mishna the following principle: In the case of a creditor holding a promissory note dated later than the notes of other creditors who preceded the other creditors and collected his debt, whatever he collected, he has collected, and it is not expropriated from him even if the debtor does not have the means to pay back all his creditors.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 诇讗 讙讘讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讜讚诪转 诇讙诪专讬 拽转谞讬 讻讚转谞谉 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Actually, I will say to you that what he collected, he has not collected, i.e., he must restore the property to the debtor so that the latter can pay the other creditors. And what does the mishna mean when it teaches that the first wife precedes the second? It teaches that the first wife completely precedes the second and is granted exclusive rights to collect the payment of her marriage contract. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 115a): A son precedes a daughter in matters of inheritance. Were she to come first and take part of the inheritance, it would not become hers; the son completely precedes her, so that in cases where there is a male heir, the daughter receives nothing. The same understanding of the word precedes applies in this matter as well.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 拽讚诪讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转驻住讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 拽讚诪讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转驻住讛 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛

There are those who say that the discussion was as follows: From the fact that it does not teach: If the second wife preceded the first wife and seized property it is not expropriated from her, it proves by inference that if the second wife preceded the first and seized property as payment for her marriage contract, we do appropriate it from her.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讗讜讞专 砖拽讚诐 讜讙讘讛 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 诇讗 讙讘讛

The Gemara suggests: Learn from the mishna the following rule: In the case of a creditor holding a promissory note dated later than the notes of other creditors who preceded the other creditors and collected his debt, whatever he collected, he has not collected, i.e., it is expropriated from him.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讛 砖讙讘讛 讙讘讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Actually, I will say to you that what the later creditor collected, he has collected, but since the mishna taught later: The second wife and her heirs precede the heirs of the first, so that even if the heirs of the first wife seize property, they do not legally acquire it and it is expropriated from them, because they are collecting an inheritance rather than a debt,

转谞讗 谞诪讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇砖谞讬讛

it taught the first clause as well with the same wording: The first woman precedes the second, without elaborating that the property would not be expropriated from the second if she were to seize it in payment of her marriage contract.

谞砖讗 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讗讬谞爪讜讬讬

搂 The mishna taught: If he married the first woman, etc. The Gemara notes: Conclude three conclusions from this statement: Conclude from it that if one of the man鈥檚 wives died in his lifetime and the other one died following his death, then the sons of the first wife are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children and we are not concerned that this would lead to quarreling.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 拽讜讚诪讬诐 诇讬讜专砖讬 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讬拽讚诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讚诪讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖拽诇讬

The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this is correct? From the fact that it teaches: The second wife and her heirs precede the heirs of the first wife, it can be inferred that they precede the heirs of the first, but if there are enough funds in the estate for all the claims against it, then the children of the first wife do take their share of the dowry.

讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛

The second point one can conclude from it is that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other. The Sages ruled that each son may claim his mother鈥檚 marriage settlement only when the value of the estate exceeds the sum total of the marriage contracts by at least one dinar, so that the biblical laws of inheritance can be fulfilled. Since the marriage settlement collected by the heirs of the second wife is considered a debt owed by the estate, this sum is considered to have been paid equally by all the heirs. The biblical laws of inheritance have thereby been fulfilled, and the sons of the first wife can claim the marriage contract concerning male children even if nothing will be left in the estate after they have collected their payment.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专

The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this is correct? The Gemara answers: From the fact that it does not teach in the mishna: If there is a surplus of a dinar in addition to the value of all the marriage contracts.

讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 诇讗 讟专驻讛 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 讟专驻讛 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 诇讬转讜 讘谞讬 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诇讟专驻讬谞讛讜 诇讘谞讬 砖谞讬讛

And conclude from it a third point, that when one collects the payment for the marriage contract concerning male children, he cannot seize liened property that his father sold to others, as one can when collecting a debt. As, if it should enter your mind that it can be repossessed from liened property, then let the sons of the first wife come and repossess land already claimed by the sons of the second wife as payment for their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, since the land the sons of the second wife took was previously liened, due to the marriage contract of the first wife. Rather, the children of the first wife are viewed not as creditors but as heirs, who cannot repossess property sold by their father.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜诪讗讬 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇谞讞诇讛 拽转谞讬

Rav Ashi objects to two of the three conclusions stated above: From where is it known that all of this is correct? Perhaps I could actually say to you that if one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, then no one is entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children. And what does the mishna mean when it says precede? It does not mean that if there are enough assets remaining, the sons of the first wife receive the sum of their mother鈥檚 marriage settlement. Rather, it is teaching that after the sons of the second wife receive the sum of their mother鈥檚 marriage settlement, the sons from both marriages inherit equal shares of the remaining estate.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛

And if you would say that if the mishna is referring to the inheritance of the remainder of the estate, why do I need the mishna to mention the heirs of the first wife; since it is teaching a halakha concerning their inheritance from their father and not their inheritance from their mother, why refer to them as the heirs of the first wife? One could reply that since it taught: The second wife and her heirs, the mishna also taught the parallel phrase: The heirs of the first wife, but no halakhic conclusions should be drawn from this.

讜讚拽讗诪专转 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专

And concerning what you said that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, this too can be rejected: Perhaps I could actually say to you that one marriage contract does not become surplus for the other, and that the case under discussion here is where there is a surplus of an additional dinar, and the reason why it was not explicitly mentioned is because it is not the subject of our mishna.

讜讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪转讜 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讘谉 谞谞住 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 讘谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讜诪专 诇讘谞讬 讛砖谞讬讛 讘谞讬 讘注诇转 讞讜讘 讗转诐 讟诇讜 讻转讜讘转 讗诪讻诐 讜爪讗讜

搂 The Gemara notes that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m if the sons of the wife who died in her husband鈥檚 lifetime are entitled to collect their mother鈥檚 marriage settlement. As it is taught in a baraita: If they died, one in his lifetime and one following his death, ben Nanas says: The sons of the first wife can say to the sons of the second wife: You are the children of a creditor, so collect your mother鈥檚 marriage contract and leave, and we will inherit the rest of the estate due to the marriage contact concerning male children.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讘专 拽驻爪讛 谞讞诇讛 诪诇驻谞讬 讘谞讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讘谞讬 讛砖谞讬讛

Rabbi Akiva says: When the husband died, the inheritance already eluded the sons of the first wife and came into the possession of the sons of the second wife as an inheritance, i.e., the Sages did not institute the marriage contract concerning male children in a case where one of the wives was alive when the husband died. Consequently, after the sons of the second wife collect their mother鈥檚 marriage settlement, the remainder of the estate is divided evenly between all the man鈥檚 sons.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉

The Gemara comments: What, is it not that they disagree about this: One Sage, ben Nanas, holds that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the first wife鈥檚 sons are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children. And the other Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the first wife鈥檚 sons are not entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rabba said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav sitting and saying: Everyone agrees that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the first wife鈥檚 sons are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children. Here, however, they disagree with regard to the question of whether or not one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other in a case where there is no surplus of an additional dinar with which to fulfill the biblical laws of inheritance. And the same is true with regard to payment made to a creditor, i.e., they disagree whether paying a creditor of their father is a sufficient fulfillment of the biblical laws of inheritance to allow collection of the marriage contract concerning male children.

诪专 住讘专 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 谞注砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇讞讘专转讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘

One Sage, ben Nanas, holds that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, and the same is true with regard to payment made to a creditor, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that one marriage contract does not become surplus for the other, and the same is true with regard to the debt owed to a creditor.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讛讜讬 诪讜转专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讻转讜讘讛

Rabba continues: And I said to them: With regard to payment made to a creditor, everyone agrees that it is considered surplus and fulfills the biblical laws of inheritance, even given the lien attached to it. When they disagree it is with regard to whether a marriage contract can be considered surplus.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讘专 拽驻爪讛 谞讞诇讛 讗诐 讬砖 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rav Yosef objects to this. If that is so, then why did it say in the baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: The inheritance already eluded them? Rather, it should have said: If there is a surplus of a dinar, since that is the actual focal point of the disagreement.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rather, Rav Yosef said: They disagree with regard to the basic issue of whether the Sages instituted the marriage contract concerning male children in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, as was explained initially.

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 谞砖讗 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪转讛 谞砖讗 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讜诪转 讛讜讗 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬讛 砖诇 讝讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 诪讜转专 讚讬谞专 讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘砖讜讛

And these tanna鈥檌m, ben Nanas and Rabbi Akiva, are like those other tanna鈥檌m, who debated this very same point, as it is taught in a baraita: If he married a first woman and she subsequently died, and he then married a second woman and he subsequently died, the sons of this woman, i.e., the second wife, come after her death and collect payment of their mother鈥檚 marriage contract if she did not collect it while she was alive, while the rest of the estate is distributed equally between all the sons. Rabbi Shimon says: If there is a surplus of a dinar, these sons of the first wife collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, namely, the marriage contract concerning male offspring, and these sons of the second wife collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, and if not, they divide the entire estate equally among themselves.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉

What, is it not that they disagree with regard to the following: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children; and one Sage, the first tanna, holds that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are not entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children, and only the second wife鈥檚 sons collect their mother鈥檚 marriage contract.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讗讞转 讘诪讜转讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is possible to say that everyone agrees that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children,

Scroll To Top